Platinum Open Access Pledge #5
Comments
|
It's been suggested we shouldn't use the terms 'Platinum Open Access' and 'Gold Open Access', because it's not immediately clear what these terms mean and because the term 'Gold' has been corrupted from it's original no-fee meaning to include author-pays OA. I ran a twitter poll on this a while back, and most people thought the term 'No-fee Open Access' would be better for this campaign, so I'm considering changing the title to this, if anyone has any thoughts on that. |
I'm wondering what schema could clarify each one. I believe one origin of CC licenses success is 'readability' - 'expressiveness'. No-Fee for no APC no Subscription, distinguish from DOI-cost applied for instance (so it seems less vague as "fair" can be), but it is still limited in my opinion. I'm thinking to other attributes.
Negatives:
Aggregated of course, so many attribute can be transmitted. For instance: "I want a 🄯-MR-No-PEAB journal for my publication in LCA field." A thing short and clear, easy to use and understand is required for effect. Probably keyboard-friendly to ease the use too. Twit-clashes compatible (so high density) seems a good characteristics. Buzz is required. You'll tell me. But for sure, I think No-Fee is better than initially gold now platinum or diamond. _"Hey dude, what kind of journal do you support ?
(You're not in my head, but I assure you: I hear those two arguing.) |
|
I look forward to the day we can sling acronyms at one another :) unfortunately most people don't understand those attributes well enough to explain them, let alone adopt acronyms, so for now I think we're stuck with descriptions! But you raise a good point about how specific the criteria should be. At the beginning of this project I hunted around for a progressive set of rules we could aim for and found the Fair Open Access Principles, which I'm a big fan of. The first draft of this campaign even asked people to pledge to exclusively support FOAA journals (indexed in the Free Journal Network), but an advisor suggested scaling back the criteria because it would exclude many progressive journals that comply with some but not all of the principles (e.g., community ownership). Since the goal of this campaign is widespread adoption, I thought it best to use a more inclusive/general definition. Not to say that we couldn't clarify the terms better though. Perhaps a glossary that we link to on the website? |
CooperSmout
added
campaign (live)
draft-campaign
CooperSmout
changed the title
|
the pledge reads 'Your pledge will only go into effect if a critical mass of peers in your field sign the same pledge' but when opening the pledge form there was no place for me to indicate my field of research. I thought perhaps this was indicated in my ORCID since we're asked to sign in from there but I don't think it is. How will you activate pledge per field then? |
CooperSmout
changed the title
I was thinking we could use the Dimensions app, which classifies publications into a specific Field of Research code. Their taxonomy looks roughly equivalent to the BePress Tier 2 taxonomy you linked, but with the added bonus that people and their articles could be classified objectively by feeding their publications (from their ORCID profile) into Dimensions. I feel this could be particularly useful for people whose research spans multiple fields and can't easily self-identify into one field. I was also thinking that we'd need to classify individual articles to calculate impact-based thresholds for each field, because these are based on the impact of individual articles relative to the entire field (also available in Dimensions). But as per issue #10, we might move away from impact-based thresholds to something simpler, and if we do that, we could potentially move to a simpler classification mechanism, like the dropdown menu you suggest. |
|
Hi @CooperSmout, I found this through the OLS-2 group, and wanted to read more about your project. |
|
*I drop it here a bit shortly, a) because I take the bet Coop already knows
about it b) because I'm a bit in a rush.*
While discussing in an interview, the Aperture project was mentioned. I
believe (in this 'by field scenario') that drawing attention toward these
new paths is important, even inside the campaign. In the 'targeting
editorial board approach' I mentioned, it could also be a good "selective
target" communication skema. a) finding emerging groups [here for instance
Aperture https://ohbm-aperture.github.io/ ; JOSS
<https://doaj.org/toc/2475-9066> ] b) targeting lucrative competing
editorial boards [here respectively neuro image
<https://doaj.org/toc/1095-9572?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%221053-8119%22%2C%221095-9572%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>
; eLife
<https://doaj.org/toc/2050-084X?source={%22query%22%3A{%22filtered%22%3A{%22filter%22%3A{%22bool%22%3A{%22must%22%3A[{%22terms%22%3A{%22index.issn.exact%22%3A[%222050-084X%22]}}%2C{%22term%22%3A{%22_type%22%3A%22article%22}}]}}%2C%22query%22%3A{%22match_all%22%3A{}}}}%2C%22size%22%3A100%2C%22_source%22%3A{}}>
; Frontiers in neuroscience
<https://doaj.org/toc/1662-453X?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%221662-4548%22%2C%221662-453X%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>
...] And doing so we may stress out 'models'
CU
Rudy
…On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 18:39, Cooper Smout ***@***.***> wrote:
How will you activate pledge per field then?
