Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
open-access journals, fake & genuine
149 views
Skip to first unread message
![Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]'s profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]
Apr 8, 2013, 3:43:19 PM4/8/13
to
I (and I suspect many s.a.r readers) now get a steady dribble of
unsolicited E-mails advertising new open-access journals I've never
heard of. My general reaction is that genuine journals don't need to
send out spam to persuade authors to submit papers.
In this context, there's an interesting article on fake journals in
today's New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html
The article also mentions fake conferences,
http://copy-shake-paste.blogspot.ca/2008/12/fake-conferences.html
This led me to ponder the question, what genuine open-access refereed
journals are there in astronomy & astrophysics?
New Journal of PHysics and Physical Review X cover all areas of physics,
but have only small fractions of astro papers.
PLoS One nominally covers all areas of science, but in practice almost
all the papers it publishes are in the life sciences, so astro papers
there would have little visibility.
--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
on sabbatical in Canada starting August 2012
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."
-- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam
unsolicited E-mails advertising new open-access journals I've never
heard of. My general reaction is that genuine journals don't need to
send out spam to persuade authors to submit papers.
In this context, there's an interesting article on fake journals in
today's New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html
The article also mentions fake conferences,
http://copy-shake-paste.blogspot.ca/2008/12/fake-conferences.html
This led me to ponder the question, what genuine open-access refereed
journals are there in astronomy & astrophysics?
New Journal of PHysics and Physical Review X cover all areas of physics,
but have only small fractions of astro papers.
PLoS One nominally covers all areas of science, but in practice almost
all the papers it publishes are in the life sciences, so astro papers
there would have little visibility.
--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
on sabbatical in Canada starting August 2012
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."
-- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Apr 9, 2013, 3:00:09 AM4/9/13
to
In article <mt2.0-13982...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Jonathan
> This led me to ponder the question, what genuine open-access refereed
> journals are there in astronomy & astrophysics?
You need to define "genuine open access". The term "open access" is
used by different people to mean different things. In some cases, the
term has been deliberately hijacked.
A more important question might be: which journals officially allow the
author to put a manuscript identical to the accepted version on arXiv as
soon as it is accepted? In practice, this is more important than access
through the journal's website. MNRAS and A&A allow this; together with
the absence of page charges, that is going a long way. (One could argue
that the subscription prices are still too high, of course.)
Of course, if it is a manuscript supposedly identical to the accepted
version, rather than (a copy of) the accepted version itself, you might
be wary about citing it. But if you can't trust an author to be careful
with his arXiv submission---which the lion's share of readers will read;
they won't read the official version---you probably can't trust much
else in his paper.
Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
writes:
> This led me to ponder the question, what genuine open-access refereed
> journals are there in astronomy & astrophysics?
used by different people to mean different things. In some cases, the
term has been deliberately hijacked.
A more important question might be: which journals officially allow the
author to put a manuscript identical to the accepted version on arXiv as
soon as it is accepted? In practice, this is more important than access
through the journal's website. MNRAS and A&A allow this; together with
the absence of page charges, that is going a long way. (One could argue
that the subscription prices are still too high, of course.)
Of course, if it is a manuscript supposedly identical to the accepted
version, rather than (a copy of) the accepted version itself, you might
be wary about citing it. But if you can't trust an author to be careful
with his arXiv submission---which the lion's share of readers will read;
they won't read the official version---you probably can't trust much
else in his paper.
Martin Hardcastle
Apr 10, 2013, 3:39:08 AM4/10/13
to
In article <mt2.0-13982...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
open-access (with publication charges) and doesn't spam as far as I
know. On the other hand, it's fair to say that my editorial duties are
far from onerous (and probably involve about the same fraction of
filtering out the cranks as does s.a.r. moderation) from which I infer
that publication there is not mainstream as yet.
Before I start publishing in a true open-access journal, as opposed to
something like MNRAS that allows self-archiving, I'll want to see it
backed by a reputable non-profit body like the AAS or RAS (not a
publishing company and not a set of individuals), I'll want absolutely
minimal publication charges, and, ideally, I'll want a bunch of other
people to publish there first (-:
Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle
School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with herts.ac.uk to mail me
Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply] <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu> wrote:
>This led me to ponder the question, what genuine open-access refereed
>journals are there in astronomy & astrophysics?
>
>New Journal of PHysics and Physical Review X cover all areas of physics,
>but have only small fractions of astro papers.
I'm on the editorial board of Advances in Astronomy, which is genuine
>This led me to ponder the question, what genuine open-access refereed
>journals are there in astronomy & astrophysics?
>
>New Journal of PHysics and Physical Review X cover all areas of physics,
>but have only small fractions of astro papers.
open-access (with publication charges) and doesn't spam as far as I
know. On the other hand, it's fair to say that my editorial duties are
far from onerous (and probably involve about the same fraction of
filtering out the cranks as does s.a.r. moderation) from which I infer
that publication there is not mainstream as yet.
