Open Scholarly Publishing


#1

New post outlining a model for Open Scholarly Publishing including funding streams:

http://rufuspollock.org/2016/05/16/open-scholarly-publishing/

Comments welcome!


#2

Very interesting. My closely related questions: what would replace journals and their impact factor in the tenure and promotion process, as well the grant allocation process? Would the Filtering and Selection organizations and services take that role? Or should we have hiring and grant committees assess from first principles and subjectively the track record of a researcher or lab (that is, actually read the papers)? Or maybe this proposal is orthogonal to that problem and you deliberately don’t want it to be concerned with it, come what may?


#3

Good. Tiny comment:

Issues around reuse (e.g. NotAJournal B copying NotAJournal A would
be dealt by agreement with some an adjudication process for disputes).

Reuse of selections shouln’t require any kind of agreement or engender disputes. B copying A should add to A’s NotAJournalRank.


#4

@mlinksva got you in terms of rank but that does not handle how funds are allocated. Remember in this model users do not pay a subscription fee to a journal. So if B just copies A and everyone then reads B then A loses out.

We could update the model to make payments a function of:

  • Readers
  • “Rank” (as derived from a bibliometric style of assessment)

This might be better. The main point is you would still need someone to adjudicate disputes about reuse (e.g. B could claim it had not borrowed from A …)


#5

@piccolbo great questions.

Re impact factor, and evaluation and promotion generally you are right: the “Filtering and Selection” process data would be used. Whether this inclined more towards NotAJournals and traditional bibliographic weightings or started to incorporate other, more automated, metrics (“altmetrics”) is left open – the key point is that both are supported by the approach.


#6

Great post. Very similar to what some of us have been thinking recently. I have a write-up of these thoughts here:

http://bjoern.brembs.net/2015/04/what-should-a-modern-scientific-infrastructure-look-like/

You see, a lot of overlap. The post also contains links to the works of the other people covering other aspects of such an infrastructure. I will ad a link to your post there as well. Should also answer some of the questions posed in this thread here.

P.S.: An evidence-based improvement on impact factor can already be had today: throw dice:
http://bjoern.brembs.net/2016/01/even-without-retractions-top-journals-publish-the-least-reliable-science/


#7

Thanks for this @brembs !