Where to publish?
rougier opened this issue · comments
(From ReScience/ReScience-article#3)
Wish list:
- Open access
- Open reviewing
- Low cost
- Read by computational scientists from all fields
- Other criterion?
Is there any journal that satisfies all criteria?
-
Open access, open review, and a good topic section (publishing, education, communication), but also a serious price tag (500 or 1000 US$ depending on length)
- Open access
- Open reviewing
- Low cost?
- Read by all?
-
In spite of the name there are many articles on computational science as well. Open access
but not open reviewing. High page charges (695 US$).- Open access
- Open reviewing
- Low cost?
- Read by all?
-
Computing in Science & Engineering
Focused on computational science, no page charges, but no open access either
(not even for money), nor open reviewing. There are two channels: peer-reviewed articles, and department contributions that are evaluated by the department editors.Disclaimer: @khinsen is department editor for "Scientific Programming". @labarba is department editor for "Reproducible Research".
- Open access
- Open reviewing
- Low cost?
- Read by all?
-
They advertise to publish reports of original research from all disciplines within science and medicine.
- Open access
- Open reviewing
- Low cost?
- Read by all?
-
From the website: A fast, open journal publishing high quality research across all of science, engineering and mathematics.
- Open access
- Open reviewing
- Low cost?
- Read by all?
Do journal allow pooling of publication fees by sending several partial invoices?
-
Journal of Open Research Software
The Journal of Open Research Software (JORS) features peer reviewed Software Metapapers describing research software with high reuse potential. We are working with a number of specialist and institutional repositories to ensure that the associated software is professionally archived, preserved, and is openly available. Equally importantly, the software and the papers will be citable, and reuse will be tracked.JORS also publishes full-length research papers that cover different aspects of creating, maintaining and evaluating open source research software. The aim of the section is to promote the dissemination of best practice and experience related to the development and maintenance of reusable, sustainable research software.
- Open access
- Open reviewing
- Low cost
- Read by computational scientists from all fields
Regarding Computing in Science and Engineering,
our plan with @gkthiruvathukal is for the RR track to be open access. We also had animated discussions at the last in-person meeting of the Editorial Board (in April) about double-open reviews. The consensus is that we want to implement it, at least in an opt-in fashion, and the next step is to figure out the technical hurdles in the manuscript submission system.
texcount gives close to 5000 words in the current version. Not all journals will accept this.
Also, some journals have rather strong statements on the type of articles. Royal Society Open Science, for instance, has as first criterion
Original research in science, engineering or mathematics.
that diminishes my motivation to submit there with the type of paper we have.
Finally, what audience do we want? Optimistically, I'd like the broadest audience as I believe that our experience is of interest for most scientific fields!
Some consider F1000 to publish peer-review related articles: http://fossilsandshit.com/research/publications/submitted-ver-1/ @khinsen what does your experience say about this?
@pdebuyl I think F1000 is an excellent fit for our topic. Potential problems:
- High page charges
- The authors must propose referees, which F1000 accepts or refuses according to unclear rules. Then the referees can of course accept of refuse individually. This could be an issue for us because most potential referees are already authors.
Having recently reviewed an article, I have "earned" a 50% discount on page charges which we could probably use, but even 50% is a lot, given their biology-oriented pricing.
Oops, for JORS issues in research software papers: "Articles should not exceed 3-4000 words"
Nature Communications (following @pdebuyl inquiry about JOSS paper on twitter)
- Open access
- Open reviewing
- Low cost? €3,700 !!!
- Read by all?
The Nat. Commun. idea did not work that well apparently https://twitter.com/kyleniemeyer/status/884901200075870212
I suggest to assess the suitability of the paper for the journal:
- F1000
- PeerJ Computer Science
- Computing in Science & Engineering (not open access)
- Plos ONE
- Royal Society Open Science. Strict criterion of "original research".
- Science. Our paper is too long. Not open access.
- JORS. Our paper is too long. (I like the journal and we could consider negociating this length issue, no?).
- Nat. Commun. (did not work for JOSS). Our topic seems a bit "frontier" for this journal.
Now, the fees:
- F1000: $1000
- PeerJ CS: $895
- Plos ONE: $1,495 (for info, plos comp biol is $2,250)
F1000 and PeerJ CS are close, so what about editorial policies?
- Choice of reviewers for F1000 not obvious but open peer review!
- Optional (thus possible) open peer review, see https://peerj.com/about/policies-and-procedures/cs#open-peer-review
And I just realized Nature Comm. charges €3,700 !!!
Hi all, jumping in here thanks to @pdebuyl's link on Twitter. Just FYI, we (the JOSS editors) originally submitted to PeerJ CS, but they rejected our submission as not being a "research article", the only type of article they publish.
I would be happy to try to introduce this to PNAS via editorial inquiry. We originally tried to put the best practices paper there but they declined; that was several years ago and they might consider this. We could get some NAS members to say "this is important, please consider" as well. Let me know.
I am happy to cover some or all of the pub costs.
(wherever it goes, as long as it's open access.)
Whatever the journal we choose, we'll (soon) have a version on arxiv. As for the cost, we can try to share if the journal accepts to split the invoice (but I'm not too confident) and else it might be difficult to share the cost.
@ctb If you're ok to make an editorial inquiry to PNAS, please do so. Even if they say ok, it does not mean we'll submit to them. I will add the entry below to see who is ok for PNAS.
- Open access
- Open reviewing
- Low cost?
- Read by all?
@ctb out of curiosity (and selfish interest for JOSS), how would getting NAS members help? Add their names to a letter, or have them ping the editor(s)?
note that PNAS can be made open access by paying for it. shrug
@kyleniemeyer PNAS is the Proceedings of NAS, so having active and influential NAS members weigh in (esp if they are on the ed board) on publishing an opinion piece seems like a good idea. But I don't want to expend their time if we are not going to look there.
Happy to try to arrange the same for JOSS if you like. At the very least it may help convince people over the long term ;)
Hybrid models are the worst.
@ctb 👍 👍 !! A few of us were following this conversation, and our now looking at PNAS as a possible venue—@labarba pointed out that NAS has had some activities related to reproducibility in recent years, and both ReScience and JOSS (though less directly) might be of interest because of that.
We also brainstormed the idea of perhaps a shorter joint paper between JOSS + ReScience, at somewhere like PNAS or another "big" venue, to discuss these novel & innovative publishing models—perhaps to follow the actual individual articles and reference them. (Consider yourselves reached out to about this 😄)
@rougier The only journal on the list above that both fits and is free of any stain is PeerJ ;). And maybe JORS.
@kyleniemeyer I work(ed) with/published with/know several NAS members across fields who I think are sympathetic (J. Tiedje, R. Lenski, S. Koonin, P. Sternberg most proximally) and would be happy to pitch something to them and/or introduce. Please let me know how I can help (but suggest taking this to e-mail since it's now a bit OT for this issue :) :)
@ctb We certainly agreed on PeerJ for the same reasons, but as I mentioned above, the JOSS article (https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.02264) was rejected from PeerJ as being out of scope—not a "research article". If the ReScience article has a different experience, I would be very interested to hear about it..............
Yeah, I'll follow up via email. Sorry to hijack this thread...
@ctb F1000 is only APC, no ?
@kyleniemeyer Pleas add me in the discussion, I would be interested in a shorter joint paper for new publishing models (as a matter of fact, I'm participating next week in a workshop on new publishing models)
Yep, I was only thinking about publication model.
So, staying in focus, we are down to PeerJ vs JORS?
@kyleniemeyer am also interested (exp with ReScience + open github proceedings for euroscipy)
@pdebuyl I think we still have F1000, PeerJ, PNAS, Nature Comm., JORS, Plos ONE. I'll open a new issue to let people up or down vote and then we'll see.
@ctb It seems we have a large consensus for PNAS. What is the next step?
I checked the submission guidelines for PNAS. Some findings:
-
We are over the page limit of 6 pages for a regular article, but below the limit of 10 pages for a "PNAS Plus" article (online publication only, with only the "significance statement" in the print edition). I guess PNAS Plus is OK for us.
-
Page charges are $2300 for a PNAS Plus article, plus $1450 if we want Open Access. We need to find some money.
-
We must provide a 120 word (max.) "significance statement" (I volunteer to do that).
-
We need to define a major category (Physical, Social, or Biological Sciences) plus a minor category. The major category would have to be Social Sciences, but none of the minor ones really fit: Anthropology; Economic Sciences; Environmental Sciences; Political Sciences; Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; Social Sciences; and Sustainability Science.
I personally cannot pay for Open Access at PNAS (hybrid models are forbidden at my lab), but anyway, do we need Open Access if we upload an updated version on arXiv?
@ctb Any progress? Do you need some help on anything?
@ctb gentle reminder
@ctb 🔔
Last night I touched base with Rich Lenski, who is on the editorial board of PNAS. Entertainingly @tracykteal was at the same dinner, and wanted to talk to him about the same thing, but for the JOSS paper...
For some background: this paper would not fit into a regular PNAS paper type (since it's not research), but they do occasionally publish policy or op-ed-type papers. Hence the thought here to get a few members of the NAS involved in suggesting that PNAS take a look.
Rich was not against the idea and I think we should send it to him directly for his opinion.
Before we send anything official, we need to do is draft a cover letter explaining the context for the paper. We also need to decide if we're going to go in with JOSS and try to do a simultaneous submission.
The cover letter should say --
- what motivated us to start rescience (problems with reproducibility);
- how we believe rescience addresses those problems (summarized from paper);
- why we think PNAS is a good venue (broadly interdisciplinary);
and whatever else I'm missing.
I could do a first draft on Wed evening EST if people want, or do a round of review/revision if someone gets there first.
For the first item, here is the reference: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fncom.2015.00030/full
This short article lead to a lot of comments (see the bottom of the page) acknowledging the situation without any actual proposition. This is also where Konrad commented the problem from his own perspective and experience and following this publication, we decided to create the journal.
For the third item, I think we may advovcate that we need a broad audience that cover the whole Science because code is now to be found everywhere while it is still considered as a second class citizen (compared to data for example). Supplying code as a zip archive in the supplementary material is not an option anymore.
As for the article with JOSS, I think we may need to write a new article emphasizing the importance of code and best practices (test, documentation, history, etc) based on our respective experience with JOSS and ReScience (and the upcoming JOSE). This might be redundant with a lot of "best practices" article with the major difference that we're actually enforcing them.
Thanks @ctb. I'm following up with the JOSS editors about this idea. We might submit them independently, but just let Lenski know they're both coming.
@rougier I can find some time but I am not sure we have actually decided what to do concerning JOSS. Separate publications, but submitted at the same time so PNAS could make a thematic feature out of this? A joint article, which basically means starting from scratch? Or something in between?
If we stick to the original plan of submitting our current paper, I can prepare a draft for the cover letter.
From what I've understood, I think the idea is to go separate and we'll submit our article to PNAS.
Two separate papers is my understanding from the JOSS perspective as well. The cover letters likely would want to reference that we're both submitting though. @kyleniemeyer could we update the JOSS cover letter? I think then @ctb and I could coordinate on getting the papers in to Rich Lenski.
@tracykteal OK, it seems we agree on that approach!
I have written a first draft for a cover letter. Please comment on #48!