Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to Math2.0
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorMark C. Wilson
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2012

    Some people are thinking about it: http://www.surf.nl/en/bijeenkomsten/Pages/ColloquiumonQualityindicatorsforyoung(OA)journals.aspx

    Of course I would like to see ways to measure quality of established journals, because in my experience there seems to be little consensus on them among researchers. But at least there were some efforts such as the Australian ERA 2010 rankings, eigenfactor.org, etc.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMark C. Wilson
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2012
    • (edited Nov 29th 2012)

    There is an article in Science about this - it seems a bit disappointing, but work continues. Perhaps the whole idea of journals is out of date, and we really just need article quality metrics. But I guess that we will still have review boards, curated virtual journals, expert blogs, etc, and it will be important to make blanket judgments about these in order to allocate our attention.

    Note that the article is not open access. It is only 1 page. It seems the best predictor of journal quality so far found is the transparency of its review processes. So-called “top” journals should take note of this!

    Initial excerpt of article:

    SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING As Open Access Explodes, How to Tell the Good From the Bad and the Ugly? Martin Enserink Picking the right journal has always been difficult, but the plethora of new open access journals—and the increasing pressure from funders to publish in them—has made the choice even more daunting. At a meeting last month, representatives from science funding agencies, publishers, librarians, and journal editors discussed two proposed yardsticks for quality. But the meeting, organized by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research and SURF, a partnership that provides information and communication technology to Dutch universities, failed to come up with clear answers.