I was thinking we could use the Dimensions app, which classifies
publications into a specific Field of Research code
<https://app.dimensions.ai/browse/publication/for?redirect_path=/discover/publication>.
Their taxonomy looks roughly equivalent to the BePress Tier 2 taxonomy you
linked, but with the added bonus that people and their articles could be
classified objectively by feeding their publications (from their ORCID
profile) into Dimensions. I feel this could be particularly useful for
people whose research spans multiple fields and can't easily self-identify
into one field.
I was also thinking that we'd need to classify individual articles to
calculate impact-based thresholds
<https://www.freeourknowledge.org/pages/about/> for each field, because
these are based on the impact of individual articles relative to the entire
field (also available in Dimensions). But as per issue #10
<#10>, we might move
away from impact-based thresholds to something simpler, and if we do that,
we could potentially move to a simpler classification mechanism, like the
dropdown menu you suggest.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADA7BNDNXDTJJBRSGJJ7MELSG5VKBANCNFSM4PEJNEYQ>
.
|
Thanks for joining the discussion @evaherbst! :)
Not that I know of, unfortunately. The Free Journal Network indexes journals that comply with the Fair Open Access principles, but this is excludes many progressive journals due to their commercial nature or other non-compliant features (e.g., eLife, NBDT, F1000). DOAJ lists all open access journals, but then doesn't have an easy reference list for which of these are fee-free. I had wondered about whether we could partner with DOAJ to create a sub-index of no-fee journals, similar to what they do for their seal of approval. They do have a record of APCs (see this link for Frontiers in Neuroscience, which charges $2950 to publish), so it might not be too difficult to achieve. |
@RP87 thankyou! To be honest I didn't understand what Aperture was when it was brought up in that interview, so I'm grateful for the link.
Where was this mentioned? (sorry, too many forums!) but if it's an idea for a new campaign feel free to post as a separate issue so we can discuss separately and keep discussions organised. I know that a similar idea was suggested by @crsh (Frederik Aust) in the Pubreform forum but I haven't connected with him on that idea since. |
CooperSmout
changed the title
CooperSmout
added
live-campaign-comments
and removed
draft-campaign
|
I haven't read all the above threads, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but what do we think about a crowdsourced list of journals that are OA and the status of fees, etc.? This would be a way for people to assess the feasibility of each OA pledge. I have found some lists like this in various places (for various fields), but they all appear outdated and Free Our Knowledge seems to be a perfect place to keep this information. |
|
The closest I found to such a list is Sherpa Romeo, which displays whether the journal charges an APC, but I can't find an easy way to filter down to just those journals in a particular field that are fee-free. Agree that such a list would be incredibly useful. Even if we just had it for one field, we could start a new campaign targeting just those journals, so that researchers have a clearer idea about what journals they are pledging to support. I think this was a big problem with the present campaign and could be done better next time. I know it's not your field @dylangomes, but we started a comparable whitelist of non-commercial Psychology journals here for this campaign. I'm not convinced Github is the best place for such lists, however -- perhaps some kind of wiki would be better. |
|
+1 for the idea of keeping up date OA journals lists.
DOAJ seems to keep it quite update.
But it could be nice to complete the pledges with "tasks".
Ex: I pledge to X. I've to do A, B, C and can do D, E etc.
A ? Print a list of OA journals related to my field and pledge and put it
in the "coffee/tea space"
B ? Discuss the topic with colleagues while taking coffee/tea
C ? If no compliant journal, open a discussion in related forums)
D check the mentioned journals, update DOAJ, read authors rules, assess the
board, contact the journal to mention the related FOK pledge
E discuss the journal with co-authors
BR
Rudy
*CordialementRudy Patard ***@***.***>*
…On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 at 02:23, Dylan Gomes ***@***.***> wrote:
I haven't read all the above threads, so I apologize if this has already
been mentioned, but what do we think about a crowdsourced list of journals
that are OA and the status of fees, etc.? This would be a way for people to
assess the feasibility of each OA pledge. I have found some lists like this
in various places (for various fields), but they all appear outdated and
Free Our Knowledge seems to be a perfect place to keep this information.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADA7BNFULJS5NKXOVQYL5HTT53WW7ANCNFSM4PEJNEYQ>
.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675>
or Android
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&utm_campaign=notification-email>
.
|
|
Sorry, the link jumped.
https://doaj.org/
BR
Rudy
*CordialementRudy Patard ***@***.***>*
…On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 at 13:46, Rudy Patard ***@***.***> wrote:
+1 for the idea of keeping up date OA journals lists.
DOAJ seems to keep it quite update.
But it could be nice to complete the pledges with "tasks".
Ex: I pledge to X. I've to do A, B, C and can do D, E etc.
A ? Print a list of OA journals related to my field and pledge and put it
in the "coffee/tea space"
B ? Discuss the topic with colleagues while taking coffee/tea
C ? If no compliant journal, open a discussion in related forums)
D check the mentioned journals, update DOAJ, read authors rules, assess
the board, contact the journal to mention the related FOK pledge
E discuss the journal with co-authors
BR
Rudy
*CordialementRudy Patard ***@***.***>*
On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 at 02:23, Dylan Gomes ***@***.***>
wrote:
> I haven't read all the above threads, so I apologize if this has already
> been mentioned, but what do we think about a crowdsourced list of journals
> that are OA and the status of fees, etc.? This would be a way for people to
> assess the feasibility of each OA pledge. I have found some lists like this
> in various places (for various fields), but they all appear outdated and
> Free Our Knowledge seems to be a perfect place to keep this information.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#5 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADA7BNFULJS5NKXOVQYL5HTT53WW7ANCNFSM4PEJNEYQ>
> .
> Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
> <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675>
> or Android
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&utm_campaign=notification-email>
> .
>
|
|
I'll try to do this even unconditionally, but co-authors and (?funders) may want the traditional publications on occasion .. thus I put a 20% threshold. Sad truth is there seems to be nothing 'highly valued' in Economics that is in this category. Ideally I'd like to find ways to get beyond the traditional 0/1 reject/accept static endpoint journal system (see my unjournal thoughts (LINK FIXED @CooperSmout) and discussion ... note, I'm moving the organization to HERE. I think these initiatives and pledges are helpful to this end. Great initiative. |
|
Hi David,
I quickly red your unjournal. From my "designer-engineer-researcher" view,
I believe the reviewing process of existing initiative (your airtable),
could gain a grid update/review. Assessment is the combination of
observation and judgment. The current table is mixing the two. I believe it
would be a gain to community to separate the two (and make the debate on
"dimensions and numbers/scales open).
*dimension and scales proposals*
* writing (open from start / from protocol - before results etc. / to whom
is it open ...)
* review (1 blind (b) / 2 b / 3b ; with blind waver ; continuous ; open to
all ; rated reviews ; review as article)
* "quality / rating" (filtering VS labelling ; rating / ranking) (RQ
possible 2bl dimension with "academia's social money")
* "academian social money" (career recognized [y/n] / [0 to 9]scale? /
tenured-stats-based) (RQ : hugge work here as journal lists range with
different institutions, disciplines AND it's an historical situated
assessment, for instance JMLR history IF etc.)
