Opening science: The rebirth of a scholarly journal | Quantitative Science Studies

flavoursofopenscience's bookmarks 2020-02-21

Summary:

[...] The ultimate responsibility for a scholarly journal should fall with the scientific community, who serve as the gatekeepers, producers, and consumers of scientific content. While JOI prospered under Elsevier’s ownership, our community had only limited autonomy in managing the journal and deciding about its future direction. Editors were appointed by Elsevier, not by the community, and we increasingly experienced Elsevier’s desire to impose one-size-fits-all solutions on its journals. For example, Elsevier mandated the use of their own manuscript submission system, which performed much worse than comparable systems and created additional burdens for authors, reviewers, and the editorial board. Science is a self-governing system; to function robustly, the scientific community must be given license to select and evaluate gatekeepers and to minimize burden on those engaging in service.

Therefore, in a manner similar to the flip of the Elsevier journal Lingua into Glossa (Rooryck, 2016)—as well as other journals whose flips have been less publicized1—we decided that these issues were important enough to terminate our relationship with Elsevier. Together with the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), the editorial board worked to find a new home for our journal. We approached several publishers and publishing platforms, and MIT Press provided us with attractive conditions under which we believe the journal will thrive.

[...]

Link:

https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_e_00025

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » flavoursofopenscience's bookmarks

Tags:

oa.new oa.publishing oa.elsevier oa.mit_press oa.case oa.case.journals oa.gold oa.journals

Date tagged:

02/21/2020, 04:29

Date published:

02/20/2020, 23:29