search

ReScience / ReScience-article-2

Repository for the upcoming ReScience article
6 stars 14 forks source link

Where to publish? #6

Open rougier opened 7 years ago

rougier commented 7 years ago

(From https://github.com/ReScience/ReScience-article/issues/3)

Wish list:

  1. Open access
  2. Open reviewing
  3. Low cost
  4. Read by computational scientists from all fields
  5. Other criterion?

Is there any journal that satisfies all criteria?

rougier commented 7 years ago
rougier commented 7 years ago
rougier commented 7 years ago
rougier commented 7 years ago
rougier commented 7 years ago
pdebuyl commented 7 years ago

@eroesch suggests

pdebuyl commented 7 years ago

Do journal allow pooling of publication fees by sending several partial invoices?

ThomasA commented 7 years ago
labarba commented 7 years ago

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.

pdebuyl commented 7 years ago

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!

pdebuyl commented 7 years ago

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?

khinsen commented 7 years ago

@pdebuyl I think F1000 is an excellent fit for our topic. Potential problems:

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.

pdebuyl commented 7 years ago

@ctb @karthik I see that you published "Issues in Research Software" papers in JORS. Any feedback for the paper here?

pdebuyl commented 7 years ago

Oops, for JORS issues in research software papers: "Articles should not exceed 3-4000 words"

rougier commented 7 years ago

Nature Communications (following @pdebuyl inquiry about JOSS paper on twitter)

pdebuyl commented 7 years ago

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:

Now, the fees:

F1000 and PeerJ CS are close, so what about editorial policies?

rougier commented 7 years ago

And I just realized Nature Comm. charges €3,700 !!!

kyleniemeyer commented 7 years ago

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.

ctb commented 7 years ago

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.

ctb commented 7 years ago

I am happy to cover some or all of the pub costs.

ctb commented 7 years ago

(wherever it goes, as long as it's open access.)

rougier commented 7 years ago

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.

rougier commented 7 years ago

PNAS

ctb commented 7 years ago

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 07:42:12AM -0700, Nicolas P. Rougier wrote:

@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.

I would prefer to wait until we see if that's a consensus; an editorial inquiry would involve rounding up some Names and drafting a reasonably serious letter.

kyleniemeyer commented 7 years ago

@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)?

ctb commented 7 years ago

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.

ctb commented 7 years ago

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 ;)

rougier commented 7 years ago

Hybrid models are the worst.

kyleniemeyer commented 7 years ago

@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 😄)

ctb commented 7 years ago

@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 :) :)

kyleniemeyer commented 7 years ago

@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...

rougier commented 7 years ago

@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)

ctb commented 7 years ago

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:46:54PM +0000, Nicolas P. Rougier wrote:

@ctb F1000 is only APC, no ?

"without stain" is broader than "charge a heckuva lot" -- e.g.

http://blog.dhimmel.com/irreproducible-timestamps/

and their behavior with respect to online doxxing, mentioned here:

ivory.idyll.org/blog/2015-authorship-on-software-papers.html

rougier commented 7 years ago

Yep, I was only thinking about publication model.

pdebuyl commented 7 years ago

So, staying in focus, we are down to PeerJ vs JORS?

@kyleniemeyer am also interested (exp with ReScience + open github proceedings for euroscipy)

rougier commented 7 years ago

@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.

rougier commented 7 years ago

@ctb From the current state of the poll (#45), it seems we may reach a consensus on PNAS (but 10 days left). If you want to start working on that, let me know.

rougier commented 7 years ago

@ctb It seems we have a large consensus for PNAS. What is the next step?

khinsen commented 7 years ago

I checked the submission guidelines for PNAS. Some findings:

ctb commented 7 years ago

I have to look into one or two things. I'll get back to ya within a day or two.

rougier commented 7 years ago

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?

rougier commented 7 years ago

@ctb Any progress? Do you need some help on anything?

rougier commented 7 years ago

@ctb gentle reminder

rougier commented 7 years ago

@ctb 🔔

ctb commented 7 years ago

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 --

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.

cc @kyleniemeyer @labarba

rougier commented 7 years ago

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.

tracykteal commented 7 years ago

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 commented 7 years ago

@ctb Any progress? No prob if you don't have time right now. I may have some time by next week to start something. Or @khinsen, would you have some time before the rush of September?

khinsen commented 7 years ago

@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.

rougier commented 7 years ago

From what I've understood, I think the idea is to go separate and we'll submit our article to PNAS.