* disseminating / access (closed - private / paywalled / open "at pearl
stage" / pre-print open / continuously open / + translations /
+"vulgarization") [maybe 2 dimension here]
* economical support (private ; club - association - union ; socialized) [!
different from économical purpose]* business [for profit / non-profit]
* licence (from Copyright to Copyleft with all the CC specific ; debate on
ordoning virality)
* content (from article to full notes and data)
* readability (human / machine - readable)* discipline (all ; specialised
[name])* localisation (region / nation [list])
* starting (is the problematics / research questions [from researcher /
from private company / from a public organisation / from NGO / sampled on
population interviews] [yeah more a research axis than 'journal' axis, but
I tend to see the activity more than the 'journal' part ;)
For instance a 3D Economic support / Business / Access display may exposed
how "public money" is used to what end (my guess : for profit club good _
paywalled articles_ and Gold OA).
(black box "classified" [private research ; socialized -> privatized] ;
club good [paywalled or APC : capitalist ; unionized] ; common goods [OA
with ; unionized _ a union pays; socialized _ a 'nation' pays];)
Using starting point instead of access or business gives the "for who" is
used the research money.
A 3D Review / Licence / Readability after filtering OA, would expose
"priorities" followed by our communities (are these priorities altruist
effective ?) ...
Making it an open research with a semantic mediawiki [probably an ontology
or several to be re-used], could be quite useful as it's a massive work.
(Funny thing, proposing it as a future article may attract attention and
participation, but Where would it be published would probably divide
volunteers ;) ok not a so funny thing). The "altruist team" (I let you
forward David) ?
Making it an open dataset could enable different visualisation and
understand the different dynamics at play. Reviewing this with a
communities ("FOK pledgers" ; EA ; OA enthusiasts groups ?) we could add
nationals / disciplines orientations (are there nations with more engaged
scientific communities ; are there disciplines with experiences on these
matters _ examples to follow and developp for instance BrainHack / JOSS /
Liège-ORBI).
I've no idea how many are reading so XD
Team building needs : data-scientist with experience on SPARQL / SMW ;
Ontologist-Math reviewer for the grid and coding data for assessment use ;
scientific information and communication specialist ; research institution
specialist ; a few tenured with hosting capacites for SMW, endpoint and
triple stores* (multiple hosting please) ; tons of volunteers filling SMW
forms on initiatives and journals ;)
BR
Rudy
PS: If we could avoid the hosting end that ENIPEDIA suffered...
*CordialementRudy Patard ***@***.***>*
*06 38 02 53 12*
[hal <https://cv.archives-ouvertes.fr/rudy-patard>] *{{u|RP87
<https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Utilisateur:RP87>}}* [peertube
<https://videos.lescommuns.org/accounts/rp87/video-channels> youtube
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsGZp376V8jf1gp1I9E9OBA>]
…On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 22:11, David Reinstein ***@***.***> wrote:
I'll try to do this even unconditionally, but co-authors and (?funders)
may want the traditional publications on occasion .. thus I put a 20%
threshold.
Sad truth is there seems to be nothing 'highly valued' in Economics that
is in this category.
Ideally I'd like to find ways to get beyond the traditional 0/1
reject/accept static endpoint journal system (see my unjournal thoughts
<http://bit.ly/unjournal> and discussion). I think these initiatives and
pledges are helpful to this end.
Great initiative.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADA7BNEZ63U2VJ7JBSCQJXTUCD4WNANCNFSM4PEJNEYQ>
.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675>
or Android
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.
|
|
Hi,
As I just got the idea while writing to FreeOurKnowledge, I quickly forward
my interrogations.
I'd be curious to ear wikimedians on this idea : *a review on science
making and disseminating through a SMW analysing journals and initiatives*
(developed below).
Would wikimedia host such a project (OA group supporting it on META) ?
How many researchers on the OA list ? (any with the specialties mentioned?)
Chris (or anyone behind OpenMod's list) ? Any experience to share related
to ENIPEDIA/OpenMod to this idea of a "Semantic-Research-PEDIA" ?
BR
Rudy
*CordialementRudy Patard ***@***.***>*
*06 38 02 53 12*
[hal <https://cv.archives-ouvertes.fr/rudy-patard>] *{{u|RP87
<https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Utilisateur:RP87>}}* [peertube
<https://videos.lescommuns.org/accounts/rp87/video-channels> youtube
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsGZp376V8jf1gp1I9E9OBA>]
…---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rudy Patard ***@***.***>
Date: Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 09:52
Subject: Re: [FreeOurKnowledge/website] Platinum Open Access Pledge (#5)
To: FreeOurKnowledge/website <
***@***.***>, <
***@***.***>
Cc: FreeOurKnowledge/website ***@***.***>, Mention <
***@***.***>
Hi David,
I quickly red your unjournal. From my "designer-engineer-researcher" view,
I believe the reviewing process of existing initiative (your airtable),
could gain a grid update/review. Assessment is the combination of
observation and judgment. The current table is mixing the two. I believe it
would be a gain to community to separate the two (and make the debate on
"dimensions and numbers/scales open).
*dimension and scales proposals*
* writing (open from start / from protocol - before results etc. / to whom
is it open ...)
* review (1 blind (b) / 2 b / 3b ; with blind waver ; continuous ; open to
all ; rated reviews ; review as article)
* "quality / rating" (filtering VS labelling ; rating / ranking) (RQ
possible 2bl dimension with "academia's social money")
* "academian social money" (career recognized [y/n] / [0 to 9]scale? /
tenured-stats-based) (RQ : hugge work here as journal lists range with
different institutions, disciplines AND it's an historical situated
assessment, for instance JMLR history IF etc.)
* disseminating / access (closed - private / paywalled / open "at pearl
stage" / pre-print open / continuously open / + translations /
+"vulgarization") [maybe 2 dimension here]
* economical support (private ; club - association - union ; socialized) [!
different from économical purpose]* business [for profit / non-profit]
* licence (from Copyright to Copyleft with all the CC specific ; debate on
ordoning virality)
* content (from article to full notes and data)
* readability (human / machine - readable)* discipline (all ; specialised
[name])* localisation (region / nation [list])
* starting (is the problematics / research questions [from researcher /
from private company / from a public organisation / from NGO / sampled on
population interviews] [yeah more a research axis than 'journal' axis, but
I tend to see the activity more than the 'journal' part ;)
For instance a 3D Economic support / Business / Access display may exposed
how "public money" is used to what end (my guess : for profit club good _
paywalled articles_ and Gold OA).
(black box "classified" [private research ; socialized -> privatized] ;
club good [paywalled or APC : capitalist ; unionized] ; common goods [OA
with ; unionized _ a union pays; socialized _ a 'nation' pays];)
Using starting point instead of access or business gives the "for who" is
used the research money.
A 3D Review / Licence / Readability after filtering OA, would expose
"priorities" followed by our communities (are these priorities altruist
effective ?) ...
Making it an open research with a semantic mediawiki [probably an ontology
or several to be re-used], could be quite useful as it's a massive work.
(Funny thing, proposing it as a future article may attract attention and
participation, but Where would it be published would probably divide
volunteers ;) ok not a so funny thing). The "altruist team" (I let you
forward David) ?
Making it an open dataset could enable different visualisation and
understand the different dynamics at play. Reviewing this with a
communities ("FOK pledgers" ; EA ; OA enthusiasts groups ?) we could add
nationals / disciplines orientations (are there nations with more engaged
scientific communities ; are there disciplines with experiences on these
matters _ examples to follow and developp for instance BrainHack / JOSS /
Liège-ORBI).