Before I start publishing in a true open-access journal, as opposed to
something like MNRAS that allows self-archiving, I'll want to see it
backed by a reputable non-profit body like the AAS or RAS (not a
publishing company and not a set of individuals), I'll want absolutely
minimal publication charges, and, ideally, I'll want a bunch of other
people to publish there first (-:
Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle
School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with herts.ac.uk to mail me
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Apr 11, 2013, 3:00:10 AM4/11/13
to
In article <mt2.0-26213...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Martin Hardcastle
As I said, define "open access". So "genuine" open access is with
publication charges, and "true" open access has minimal (perhaps zero)
publication charges. :-)
> and, ideally, I'll want a bunch of other
> people to publish there first (-:
This is probably the biggest practical problem. With the job market as
difficult as it is, there is no way one can expect untenured people to
publish there until it is established, which means tenured, or at least
permanent-job, people have to lead the way.
Peter Coles has been hinting that he will get something concrete started
real soon now. We'll see.
I think one needs an editorial board a) with good people on it and b)
these people should know that they are on it. Just because a name is
listed on the editorial board doesn't necessarily mean the person has
even heard of the journal. To be credible, the people on the editorial
board should publish most of their own stuff there.
<m.j.har...@xxx.xxx.xxx> writes:
> I'm on the editorial board of Advances in Astronomy, which is genuine
> open-access (with publication charges)
> I'm on the editorial board of Advances in Astronomy, which is genuine
> open-access (with publication charges)
> Before I start publishing in a true open-access journal,
> minimal publication charges,
As I said, define "open access". So "genuine" open access is with
publication charges, and "true" open access has minimal (perhaps zero)
publication charges. :-)
> and, ideally, I'll want a bunch of other
> people to publish there first (-:
difficult as it is, there is no way one can expect untenured people to
publish there until it is established, which means tenured, or at least
permanent-job, people have to lead the way.
Peter Coles has been hinting that he will get something concrete started
real soon now. We'll see.
I think one needs an editorial board a) with good people on it and b)
these people should know that they are on it. Just because a name is
listed on the editorial board doesn't necessarily mean the person has
even heard of the journal. To be credible, the people on the editorial
board should publish most of their own stuff there.
Steve Willner
Apr 18, 2013, 2:26:47 AM4/18/13
to
In article <mt2.0-13982...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
> This led me to ponder the question, what genuine open-access refereed
> journals are there in astronomy & astrophysics?
arXiv.org ? Not really a journal, of course, because it's not peer-
reviewed.
A minimum test would be whether the journal is indexed by ADS, but
that wouldn't be enough to persuade me send a paper to one. Frankly,
I wouldn't trust anything not sponsored by a known publisher and
preferably a scientific society. There are real costs in running a
journal, and it isn't clear that page-charges-only represents a
sustainable business model.
The main journals in astronomy are almost open-access as it is (open
after one year and preprints of most articles available on arXiv).
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
"Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]"
<jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu> writes:
> I (and I suspect many s.a.r readers) now get a steady dribble of
> unsolicited E-mails advertising new open-access journals I've never
> heard of. My general reaction is that genuine journals don't need to
> send out spam to persuade authors to submit papers.
Yep.
> I (and I suspect many s.a.r readers) now get a steady dribble of
> unsolicited E-mails advertising new open-access journals I've never
> heard of. My general reaction is that genuine journals don't need to
> send out spam to persuade authors to submit papers.
> This led me to ponder the question, what genuine open-access refereed
> journals are there in astronomy & astrophysics?
reviewed.
A minimum test would be whether the journal is indexed by ADS, but
that wouldn't be enough to persuade me send a paper to one. Frankly,
I wouldn't trust anything not sponsored by a known publisher and
preferably a scientific society. There are real costs in running a
journal, and it isn't clear that page-charges-only represents a
sustainable business model.
The main journals in astronomy are almost open-access as it is (open
after one year and preprints of most articles available on arXiv).
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Martin Hardcastle
Apr 18, 2013, 3:50:41 AM4/18/13
to
In article <mt2.0-8382...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
want any such journal to have minimal publication charges before I
decided to publish there. Zero may not be an option, but some of the
current open-access offerings are intended to keep publishing houses'
profit margins healthy.
>This is probably the biggest practical problem. With the job market as
>difficult as it is, there is no way one can expect untenured people to
>publish there until it is established, which means tenured, or at least
>permanent-job, people have to lead the way.
As I think I said in a comment on Peter's blog, the effort involved in
getting a paper written is still pretty high even if you have a
permanent position; you don't want to do all that and then send it to
a journal where no-one will take it seriously.
>Peter Coles has been hinting that he will get something concrete started
>real soon now. We'll see.
I don't think his model satisfies my requirement, but yes, we'll
see...
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>As I said, define "open access". So "genuine" open access is with
>publication charges, and "true" open access has minimal (perhaps zero)
>publication charges. :-)
No, that's not what I said. In addition to being true open access, I'd
>As I said, define "open access". So "genuine" open access is with
>publication charges, and "true" open access has minimal (perhaps zero)
>publication charges. :-)
want any such journal to have minimal publication charges before I
decided to publish there. Zero may not be an option, but some of the
current open-access offerings are intended to keep publishing houses'
profit margins healthy.
>This is probably the biggest practical problem. With the job market as
>difficult as it is, there is no way one can expect untenured people to
>publish there until it is established, which means tenured, or at least
>permanent-job, people have to lead the way.
getting a paper written is still pretty high even if you have a
permanent position; you don't want to do all that and then send it to
a journal where no-one will take it seriously.
>Peter Coles has been hinting that he will get something concrete started
>real soon now. We'll see.
see...
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Apr 18, 2013, 4:51:08 AM4/18/13
to
In article <mt2.0-14252...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Steve Willner
journal, e-print matches accepted version" is good enough from the point
of view of the reader of the paper.
> The main journals in astronomy are almost open-access as it is (open
> after one year and preprints of most articles available on arXiv).
Right. Many actually encourage people to put the stuff on arXiv.
<wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> writes:
> > This led me to ponder the question, what genuine open-access refereed
> > journals are there in astronomy & astrophysics?
>
> arXiv.org ? Not really a journal, of course, because it's not peer-
> reviewed.
In practice: "e-print on arXiv, accepted for publication in peer-reviewed
> > This led me to ponder the question, what genuine open-access refereed
> > journals are there in astronomy & astrophysics?
>
> arXiv.org ? Not really a journal, of course, because it's not peer-
> reviewed.
journal, e-print matches accepted version" is good enough from the point
of view of the reader of the paper.
> The main journals in astronomy are almost open-access as it is (open
> after one year and preprints of most articles available on arXiv).
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Apr 18, 2013, 4:52:04 AM4/18/13
to
In article <mt2.0-24805...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Martin Hardcastle
> In addition to being true open access, I'd
> want any such journal to have minimal publication charges before I
> decided to publish there. Zero may not be an option, but some of the
> current open-access offerings are intended to keep publishing houses'
> profit margins healthy.
Right.
> >This is probably the biggest practical problem. With the job market as
> >difficult as it is, there is no way one can expect untenured people to
> >publish there until it is established, which means tenured, or at least
> >permanent-job, people have to lead the way.
>
> As I think I said in a comment on Peter's blog, the effort involved in
> getting a paper written is still pretty high even if you have a
> permanent position; you don't want to do all that and then send it to
> a journal where no-one will take it seriously.
I agree, but the problem is certainly even worse for people still
looking for a job. Also, a paper by a big name will attract readers to
the journal, whereas a paper by an unknown student won't.
> >Peter Coles has been hinting that he will get something concrete started
> >real soon now. We'll see.
>
> I don't think his model satisfies my requirement, but yes, we'll
> see...
Why not? (Apart from the fact that it isn't yet up and running?)
At the very least, those on the board of such a journal, and the editor,
should publish their own stuff, or at least a substantial fraction of
it, there.
<m.j.har...@xxx.xxx.xxx> writes:
> In article <mt2.0-8382...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
> Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> >As I said, define "open access". So "genuine" open access is with
> >publication charges, and "true" open access has minimal (perhaps zero)
> >publication charges. :-)
>
> No, that's not what I said.
Note the smiley. :-)
> In article <mt2.0-8382...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
> Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> >As I said, define "open access". So "genuine" open access is with
> >publication charges, and "true" open access has minimal (perhaps zero)
> >publication charges. :-)
>
> No, that's not what I said.
> In addition to being true open access, I'd
> want any such journal to have minimal publication charges before I
> decided to publish there. Zero may not be an option, but some of the
> current open-access offerings are intended to keep publishing houses'
> profit margins healthy.
> >This is probably the biggest practical problem. With the job market as
> >difficult as it is, there is no way one can expect untenured people to
> >publish there until it is established, which means tenured, or at least
> >permanent-job, people have to lead the way.
>
> As I think I said in a comment on Peter's blog, the effort involved in
> getting a paper written is still pretty high even if you have a
> permanent position; you don't want to do all that and then send it to
> a journal where no-one will take it seriously.
looking for a job. Also, a paper by a big name will attract readers to
the journal, whereas a paper by an unknown student won't.
> >Peter Coles has been hinting that he will get something concrete started
> >real soon now. We'll see.
>
> I don't think his model satisfies my requirement, but yes, we'll
> see...
At the very least, those on the board of such a journal, and the editor,
should publish their own stuff, or at least a substantial fraction of
it, there.
Jonathan Thornburg
Apr 18, 2013, 4:10:35 PM4/18/13
to
From: "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Subject: Re: open-access journals, fake & genuine
Newsgroups: sci.astro.research
References: <mt2.0-13982...@hydra.herts.ac.uk> <mt2.0-14252...@hydra.herts.ac.uk> <mt2.0-32470...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>
In article <mt2.0-14252...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Steve Willner
<wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> writes:
> arXiv.org ? Not really a journal, of course, because it's not peer-
> reviewed.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <hel...@astro.multiclothesvax.de> replied:
any last-minute fixes discovered at the page-proofs stage) would be a
bit better.
Alas, what's fairly common is "e-print on arXiv, accepted for publication
in peer-reviewed journal, but no indication of how close the e-print
is to the accepted version".
My impression is that few people *deliberately* fail to update the
arXiv version, rather the author mentally tags the paper as "done" and
never bothers to go back and "tidy up the details" of updating the arXiv
version. Perhaps this is same sort of "I want to get on with my next
(and much more exciting) research project" (and/or 1001 other tasks)
thinking that leads to inadequate archiving of data and/or computer codes.
[Indeed, I'm not 100% certain that I haven't left a few
of my own papers in this arXiv-not-updated state. Not
good... I really need to install that dual-processor
software for /dev/jonathan/brain .]
So overall, having arXiv be the open-access repository strikes me as
something which would work if humans were perfect and never moved to new
jobs, had personal-life crises, forgot, postponed, and/or procrastinated
on important tasks. But in the real world, humans (myself included) do
all of these at least occasionally, so "arXiv backing up a non-open-access
journal" is still a nontrivial step down in reader accessibility from a
true open-access journal.
Subject: Re: open-access journals, fake & genuine
Newsgroups: sci.astro.research
References: <mt2.0-13982...@hydra.herts.ac.uk> <mt2.0-14252...@hydra.herts.ac.uk> <mt2.0-32470...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>
In article <mt2.0-14252...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Steve Willner
<wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> writes:
> arXiv.org ? Not really a journal, of course, because it's not peer-
> reviewed.
> In practice: "e-print on arXiv, accepted for publication in peer-reviewed
> journal, e-print matches accepted version" is good enough from the point
> of view of the reader of the paper.
I agree, althouth "e-print matches published version" (i.e., including
> journal, e-print matches accepted version" is good enough from the point
> of view of the reader of the paper.
any last-minute fixes discovered at the page-proofs stage) would be a
bit better.
Alas, what's fairly common is "e-print on arXiv, accepted for publication
in peer-reviewed journal, but no indication of how close the e-print
is to the accepted version".
My impression is that few people *deliberately* fail to update the
arXiv version, rather the author mentally tags the paper as "done" and
never bothers to go back and "tidy up the details" of updating the arXiv
version. Perhaps this is same sort of "I want to get on with my next
(and much more exciting) research project" (and/or 1001 other tasks)
thinking that leads to inadequate archiving of data and/or computer codes.
[Indeed, I'm not 100% certain that I haven't left a few
of my own papers in this arXiv-not-updated state. Not
good... I really need to install that dual-processor
software for /dev/jonathan/brain .]
So overall, having arXiv be the open-access repository strikes me as
something which would work if humans were perfect and never moved to new
jobs, had personal-life crises, forgot, postponed, and/or procrastinated
on important tasks. But in the real world, humans (myself included) do
all of these at least occasionally, so "arXiv backing up a non-open-access
journal" is still a nontrivial step down in reader accessibility from a
true open-access journal.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Apr 19, 2013, 1:11:15 AM4/19/13
to
In article <mt2.0-20342...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Jonathan
errors creep in at the production stage, so the accepted version,
written by the author, might actually be better than the official final
version, typeset by the publisher.
Thornburg <jth...@astro.indiana.edu> writes:
> > In practice: "e-print on arXiv, accepted for publication in peer-reviewed
> > journal, e-print matches accepted version" is good enough from the point
> > of view of the reader of the paper.
>
> I agree, althouth "e-print matches published version" (i.e., including
> any last-minute fixes discovered at the page-proofs stage) would be a
> bit better.
Yes, of course, but difficult to enforce. However, in some cases more
> > In practice: "e-print on arXiv, accepted for publication in peer-reviewed
> > journal, e-print matches accepted version" is good enough from the point
> > of view of the reader of the paper.
>
> I agree, althouth "e-print matches published version" (i.e., including
> any last-minute fixes discovered at the page-proofs stage) would be a
> bit better.
errors creep in at the production stage, so the accepted version,
written by the author, might actually be better than the official final
version, typeset by the publisher.
Eric Flesch
Apr 20, 2013, 4:45:02 AM4/20/13
to
On Fri, 19 Apr 13 05:11:15 GMT, Phillip Helbig wrote:
>However, in some cases more
>errors creep in at the production stage, so the accepted version,
>written by the author, might actually be better than the official final
>version, typeset by the publisher.
I have a sneaking suspicion that that's the case for my own paper,
>However, in some cases more
>errors creep in at the production stage, so the accepted version,
>written by the author, might actually be better than the official final
>version, typeset by the publisher.
2013-PASA-13-4, which is paywalled but way larger than my arXiv
version with its efficiently formatted tables. Also I had a few
jousts with the typesetter over syntax, don't know how that turned
out.
Steve Willner
Apr 22, 2013, 3:36:02 PM4/22/13
to
In article <mt2.0-20342...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
Jonathan Thornburg <jth...@astro.indiana.edu> writes:
Jonathan Thornburg <jth...@astro.indiana.edu> writes:
> [Indeed, I'm not 100% certain that I haven't left a few
> of my own papers in this arXiv-not-updated state.
I never update my papers on arXiv. First of all that's probably a
> of my own papers in this arXiv-not-updated state.
copyright violation (at least here in the US; maybe not elsewhere).
Second, I consider the journal version the "article of record" and
see no point wasting my time updating a preprint.
Steve Willner
Apr 22, 2013, 3:37:55 PM4/22/13
to
In article <mt2.0-24805...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
how is this a viable business model?
[Mod. note: 'minimal' might be defined as 'enough to cover costs' -- mjh]
I agree that there are exploitative for-profit journals, both "open
access" and otherwise, but there are plenty of alternatives to those.
I want to publish in a journal that I'm sure will be around in the
long term. (The AAS, for example, pays an archiving service that is
supposed to maintain the published journal issues if the AAS goes out
of business, not a likely event in the first place. What's the
equivalent assurance for the open-access journals, especially in the
low-page-charge model?)
Martin Hardcastle <m.j.har...@xxx.xxx.xxx> writes:
> In addition to being true open access, I'd
> want any such journal to have minimal publication charges
So no income from subscribers and not much from page charges? Just
> In addition to being true open access, I'd
> want any such journal to have minimal publication charges
how is this a viable business model?
[Mod. note: 'minimal' might be defined as 'enough to cover costs' -- mjh]
I agree that there are exploitative for-profit journals, both "open
access" and otherwise, but there are plenty of alternatives to those.
I want to publish in a journal that I'm sure will be around in the
long term. (The AAS, for example, pays an archiving service that is
supposed to maintain the published journal issues if the AAS goes out
of business, not a likely event in the first place. What's the
equivalent assurance for the open-access journals, especially in the
low-page-charge model?)
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Apr 23, 2013, 1:51:52 AM4/23/13
to
In article <mt2.0-24905...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Steve Willner
country.
> Second, I consider the journal version the "article of record" and
> see no point wasting my time updating a preprint.
Showing your age? :-) Yes, arXiv was originally a preprint server, an
electronic replacement for making and sending out copies of preprints to
other institutes (I remember stuffing envelopes myself). However, these
days, most people probably read the arXiv version and might never even
look at the official paper version in the journal.
When a paper is accepted, you presumably have a LaTeX file of the
accepted version. It takes just a few minutes to update this on arXiv.
At the very least you should update the journal-ref information to
indicate that it was actually published.
<wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> writes:
> I never update my papers on arXiv. First of all that's probably a
> copyright violation (at least here in the US; maybe not elsewhere).
This varies from journal to journal and, possibly, from country to
> I never update my papers on arXiv. First of all that's probably a
> copyright violation (at least here in the US; maybe not elsewhere).
country.
> Second, I consider the journal version the "article of record" and
> see no point wasting my time updating a preprint.
electronic replacement for making and sending out copies of preprints to
other institutes (I remember stuffing envelopes myself). However, these
days, most people probably read the arXiv version and might never even
look at the official paper version in the journal.
When a paper is accepted, you presumably have a LaTeX file of the
accepted version. It takes just a few minutes to update this on arXiv.
At the very least you should update the journal-ref information to
indicate that it was actually published.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Apr 23, 2013, 1:57:15 AM4/23/13
to
In article <mt2.0-24926...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Steve Willner
fields, there are purely electronic journals. One submits a paper by
mentioning the arXiv reference, and when it is "published", the journal
has a link to the article on arXiv. There is no reason this couldn't
work for astronomy as well.
<wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> writes:
> I agree that there are exploitative for-profit journals, both "open
> access" and otherwise, but there are plenty of alternatives to those.
> I want to publish in a journal that I'm sure will be around in the
> long term. (The AAS, for example, pays an archiving service that is
> supposed to maintain the published journal issues if the AAS goes out
> of business, not a likely event in the first place. What's the
> equivalent assurance for the open-access journals, especially in the
> low-page-charge model?)
Many people envisage arXiv as being this archiving service. In other
> I agree that there are exploitative for-profit journals, both "open
> access" and otherwise, but there are plenty of alternatives to those.
> I want to publish in a journal that I'm sure will be around in the
> long term. (The AAS, for example, pays an archiving service that is
> supposed to maintain the published journal issues if the AAS goes out
> of business, not a likely event in the first place. What's the
> equivalent assurance for the open-access journals, especially in the
> low-page-charge model?)
fields, there are purely electronic journals. One submits a paper by
mentioning the arXiv reference, and when it is "published", the journal
has a link to the article on arXiv. There is no reason this couldn't
work for astronomy as well.
Steve Willner
Apr 25, 2013, 2:05:13 AM4/25/13
to
SW> So no income from subscribers and not much from page charges? Just
SW> how is this a viable business model?
> [Mod. note: 'minimal' might be defined as 'enough to cover costs' -- mjh]
For the AAS journals, "enough to cover costs" is something over $100
per page, and that's for journals partially subsidized by library
subscriptions. Take those away, and page charges would have to be
higher.
No doubt one can have a cheaper journal that does less, but at some
point it ceases to be respectable.
SW> how is this a viable business model?
> [Mod. note: 'minimal' might be defined as 'enough to cover costs' -- mjh]
per page, and that's for journals partially subsidized by library
subscriptions. Take those away, and page charges would have to be
higher.
No doubt one can have a cheaper journal that does less, but at some
point it ceases to be respectable.
Steve Willner
Apr 25, 2013, 2:05:56 AM4/25/13
to
SW> Second, I consider the journal version the "article of record" and
SW> see no point wasting my time updating a preprint.
In article <mt2.0-6118...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> writes:
> Showing your age? :-)
No doubt.
> Yes, arXiv was originally a preprint server, an
> electronic replacement for making and sending out copies of preprints to
> other institutes (I remember stuffing envelopes myself). However, these
> days, most people probably read the arXiv version and might never even
> look at the official paper version in the journal.
As you say, probably a generational thing. I never look at arXiv if
the real paper has been published.
> When a paper is accepted, you presumably have a LaTeX file of the
> accepted version. It takes just a few minutes to update this on arXiv.
This is the first and only version I post. Corrections made during
the editorial process are only in the journal version; I don't have
any source file that includes them. In particular, machine-readable
tables are prepared by the journal, not by me. Figures in the
journal are often better as well because of arXiv's file-size limits.
If arXiv were going to be the archival version, I'd want it to
provide services it doesn't.
> At the very least you should update the journal-ref information to
> indicate that it was actually published.
The ref info I provide says "accepted in...." Anyone who wants the
actual paper can find it via ADS. At least that's my view.
SW> see no point wasting my time updating a preprint.
In article <mt2.0-6118...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> writes:
> Showing your age? :-)
No doubt.
> Yes, arXiv was originally a preprint server, an
> electronic replacement for making and sending out copies of preprints to
> other institutes (I remember stuffing envelopes myself). However, these
> days, most people probably read the arXiv version and might never even
> look at the official paper version in the journal.
the real paper has been published.
> When a paper is accepted, you presumably have a LaTeX file of the
> accepted version. It takes just a few minutes to update this on arXiv.
the editorial process are only in the journal version; I don't have
any source file that includes them. In particular, machine-readable
tables are prepared by the journal, not by me. Figures in the
journal are often better as well because of arXiv's file-size limits.
If arXiv were going to be the archival version, I'd want it to
provide services it doesn't.
> At the very least you should update the journal-ref information to
> indicate that it was actually published.
actual paper can find it via ADS. At least that's my view.
Martin Hardcastle
Apr 26, 2013, 2:19:14 AM4/26/13
to
In article <mt2.0-14385...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
hard to see how actual costs can be that high.
How much of that supports (completely unnecessary) paper printing?
Steve Willner <wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:
>For the AAS journals, "enough to cover costs" is something over $100
>per page, and that's for journals partially subsidized by library
>subscriptions. Take those away, and page charges would have to be
>higher.
I don't know much about the economics here, obviously, but I find it
>For the AAS journals, "enough to cover costs" is something over $100
>per page, and that's for journals partially subsidized by library
>subscriptions. Take those away, and page charges would have to be
>higher.
hard to see how actual costs can be that high.
How much of that supports (completely unnecessary) paper printing?
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Apr 26, 2013, 2:20:16 AM4/26/13
to
In article <mt2.0-14385...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Steve Willner
<wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> writes:
> For the AAS journals, "enough to cover costs" is something over $100
> per page, and that's for journals partially subsidized by library
> subscriptions. Take those away, and page charges would have to be
> higher.
>
> No doubt one can have a cheaper journal that does less, but at some
> point it ceases to be respectable.
It depends on whether "does less" means a drop in quality. Many people
> For the AAS journals, "enough to cover costs" is something over $100
> per page, and that's for journals partially subsidized by library
> subscriptions. Take those away, and page charges would have to be
> higher.
>
> No doubt one can have a cheaper journal that does less, but at some
> point it ceases to be respectable.
believe that the sensible thing to do is to get rid of the paper
version. How much of that $100 per page goes to printing and
distribution costs?
How many people actually read the paper journals these days? Of those
who do not read on-screen, do they read the paper journal or a printout
of the electronic version or a paper copy made with a copying machine?
The last two do not need an official paper version.
If a library really wants a paper version, why not just print out the
PDF files for the articles in an issue (assuming that "issue" survives
into the more electronic age) and bind them at a shop which binds theses
etc?
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Apr 26, 2013, 2:51:18 AM4/26/13
to
In article <mt2.0-14385...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Steve Willner
money and probably subscribes to all necessary journals. That's not the
case everywhere.
> The ref info I provide says "accepted in...." Anyone who wants the
> actual paper can find it via ADS. At least that's my view.
As long as they can actually download that paper from ADS then, yes,
that's OK.
<wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> writes:
> As you say, probably a generational thing. I never look at arXiv if
> the real paper has been published.
Something else to keep in mind: you are at a place which has a lot of
> As you say, probably a generational thing. I never look at arXiv if
> the real paper has been published.
money and probably subscribes to all necessary journals. That's not the
case everywhere.
> The ref info I provide says "accepted in...." Anyone who wants the
> actual paper can find it via ADS. At least that's my view.
that's OK.
Eric Flesch
Apr 26, 2013, 11:29:23 AM4/26/13
to
On Fri, 26 Apr 13, Phillip Helbig wrote:
>Steve Willner writes: Anyone who wants the
each article. ArXiv is such a wonderful service. Have to give ADS
credit in that they are timely in releasing articles to general
availablility after the obligatory 7-year proprietary period. But
some journals like Nature never let their articles go.
>As long as they can actually download that paper from ADS then, yes,
>that's OK.
Soooo true, my amateur work would have been stillborn without ArXiv.
It's such a wonderful service. Did I say that already? x3!
Eric
>Steve Willner writes: Anyone who wants the
>> actual paper can find it via ADS. At least that's my view.
Yes, and ArXiv provides a direct link to the respective ADS page for
each article. ArXiv is such a wonderful service. Have to give ADS
credit in that they are timely in releasing articles to general
availablility after the obligatory 7-year proprietary period. But
some journals like Nature never let their articles go.
>As long as they can actually download that paper from ADS then, yes,
>that's OK.
It's such a wonderful service. Did I say that already? x3!
Eric
Steve Willner
Apr 27, 2013, 3:22:10 AM4/27/13
to
In article <mt2.0-2944...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
sure there are details on the aas.org web site somewhere, but most of
the cost is handling peer review, editing, and archiving.
> How many people actually read the paper journals these days? Of those
> who do not read on-screen, do they read the paper journal or a printout
> of the electronic version or a paper copy made with a copying machine?
> The last two do not need an official paper version.
For the AAS journals, the electronic version has been the official
one for many years now. I personally haven't read the bound paper
versions in a decade or more, but I very often print out hard copies
from online pdf's. Nevertheless, libraries still like paper. If
enough decide they don't, production of paper issues will cease.
