Where to publish? #6
Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do journal allow pooling of publication fees by sending several partial invoices? |
|
|
Regarding Computing in Science and Engineering, |
|
texcount gives close to 5000 words in the current version. Not all journals will accept this. Also, some journals have rather strong statements on the type of articles. Royal Society Open Science, for instance, has as first criterion
that diminishes my motivation to submit there with the type of paper we have. Finally, what audience do we want? Optimistically, I'd like the broadest audience as I believe that our experience is of interest for most scientific fields! |
|
Some consider F1000 to publish peer-review related articles: http://fossilsandshit.com/research/publications/submitted-ver-1/ @khinsen what does your experience say about this? |
|
@pdebuyl I think F1000 is an excellent fit for our topic. Potential problems:
Having recently reviewed an article, I have "earned" a 50% discount on page charges which we could probably use, but even 50% is a lot, given their biology-oriented pricing. |
|
Oops, for JORS issues in research software papers: "Articles should not exceed 3-4000 words" |
|
Nature Communications (following @pdebuyl inquiry about JOSS paper on twitter)
|
|
The Nat. Commun. idea did not work that well apparently https://twitter.com/kyleniemeyer/status/884901200075870212 I suggest to assess the suitability of the paper for the journal:
Now, the fees:
F1000 and PeerJ CS are close, so what about editorial policies?
|
|
And I just realized Nature Comm. charges €3,700 !!! |
|
Hi all, jumping in here thanks to @pdebuyl's link on Twitter. Just FYI, we (the JOSS editors) originally submitted to PeerJ CS, but they rejected our submission as not being a "research article", the only type of article they publish. |
|
I would be happy to try to introduce this to PNAS via editorial inquiry. We originally tried to put the best practices paper there but they declined; that was several years ago and they might consider this. We could get some NAS members to say "this is important, please consider" as well. Let me know. |
|
I am happy to cover some or all of the pub costs. |
|
(wherever it goes, as long as it's open access.) |
|
Whatever the journal we choose, we'll (soon) have a version on arxiv. As for the cost, we can try to share if the journal accepts to split the invoice (but I'm not too confident) and else it might be difficult to share the cost. @ctb If you're ok to make an editorial inquiry to PNAS, please do so. Even if they say ok, it does not mean we'll submit to them. I will add the entry below to see who is ok for PNAS. |
|
|
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 07:42:12AM -0700, Nicolas P. Rougier wrote:
@ctb If you're ok to make an editorial inquiry to PNAS, please do so. Even if they say ok, it does not mean we'll submit to them. I will add the entry below to see who is ok for PNAS.
I would prefer to wait until we see if that's a consensus; an editorial inquiry
would involve rounding up some Names and drafting a reasonably serious
letter.
|
|
@ctb out of curiosity (and selfish interest for JOSS), how would getting NAS members help? Add their names to a letter, or have them ping the editor(s)? |
|
note that PNAS can be made open access by paying for it. shrug @kyleniemeyer PNAS is the Proceedings of NAS, so having active and influential NAS members weigh in (esp if they are on the ed board) on publishing an opinion piece seems like a good idea. But I don't want to expend their time if we are not going to look there. |
|
Happy to try to arrange the same for JOSS if you like. At the very least it may help convince people over the long term ;) |
|
Hybrid models are the worst. |
|
@ctb 👍 👍 !! A few of us were following this conversation, and our now looking at PNAS as a possible venue—@labarba pointed out that NAS has had some activities related to reproducibility in recent years, and both ReScience and JOSS (though less directly) might be of interest because of that. We also brainstormed the idea of perhaps a shorter joint paper between JOSS + ReScience, at somewhere like PNAS or another "big" venue, to discuss these novel & innovative publishing models—perhaps to follow the actual individual articles and reference them. (Consider yourselves reached out to about this 😄) |
|
@rougier The only journal on the list above that both fits and is free of any stain is PeerJ ;). And maybe JORS. @kyleniemeyer I work(ed) with/published with/know several NAS members across fields who I think are sympathetic (J. Tiedje, R. Lenski, S. Koonin, P. Sternberg most proximally) and would be happy to pitch something to them and/or introduce. Please let me know how I can help (but suggest taking this to e-mail since it's now a bit OT for this issue :) :) |
|
@ctb We certainly agreed on PeerJ for the same reasons, but as I mentioned above, the JOSS article (https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.02264) was rejected from PeerJ as being out of scope—not a "research article". If the ReScience article has a different experience, I would be very interested to hear about it.............. Yeah, I'll follow up via email. Sorry to hijack this thread... |
|
@ctb F1000 is only APC, no ? @kyleniemeyer Pleas add me in the discussion, I would be interested in a shorter joint paper for new publishing models (as a matter of fact, I'm participating next week in a workshop on new publishing models) |
|
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:46:54PM +0000, Nicolas P. Rougier wrote:
@ctb F1000 is only APC, no ?
