[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: "Overlay Journals" Over Again...
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: "Overlay Journals" Over Again...
- From: "Sally Morris \(Morris Associates\)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 23:14:13 EDT
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
I think we're in danger of losing sight of the fact that PR does two different things: 1)It provides evaluation, by experts, of the validity of the study, its findings, and the conclusions drawn therefrom 2)It provides evaluation, by experts familiar with a particular journal and its readership, of the novelty, interest, and relevance of the work to that particular community. You can't do that without a clear idea of what the 'journal' (as envelope, not as physical object) actually represents To my mind, the second is at least as valuable to readers as the first. (In some cases, it also contributes - through triangular 'dialogue' between author, editor and reviewer - to significant improvement of both the content and the expression) Sally Morris Email: firstname.lastname@example.org -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Stern, David Sent: 02 July 2009 05:29 To: email@example.com Subject: RE: "Overlay Journals" Over Again... The best way to both remove any conflict of interest and develop a scalable peer review support infrastructure on a less expensive OA server platform is to have a central server for materials supported by a centralized payment scheme. One collection agency (imagine something like SPARC, or SCOAP3 by discipline) could make direct payments to the hosting service (reducing the overhead now found in the multiple/redundant payments from each and every current subscription organization). How we efficiently funnel funds from a few big government revenue sources and endowments to this agent is a key question, but SCOAP3 is showing this approach might be viable. Remove author fees and use central revenue support, as the readers have a great deal to gain from the material and should share in the support costs. One central server (or a few mirrored servers for backup) removes the redundancy, extra effort and unnecessary duplication within an institutional server model. This central approach is best for published material ... locally developed teaching and research material can still be housed on institutional servers if we can guarantee long-term support. (My belief is that discipline based servers have a better chance of long-term support as budgets get tight -- as there is more of a societal commitment to these collaborative approaches.) Peer review separated from payment by authors, subsidized by the larger population, and housed on the most economical platforms. Overlay is apparently a loaded term, so let's remove it from the conversation but keep the conversation on target to show that OA WITH PEER REVIEW servers will impact commercial journals. David
- Prev by Date: Re: Publisher pricing freezes for 2010 - Information sought
- Next by Date: Re: Publisher pricing freezes for 2010 - Information sought
- Previous by thread: Re: "Overlay Journals" Over Again...
- Next by thread: Re: "Overlay Journals" Over Again...