That won't reduce the cost of producing the electronic edition, at
least not by much.
> If a library really wants a paper version, why not just print out the
> PDF files for the articles in an issue (assuming that "issue" survives
> into the more electronic age) and bind them at a shop which binds theses
> etc?
Binding costs would be the same as now, but printing costs would be
much higher with much lower quality. Once the printing press is set
up, the cost for copies after the first is amazingly cheap, and the
quality is far higher than anything a reasonable office printer can
produce. The member subscription price covers the marginal cost of a
paper copy, so you can see what that is.
The library subscription price for electronic-only access is much
higher than the member subscription price. That's part of the
journal business model now. As I wrote in the beginning, if that
goes away, page charges have to go up to make up the difference.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> writes:
> How much of that $100 per page goes to printing and
> distribution costs?
None, as I understand it. That's all in the subscription costs. I'm
> How much of that $100 per page goes to printing and
> distribution costs?
sure there are details on the aas.org web site somewhere, but most of
the cost is handling peer review, editing, and archiving.
> How many people actually read the paper journals these days? Of those
> who do not read on-screen, do they read the paper journal or a printout
> of the electronic version or a paper copy made with a copying machine?
> The last two do not need an official paper version.
one for many years now. I personally haven't read the bound paper
versions in a decade or more, but I very often print out hard copies
from online pdf's. Nevertheless, libraries still like paper. If
enough decide they don't, production of paper issues will cease.
That won't reduce the cost of producing the electronic edition, at
least not by much.
> If a library really wants a paper version, why not just print out the
> PDF files for the articles in an issue (assuming that "issue" survives
> into the more electronic age) and bind them at a shop which binds theses
> etc?
much higher with much lower quality. Once the printing press is set
up, the cost for copies after the first is amazingly cheap, and the
quality is far higher than anything a reasonable office printer can
produce. The member subscription price covers the marginal cost of a
paper copy, so you can see what that is.
The library subscription price for electronic-only access is much
higher than the member subscription price. That's part of the
journal business model now. As I wrote in the beginning, if that
goes away, page charges have to go up to make up the difference.
Jonathan Thornburg
Apr 27, 2013, 3:23:23 AM4/27/13
to
From: "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Subject: Re: open-access journals, fake & genuine
Newsgroups: sci.astro.research
References: <mt2.0-13982...@hydra.herts.ac.uk> <mt2.0-24805...@hydra.herts.ac.uk> <mt2.0-24926...@hydra.herts.ac.uk> <mt2.0-14385...@hydra.herts.ac.uk> <mt2.0-2944...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: open-access journals, fake & genuine
Newsgroups: sci.astro.research
In article <mt2.0-14385...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
Steve Willner <wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:
>For the AAS journals, "enough to cover costs" is something over $100
>per page, and that's for journals partially subsidized by library
>subscriptions. Take those away, and page charges would have to be
>higher.
>For the AAS journals, "enough to cover costs" is something over $100
>per page, and that's for journals partially subsidized by library
>subscriptions. Take those away, and page charges would have to be
>higher.
Martin Hardcastle <m.j.har...@xxx.xxx.xxx> wrote:
> I don't know much about the economics here, obviously, but I find it
> hard to see how actual costs can be that high.
>
> How much of that supports (completely unnecessary) paper printing?
Very little -- maybe on the order of 10-20%.
> I don't know much about the economics here, obviously, but I find it
> hard to see how actual costs can be that high.
>
> How much of that supports (completely unnecessary) paper printing?
From what I've read, the largest contributor to the cost of running
a refereed journal is salaries for the editorial office staff. The
fundamental problem (after you remove the large profit margins of many
for-profit publishers) is that the editorial process is labor-intensive:
Even if referees continue to be "free", someone needs to assign each
manuscript to *suitable* referees, ping referees about late reviews
(this can be mostly automated), and (probably the largest task) make
judgement calls about what to do when the referees disagree and about
when authors have vs haven't complied "enough" with referee requests.
If we want these tasks to be done well, they need to be done by
reasonably well-qualified people. When trying to hire editors, most
top-tier refereed journals seem to prefer to recruit people with
PhD-level scientific qualifications (I've seen this in Physical Review
ads for editors)... which suggests salary+benefits at least roughly
acomparable with those of academic scientists.
An alternative is to have "free" (unpaid) volunteer editors.
[Of course in a global sense, there's still a cost
here, it's "just" been disbursed to the many volunteers
donating their time.]
For example, PLoS One works this way: most (all?) of the editors
are unpaid volunteers, and there's only a small paid editorial staff.
A problem with this approach is editor burnout -- being an editor
is a lot of work, particularly in fields where there are a lot of
mediocre papers submitted.
ciao,
Steve Willner
Apr 27, 2013, 9:10:05 AM4/27/13
to
In article <mt2.0-7385...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
decides on its own policy. The AAS journals have a one-year lockup,
and I thought A&A and MNRAS were the same. I don't know of any that
have 7-year periods, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.
> But some journals like Nature never let their articles go.
That too; it's up to the publisher until copyright runs out.
Eric Flesch <er...@flesch.org> writes:
> Have to give ADS
> credit in that they are timely in releasing articles to general
> availablility after the obligatory 7-year proprietary period.
It's the journals that open their archives, not ADS, and each one
> Have to give ADS
> credit in that they are timely in releasing articles to general
> availablility after the obligatory 7-year proprietary period.
decides on its own policy. The AAS journals have a one-year lockup,
and I thought A&A and MNRAS were the same. I don't know of any that
have 7-year periods, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.
> But some journals like Nature never let their articles go.
Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]
Apr 27, 2013, 9:12:13 AM4/27/13
to
In article <mt2.0-6118...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> writes:
> At the very least you should update the journal-ref information to
> indicate that it was actually published.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> writes:
> At the very least you should update the journal-ref information to
> indicate that it was actually published.
Steve Willner <wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:
> The ref info I provide says "accepted in...." Anyone who wants the
> actual paper can find it via ADS. At least that's my view.
I have a somewhat different perspective (closer to Phillip's):
> The ref info I provide says "accepted in...." Anyone who wants the
> actual paper can find it via ADS. At least that's my view.
I want to make it as easy as possible for someone to read my paper,
so I am *very* willing to spend the 5 minutes it takes to update
arXiv with the published-version DOI, which arxiv then turns into a
hotlink directly to the paper.
Yes, someone *could* search for the paper in the ADS... but compared
with a DOI that's a direct "1 click" hotlink to the paper, an arXiv
entry that only says "accepted in..." presents a speed bump that's
takes a small, but still noticable, effort for a reader to surmount:
the reader must
* open new web-browser tab in ADS
* remember whether she wants the "Query" or "Search" ADS page
* type or cut-n-paste my name correctly
* maybe enter an appropriate date range so that the search results
don't return too many papers
* select the appropriate paper from the search results (easy for my
name and the journals I usually publish in, but harder if the author's
name is Jones or Chu or Thompson or something else that's very common)
* click to go to ADS page for the paper
* look in ADS page to see if the published version is hot-linked
(it usually, but not always, is)
* click to go to paper
This process might take 10 seconds in the best case, or a minute if
the searching turns up lots of other hits. And it runs a considerable
risk (to me, the author) that the reader will be distracted by another
interesting paper and not get to mine.
Pragmatically, if I'm a reader, and I have 2 papers I'd like to look
at, and 10 minutes before I want to leave for a seminar, and one of
those papers has a DOI hotlink and the other one doesn't, I'm likely
to look at the DOI-hotlink one now and postpone the other until later
in the day (with a substantial risk of forgetting it if I don't add
it to my "getme.papers" queue... where it might then linger for some
time).
As an author, it's an easy call which one of those 2 papers I'd rather
have *my* paper be....
Steve Willner
May 3, 2013, 2:51:48 AM5/3/13
to
In article <mt2.0-29547...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
on the AAS web site. Cost of the serving/archiving function isn't
trivial.
> An alternative is to have "free" (unpaid) volunteer editors.
Unless things have changed, ApJ "scientific editors" (the people who
assign and interact with referees and ultimately decide which papers
get published) are paid modestly, maybe a few thousand dollars a year
for maybe 100-150 papers handled, so a few tens of dollars per paper.
However, they get help from paid administrative staff, which probably
costs more.
> A problem with this approach is editor burnout -- being an editor
> is a lot of work, particularly in fields where there are a lot of
> mediocre papers submitted.
Heh. When I took an SE job (1998, I think), Helmut Abt told me it
was going to take 10% of my time. It took probably double that, and
I work in an area that mostly got good papers. The one thing I
really hated was referees who promised to send reports and didn't.
That was a tiny minority, but it caused 90% of the stress that went
with the job.
As to the other message, I never knew until now that it is possible
to add a doi to an astro-ph preprint. As Jonathan wrote, it's very
quick to do once one figures out how, but figuring out how took me
awhile. Anyway, thanks for that, Jonathan.
Jonathan Thornburg <jth...@astro.indiana.edu> writes:
> From what I've read, the largest contributor to the cost of running
> a refereed journal is salaries for the editorial office staff.
You are probably right, but I expect figures for the AAS journals are
> From what I've read, the largest contributor to the cost of running
> a refereed journal is salaries for the editorial office staff.
on the AAS web site. Cost of the serving/archiving function isn't
trivial.
> An alternative is to have "free" (unpaid) volunteer editors.
assign and interact with referees and ultimately decide which papers
get published) are paid modestly, maybe a few thousand dollars a year
for maybe 100-150 papers handled, so a few tens of dollars per paper.
However, they get help from paid administrative staff, which probably
costs more.
> A problem with this approach is editor burnout -- being an editor
> is a lot of work, particularly in fields where there are a lot of
> mediocre papers submitted.
was going to take 10% of my time. It took probably double that, and
I work in an area that mostly got good papers. The one thing I
really hated was referees who promised to send reports and didn't.
That was a tiny minority, but it caused 90% of the stress that went
with the job.
As to the other message, I never knew until now that it is possible
to add a doi to an astro-ph preprint. As Jonathan wrote, it's very
quick to do once one figures out how, but figuring out how took me
awhile. Anyway, thanks for that, Jonathan.
Eric Flesch
May 4, 2013, 3:10:24 AM5/4/13
to
On Sat, 27 Apr 13, Jonathan Thornburg wrote:
>Yes, someone *could* search for the paper in the ADS...
Don't need to search, just go to the preprint's URL, and on the right
>Yes, someone *could* search for the paper in the ADS...
side of the page there is a "NASA ADS" link under "References &
Citations" -- just click it and you are there.
0 new messages