"without stain" is broader than "charge a heckuva lot" -- e.g.
http://blog.dhimmel.com/irreproducible-timestamps/
and their behavior with respect to online doxxing, mentioned here:
ivory.idyll.org/blog/2015-authorship-on-software-papers.html
|
|
Yep, I was only thinking about publication model. |
|
So, staying in focus, we are down to PeerJ vs JORS? @kyleniemeyer am also interested (exp with ReScience + open github proceedings for euroscipy) |
|
@pdebuyl I think we still have F1000, PeerJ, PNAS, Nature Comm., JORS, Plos ONE. I'll open a new issue to let people up or down vote and then we'll see. |
|
@ctb It seems we have a large consensus for PNAS. What is the next step? |
|
I checked the submission guidelines for PNAS. Some findings:
|
|
I have to look into one or two things. I'll get back to ya within a day or two.
|
|
I personally cannot pay for Open Access at PNAS (hybrid models are forbidden at my lab), but anyway, do we need Open Access if we upload an updated version on arXiv? |
|
@ctb Any progress? Do you need some help on anything? |
|
@ctb gentle reminder |
|
@ctb 🔔 |
|
Last night I touched base with Rich Lenski, who is on the editorial board of PNAS. Entertainingly @tracykteal was at the same dinner, and wanted to talk to him about the same thing, but for the JOSS paper... For some background: this paper would not fit into a regular PNAS paper type (since it's not research), but they do occasionally publish policy or op-ed-type papers. Hence the thought here to get a few members of the NAS involved in suggesting that PNAS take a look. Rich was not against the idea and I think we should send it to him directly for his opinion. Before we send anything official, we need to do is draft a cover letter explaining the context for the paper. We also need to decide if we're going to go in with JOSS and try to do a simultaneous submission. The cover letter should say --
and whatever else I'm missing. I could do a first draft on Wed evening EST if people want, or do a round of review/revision if someone gets there first. |
|
For the first item, here is the reference: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fncom.2015.00030/full This short article lead to a lot of comments (see the bottom of the page) acknowledging the situation without any actual proposition. This is also where Konrad commented the problem from his own perspective and experience and following this publication, we decided to create the journal. For the third item, I think we may advovcate that we need a broad audience that cover the whole Science because code is now to be found everywhere while it is still considered as a second class citizen (compared to data for example). Supplying code as a zip archive in the supplementary material is not an option anymore. As for the article with JOSS, I think we may need to write a new article emphasizing the importance of code and best practices (test, documentation, history, etc) based on our respective experience with JOSS and ReScience (and the upcoming JOSE). This might be redundant with a lot of "best practices" article with the major difference that we're actually enforcing them. |
|
Thanks @ctb. I'm following up with the JOSS editors about this idea. We might submit them independently, but just let Lenski know they're both coming. |
|
@rougier I can find some time but I am not sure we have actually decided what to do concerning JOSS. Separate publications, but submitted at the same time so PNAS could make a thematic feature out of this? A joint article, which basically means starting from scratch? Or something in between? If we stick to the original plan of submitting our current paper, I can prepare a draft for the cover letter. |
|
From what I've understood, I think the idea is to go separate and we'll submit our article to PNAS. |
|
Two separate papers is my understanding from the JOSS perspective as well. The cover letters likely would want to reference that we're both submitting though. @kyleniemeyer could we update the JOSS cover letter? I think then @ctb and I could coordinate on getting the papers in to Rich Lenski. |
|
@tracykteal OK, it seems we agree on that approach! |
|
I have written a first draft for a cover letter. Please comment on #48! |
(From ReScience/ReScience-article#3)
Wish list:
Is there any journal that satisfies all criteria?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: