Editors and reviewers offered concrete benefits by publisher (SDI)

Research Cooperative
02/04/13 08:44:46PM
@chief-admin

Today I discovered, by serendipity, a journal publisher going by the name of Science Domain International .

What follows is a first impression, not based on any contact with the publisher. If you wish to deal with the publisher, use your own caution (as with any publisher). Feedback is welcome.

This publisher has an excellent approach to open access publishing -- and the problem of attracting editors and reviewers to help in the publication process.

Editors and reviewers submitting editorial assistance and reviews that are judged to be of adequate quality will receive coupons valued at a nominal $50.

These can be used as a discount against future author charges that the reviewer may face as a contributor to any journal in the Science Domain journal family.

This seems a very reasonable arrangement. See: Reviewer Editor Recognition .

Conduct 10 reviews successfully, and you can publish at no cost in any SDI journal (subject to review of course). Your article will be free (open access) to all readers.

This is a model of publishing that really tries to recognise the value of volunteer reviewers, in a manner that is affordable for the journal.

See the page explaining the publication charge .

Of course, the coupon available to reviewers is only of value if you would like to publish in an SDI journal. To give you an idea of what range of topics are currently covered by SDI, here is the SDI list of journals :

Research Cooperative
05/04/13 07:57:08PM @chief-admin:

Dear Lachezar,

Plagiarism in serious, well-established and respected journals with many experienced readers does occur, but rarely, and tends to be noticed.

Most of the plagiarism reported recently is in new journals with no reputation, obscure ownership, easy acceptance of papers, and probably few readers.

Between these two extremes there are many journals that are honestly and reasonably well managed, that are tolerant of writers who stuggle in English as a second language, or thaat publish in local languages. They may lack prestige, but deserve support from researchers.

It is up to us as researchers and the main audience for scientific journals, to identify and support honest attempts to communicate science. The plagiarists will mostly sink together with the journals that accept them, and we don't need to worry too much about them... unless employers are so blind as to employ people merely because they have published many papers. In that case, incompetent people may reach positions of social importance, and that does matter.

Our other goal should be to encourage incompetent scientists to find occupations in which they might have natural competence. Or better stated, universities should tell science students that a university education can lead in many useful directions in society, not just to research. In most parts of the world, research is far from a highly paid or stable profession. It can be financially more rewarding, over time, to become a scientific technician than a struggling scientist.


Lachezar Hristov Filchev
04/04/13 10:34:50PM @lachezar-hristov-filchev:

Hi Peter,

Thank you for your participation in the Geolog discussion. However, I am still on my grounds that a vast amount of research is lost somewhere in the bottleneck, because of the reasons that you have outlined. It is even worse, because once a study disappears in the bottleneckit could be easily reproduced with other data, by other scientists thousands of times without any addition to science. In fact, who cares for a disappeared study? I think that before having good intentions about open-access we have first to cut off the plagiarism which is spreading throughout the science world. Only then, we will be ableto open the gates of science to the public without worrying for the fate of scientific content.

Cheers,

Lachezar


Research Cooperative
04/04/13 08:51:27PM @chief-admin:

Dear Lachezar,

Thanks for the link. I posted the following note at Geolog:

"Open (free) access for readers does not mean open (free) access for authors. Even in the absence of page charges or other author fees, language barriers can make publishing more expensive for some authors than others. The quality (a.k.a. readability) of open access publications, like print publications, also depends on the efforts of reviewers, editors, proofreaders, copyeditors, and journal editors. If impact factor is not the prime concern (and it shouldn't be!) then we also have to worry how permanent a publication is, or whether it has back up repositories that will guarantee access in the future, even if the publication ceases to be issued. With the sudden and global expansion of untested online journals, using generic off-the-shelf publishing systems, there will be - it's a statistical certainty - a large amount of trial, error, failure, and disappearing work.

Between doing research, and having research published, there are many constraints and difficulties - a bottleneck.

The Research Cooperative is a network of researchers, editors, translators, illustrators, and others that I have been developing in order to address this bottleneck in the research communication process.

Ultimately, this will not be enough, even if our network becomes wildly successful. We also need discussions (like the one here at Geolog) on the entire universe of academic publishing, and all the possible ways that research can be communicated for general benefit.

Thanks for providing this virtual rock as a podium for self-expression!"


Lachezar Hristov Filchev
02/04/13 11:27:18PM @lachezar-hristov-filchev:

Thanksfor the info!