[JoPP-Public] Improving visibility of jopp peer-reviewed articles [was: Re: Membership of jopp editorial group]

Tue May 5 01:33:37 CEST 2020

Hi George, all

The proposal is indeed to have different sections. So as said before: if someone wants to put together a themed / special issue in the peer reviewed section, no problem - go for it.

If by "getting your hands dirty" you mean joining the ed team - welcome aboard!

Regarding attractiveness to young (and old ;-)) researchers, we are registered with the DOAJ since September 2017 (I organised that).
https://doaj.org/toc/2213-5316?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filtered%22%3A%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22terms%22%3A%7B%22index.issn.exact%22%3A%5B%222213-5316%22%5D%7D%7D%2C%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22_type%22%3A%22article%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%22query%22%3A%7B%22match_all%22%3A%7B%7D%7D%7D%7D%2C%22size%22%3A100%2C%22_source%22%3A%7B%7D%7D

Not sure what other databases you are referring to? I remember someone saying we are not listed in Google Scholar. This does not appear to be the case exactly: jopp articles are "cited" but Google does not link to our website/PDFs, only to authors' repositories.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=george+dafermos&btnG=
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22journal+of+peer+production%22&btnG=
So, that is something we could look into. Not sure how, though. I searched for how to contact Google Scholar and all I could find were non-specific community forums (on Search for ex) which do not appear to have much input...?

Also, too, I think what people want is for for their research outputs to be measurable/trackable. So other issues that could make a difference are:

-having Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for articles. I just checked and you need to join a consortium like CrossRef (membership is min. $275 a year) and follow a set of guidelines. Do-able, but would represent significant work IMO...
https://www.crossref.org/membership/

-enabling authors to include their ORCID identifiers. I only looked briefly at their section for publishers but here it seems more a question of integrating a connection with their authentification systems on our website than $$$. So def something we could consider especially in the context of re-building the site...
https://members.orcid.org/cc-publishers

So in summary Google Scholar and ORCID seem actionable in the short term.

  *   Google Scholar: how do we engage?
  *   ORCID: need to think about how we embed in site or CMS restructure.

cheers
Mathieu

________________________________
From: JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces at lists.ourproject.org> on behalf of george dafermos <georgedafermos at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 3:34
To: Journal list <jopp-public at lists.ourproject.org>
Cc: Vasilis Kostakis <vkostakis at protonmail.com>
Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Membership of jopp editorial group

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 6:01 AM Mathieu O'Neil <mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au<mailto:mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au>> 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 :-)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/jopp-public/attachments/20200504/39988b5d/attachment-0001.html>