I've no idea how many are reading so XD
Team building needs : data-scientist with experience on SPARQL / SMW ;
Ontologist-Math reviewer for the grid and coding data for assessment use ;
scientific information and communication specialist ; research institution
specialist ; a few tenured with hosting capacites for SMW, endpoint and
triple stores* (multiple hosting please) ; tons of volunteers filling SMW
forms on initiatives and journals ;)
BR
Rudy
PS: If we could avoid the hosting end that ENIPEDIA suffered...
*CordialementRudy Patard ***@***.***>*
*06 38 02 53 12*
[hal <https://cv.archives-ouvertes.fr/rudy-patard>] *{{u|RP87
<https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Utilisateur:RP87>}}* [peertube
<https://videos.lescommuns.org/accounts/rp87/video-channels> youtube
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsGZp376V8jf1gp1I9E9OBA>]
On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 22:11, David Reinstein ***@***.***> wrote:
I'll try to do this even unconditionally, but co-authors and (?funders)
may want the traditional publications on occasion .. thus I put a 20%
threshold.
Sad truth is there seems to be nothing 'highly valued' in Economics that
is in this category.
Ideally I'd like to find ways to get beyond the traditional 0/1
reject/accept static endpoint journal system (see my unjournal thoughts
<http://bit.ly/unjournal> and discussion). I think these initiatives and
pledges are helpful to this end.
Great initiative.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADA7BNEZ63U2VJ7JBSCQJXTUCD4WNANCNFSM4PEJNEYQ>
.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675>
or Android
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.
|
Thanks for the pledge!
Same in my field of cognitive neuroscience. But this is the point in the pledge, to imbue those currently undervalued journals with value. More recently I've been thinking that this campaign should be more explicit about the journals we want to support. E.g. in my field there's an overlay journal called NBDT that's relatively new, has a great community behind it, but lacks the 'prestige' factor. So I was thinking that we could create a new campaign asking neuroscientists to exclusively support NBDT, or even just to submit a single paper there / give NBDT first preference on any new papers submitted. I wonder if such a campaign would get more traction, since it's more tractable/clearly feasible (as per @dylangomes comment above)? Are there any such journals in economics that we could target with a new campaign? Or ecology @dylangomes?
Me too! :) Keen to read more but the link is broken -- please repost. |
Yes indeed! This sounds a bit like what we're hoping to do with the ambassador role, which is a new idea we'll be trialling with the open code pledge. The basic idea is to recruit people who are willing to do more than just pledge, e.g. promote the campaign in small but regular ways throughout the campaign life. People would sign up separately to each campaign as an ambassador, so the task list would vary depending on the campaign. I like your suggestions for OA tasks @RP87! If there's interest in developing a new OA campaign (or campaigns), then we could turn those suggestions into a task list for OA ambassadors to complete when the campaign launches. |
@CooperSmout It isn't an ecology-only journal, but PeerJ stands out to me as a journal with open science in mind, a great community, but lacking that 'prestige' factor. I have been trying pretty hard to support them. It is really affordable to publish with them as well as they have lifetime memberships (or a relatively low-cost one time APC). |
|
@CooperSmout I agree with the idea of coalescing around a single or a few journals or processes. I fixed the link to my 'unjournal thoughts' (it seems like github issues needs you to put the As you will see in my discussion there, I am more in favor of the
That said, if we can converge on a process where the "journals"
I would be equally happy. |
|
@daaronr totally agree with those points! Especially about building "clear rating systems for these projects rather than the clutter of multiple journals". I should have mentioned here but I've since discovered your post at On Science and Academia and gave a quick reply -- will post more next week when I've looked through your proposal properly. Let's pick up the conversation there, because it seems a more appropriate forum for the broad topics we're discussing. Look forward to chatting more. |
Apparently I was wrong about this, there is a way to search for fee-free OA journals in DOAJ. This advice copied from a thread on RG in which someone has started writing a list manually (but using DOAJ makes more sense to me):
|
|
Here's a twitter thread on how to find the no-fee OA journals in DOAJ. I'm sorry that DOAJ makes it so difficult. |
Note: Comments for this campaign are mirrored from our Github repository to the website. Please feel free to add comments at either location.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: