The world-wide web has made journals obsolete: it's better to put papers on a freely available archive and then let boards of top scholars referee them. But how do we get to this system? In math and physics we have the arXiv, but nobody referees those papers. In biology and medicine, a board called the Faculty of 1000 chooses and evaluates the best papers, but there's no archive - they get those papers from traditional journals. Whoops - never mind! Now the Faculty of 1000 has started an archive!
An arXiv for all of science? F1000 launches new immediate publication journal
Late last year, we published an invited commentary in Nature calling for science to more formally embrace post-publication peer review, and stop fetishizing the published paper. One of the models w......
48 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 31 previous comments
- - Those EPTCS slides outline it out well (and I will watch the video). It will be interesting to see if other fields (I just took Differential Geometry as an example -- pick any field of interest now covered by arXiv) follow this and there is an EPDG along with EPTCS, etc., "a peer-reviewed proceedings series implemented as an arXiv overlay".
EPTCS covers Proceedings in TCS, but is there an EJTCS that covers Journals in TCS that follows the same protocol? No reason why there can't be. And then EJDG (Electronic Journals in Digital Geometry, ... . As in the case of EPTCS, it makes sense for scientists in their own fields create and manage the respective sites.
(Then all could be is a site (maybe just a blog or wiki) that points to "peer-reviewed proceedings series implemented as an arXiv overlay" -- e.g. EPTCS would be its first entry -- and "peer-reviewed journals series implemented as an arXiv overlay".)Feb 10, 2012
- This raises a somewhat philosophical question: What is the difference between a virtual conference which results in proceedings, and a journal? (The conference may be virtual in the sense people don't have to physically go to some city.) Both proceedings (of a conference) and journals are publications of articles, but why is one type "valued" more than another? Maybe it isn't. (The proceedings of a conference held once a month instead of once a year would be like a journal in the sense of periodicity.)Feb 10, 2012
- - in computer science, getting papers accepted by the big conferences is a highly competitive affair that's taken very seriously, so papers in these good conference proceedings count more than journal articles when it comes to tenure and promotion. In math, they count a lot less. In short, it's all a matter of custom.Feb 10, 2012
- I agree that there is no clear boundary between journals and proceedings. Not sure exactly where the different value sets come from. In some fields, it may just be the Impact Factor again, in others perhaps the rejection rates, periodicity or some such.
On using wikis, see also http://species-id.net/wiki/Wikis_in_scholarly_publishing and http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2012/Contents/Open_Access_report#Topic_Pages_at_PLoS_Computational_Biology .Feb 10, 2012
- Rob van Glabbeek, the Editor-in-Chief of EPTCS, just sent me the following comments:
Yes, there is nothing stopping any group from doing what EPTCS has
done in their own subject area. I'd be happy to lend some advice to
anyone setting such a thing up.
"What EPTCS can tell is how much resources are needed (in terms of
dollars and people) to maintain the site(s)."
* Editor-in-chief 1 hr/week (done freely by me)
* Webmaster 3 hr/week (done freely by me, but could be $75/hr)
* Copy-editor 1 hr/week $20/hr = 10min/paper $3.35/paper
* Correspondence 10 min/week (done freely by departmental secretary)
* DOIs $275/year = $1/paper
* Domain name $10/year
* Computer support $0 (all operations fit in less than 1%
of my personal academic use;
computers are maintained by university.)
Note: sometimes months go by without the webmaster doing anything;
the figure about represents burst of work aimed at creating or
improving a fully automatic workflow. If we stopped further improvement
now, only doing maintenance, the time of the webmaster might be only
We publish about 300/papers a year. So this comes to $5.35/paper cash
plus up to $37.50/paper for my time as webmaster.
(Note of comparison: both closed and open access publishers claim to
spend about $1000/paper. If I tell them I can do it for less, they
tell me I'd deluding myself, by not counting my own time, and that of
volunteers. Yet, 300 papers times $1000 would be quite a bit more than
some time we forgot to count ...)
I agree it's easy to post to the arXiv. But EPTCS users submit
directly to EPTCS. Our software modifies the paper (page numbers and
footer) and automatically inserts the paper in the arXiv.
(Editor-in-chief of EPTCS)
P.S. EPTCS does not use a post-publication review model such as
advocated for arXiv-review.org or the new F1000 journal.
Instead, all papers are refereed by the conference whose proceedings
we publish, and upon publication we archive the final version of the
paper at arXiv.org, and prevent further modifications of the same
paper. In the opinion of the founders of EPTCS, once a paper is
officially published, it shouldn't be changed any more. When other
papers improve the work of the given paper, the reference should not
be to a moving target, or the relations between the papers stops
making sense, and no definitive statement of what is and is not said
in a paper can ever be made.Feb 10, 2012
- Thanks a million,(and Rob van Glabbeek)!Feb 10, 2012