Hi Everyone I think the broad issues around 'accreditation' are really important in attracting researchers to publish in JoPP. My university (in Australia) is really pushing research output in 'high quality and reputable' journals that also tick a department's relevant FOAR codes. Our current touchstone for 'high quality and reputable' is whether a journal is a) included in Scimago (https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php) and b) whether it is ranked as a Q1 or Q2. We have been strictly warned not to publish in anything that does not fit into these criteria. I don't have any responses to these sorts of directives that would assist JoPP, but it's a point worth discussing further. I'm also interested to know how research production in institutions in other countries are being managed (and gamed). steve On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 09:35, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote:

Send JoPP-Public mailing list submissions to [email protected]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/w8lVCXLW6DimXEGzsrt13F?domain=lists.ourproject.org> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected]

You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of JoPP-Public digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Membership of jopp editorial group (george dafermos) 2. Improving visibility of jopp peer-reviewed articles [was: Re: Membership of jopp editorial group] (Mathieu O'Neil)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1 Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 20:34:00 +0300 From: george dafermos <[email protected]> To: Journal list <[email protected]> Cc: Vasilis Kostakis <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Membership of jopp editorial group Message-ID: <CAC7Hk=T+mrGOYP0z0g4FMeF0D8zoHdz8Ea52T4MLkSocT=7=yg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 6:01 AM Mathieu O'Neil <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Hi George, all

Since we follow "do-ocratic" principles it seems right to me that George, who is the only person to have expressed support for the evolution of the journal proposal on jopp-public, should formally be invited to join our editors group - all the more so as he edited with Vasilis an issue on policies for the commons and that is part of what we aim to develop.

@George: What do you say?

I feel that the intent of my email has been misunderstood. The essence of what I wrote is that the themed format (=special issues) should not be abandoned. Of course, that doesn't mean that I am against experimenting with other ideas *in parallel* *with* the existing format. So, in other words, it would be more accurate to say that I don't object to what you propose, as long as we find a way to keep the themed format. And as it has already been mentioned in this thread, perhaps we could do that by dividing the website into two content areas: one for policy papers, the other basically for "more conventional" research papers. What do you think? Would that make sense?

On a related note, I had a chat with Vasilis today about this and we both feel that the main problem with the existing model of JoPP comes down to our lack of accreditation, inclusion in databases, etc. If we could do something about that, the JoPP would become much more attractive to young researchers and we think that this, more than anything else, is the key to its future success. I know we've talked about that in the past and I know that what I propose is easier said than done, but I think we might need to look at it again. What do you all think? Is that something worth re-trying? Needless to say, if others think that this is something that makes sense for us to do, Vasilis and I would be more than happy to "get our hands dirty" with it :-)