[JoPP-Public] JoPP-Public Digest, Vol 87, Issue 6

Tue May 5 01:43:53 CEST 2020

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, jopp-public-request at lists.ourproject.org <
jopp-public-request at lists.ourproject.org> wrote:

> Send JoPP-Public mailing list submissions to
> jopp-public at lists.ourproject.org
>
> 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
> jopp-public-request at lists.ourproject.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> jopp-public-owner at lists.ourproject.org
>
> 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 <georgedafermos at gmail.com>
> 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
> Message-ID:
> <CAC7Hk=T+mrGOYP0z0g4FMeF0D8zoHdz8Ea52T4MLkSocT=7=yg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 6:01 AM Mathieu O'Neil <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/20200504/1cff9a37/attachment-0001.html
> <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/nxv6CYW86Es5LVg4hw1ZPK?domain=lists.ourproject.org>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 23:33:37 +0000
> From: Mathieu O'Neil <mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au>
> To: Journal of Peer Production's general and public list
> <jopp-public at lists.ourproject.org>
> Subject: [JoPP-Public] Improving visibility of jopp peer-reviewed
> articles [was: Re: Membership of jopp editorial group]
> Message-ID:
> <
> SYBP282MB04095A8D31223C7549C7375BC6A60 at SYBP282MB0409.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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
> <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/3tC1CZY146sz5KxpimYRsq?domain=doaj.org>
>
> 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://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/oK75C1WLjws8MJO9hkRAnI?domain=scholar.google.com>
>
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22journal+of+peer+production%22&btnG=
> <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/Zg4uC2xMRkU7p569umS9Gt?domain=scholar.google.com>
> 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/
> <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/1lpaC3QNl1SZpDxEU8XsbG?domain=crossref.org>
>
> -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.html
> <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/R7eGC4QO8xSrB46vt8lOVl?domain=lists.ourproject.org>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> JoPP-Public mailing list
> JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org
> JoPP: http://www.peerproduction.org
> <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/5PIsC5QP8ySAZkRDI3smWV?domain=peerproduction.org>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of JoPP-Public Digest, Vol 87, Issue 6
> ******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/jopp-public/attachments/20200505/80b64750/attachment-0001.html>