Scholarly publications better in electronic form

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

@nekokami

Incidentally, Natch how dare you criticize my work! ;-)

Leave out the nose to get the built-in smileys to work properly.

Dale

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

I agree that paying for the article is a problem, but what typically happens is that institutions make a bulk deal with the journal so their members dont have to pay. It works out cheaper for the institutions than subscriptions and also if you're an individual author, you can reduce the amount you pay by reviewing other papers for the journal. Of course this all only works for established professionals in the field.

Ok, that makes sense. (And those who aren't part of such an institution have a pretty hard time getting accepted in more traditional journals, I think, so no big difference in access.)

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Incidentally, Natch how dare you criticize my work! ;-)

I knew I was in trouble for using real names! But remember, you can update your work to explain why NatCh's concerns about your analysis were addressed in your research design, and then NatCh can change his review.

Which means, of course, that such a system needs revision tracking, as well.

Re: anonymity: I think the identities of the reviewers can still be hidden in the kind of system I'm describing, as long as there are multiple reviewers in someone's profile. But the identity of the author of the article prior to the review could probably not easily be hidden, and that could be a problem due to the "halo" effect.

[kovidgoyal]

I still feel that some sort of non profit organization that does the matching of papers with anonymous referees and hosts electronic copies in perpetuity is the ideal solution.

I have no idea how we would go about setting up such an organization though.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

I still feel that some sort of non profit organization that does the matching of papers with anonymous referees and hosts electronic copies in perpetuity is the ideal solution.

I have no idea how we would go about setting up such an organization though.

In Computer Science, that organization would be the ACM (and sometimes IEEE). For those of you who don't already know, the CS Journals tend to be 'archival' in nature -- interesting new work shows up at the major conferences (not in the journals), and the journals get the wrap-up-the-research-project summary/retrospective papers.

So the referees for the big conferences serve the role you are looking for. And ACM and IEEE have their digital libraries, with electronic copies in perpetuity. The only downside is the flat-fee for access to the library each year.

Xenophon

[kovidgoyal]

Interesting. But how does a referee for a conference judge the quality/veracity of some work if he has (presumably) only access to a summary of it? And do the journals automatically accept work that has been presented or does it go through another round of refreeing?

[NatCh]

Geez, I get on an airplane, and you lot start taking my name in vain -- I thought I felt my ears burning over Little Rock!

[Panurge]

There have been many models for scholarly publishing in the past, including the charging of fees for publishing. In the German-speaking world, it is customary for one to pay to have a doctoral thesis published, along with an Habilitationswerk. The Anglo-Saxon world hasn't followed suit. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. In the meantime established professionals are going to be--in fact, already are--seeking alternative solutions to the traditional arrangement. In the academic world, publication practice is powerfully influenced by the tenure and promotion system, but it is also simply part of participating in professional activities. Some of it is purely sociological. Over time, I'm sure that we'll evolve some satisfactory collective solutions, as the discussion so far has already suggested.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

I still feel that some sort of non profit organization that does the matching of papers with anonymous referees and hosts electronic copies in perpetuity is the ideal solution.

You're right, because otherwise the reviewers have no idea which papers to review. Except in the cases noted above, when papers have been presented at a conference. I don't think this is incompatible with the kind of review system I was describing, but it is an additional requirement of the overall system of disseminating scholarly work.

[bowerbird]

ok, i get the impression this is just idle chatter...

so i apologize for assuming earlier it was serious.
i still don't seem to be too good at tuning in to the
prevailing attitudes on these mobileread forums...

for those who would actually like to learn more
about the movement toward open-access journals,
however, i suggest peter suber's blog as a start:
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html

or, if you prefer, just chat. that's entertaining too...

-bowerbird

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

You're right, because otherwise the reviewers have no idea which papers to review. Except in the cases noted above, when papers have been presented at a conference. I don't think this is incompatible with the kind of review system I was describing, but it is an additional requirement of the overall system of disseminating scholarly work.

Anonymous review is absolutely vital for scientific journals. It's the whole basis of the system by which journal article are impartially reviewed.

[kovidgoyal]

@bowerbird
Here's what you should have said:

"
I see that some of you are interested in the issue of open access journals. Here's a link to a good resource for information on them.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
"

Stop worrying about proving how clever you are.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Anonymous review is absolutely vital for scientific journals. It's the whole basis of the system by which journal article are impartially reviewed.

I've often thought that article review should be doubly anonymous. i.e. when they are sent to the referee author information should be removed. I've never understood why that's not done.

[HarryT]

That's a very interesting point, Kovid. In the days when papers were just that - paper - I suppose there might have been practical difficulties, but there shouldn't be now virtually all article submission is electronic. I don't know why the anonymity isn't two way: I could speculate that it's because part of the reviewer's thought process in assessing the credibility of the work may be based on the reputation of the author(s) in their field - one would naturally give greater weight to work done by an acknowledged expert rather than a total unknown. What do you think?

[kovidgoyal]

It's true, the reputation of the author definitely plays a part in the review process. Certainly, it does when I'm reviewing. However, I think that it shouldn't. Ideally, a referee is supposed to judge the merit of a paper on its own. Indeed, being overawed by the reputation of the authors can lead to problems, since there is no reason why famous people can't make mistakes.

EDIT: In fact, it should be the job of the editor to worry about the reputation of the author when deciding whether to accept an article based on the referee reports or not.

[nekokami]

That's what I was thinking; the author's reputation shouldn't play a part in the reviewing process. That really does require an editor, though, who remains aware of everyone's identity.