search

corinalogan / CuttingEdgeOAjournal

This was a plan until Peer Community In came along. Now this repo is an archive of a conversation and resources for a 100% OA overlay journal on general science (or broader) that only publishes reproducible manuscripts with open, editorial-managed post-publication peer review, CC-BY, selects based on validity (not subjective impact), no APCs, and keeps up with modern publishing by incorporating new open practices as they're invented. Owned/run by NGO and/or the researchers themselves.
1 stars 0 forks source link

Journal name and scope #4

Open corinalogan opened 7 years ago

corinalogan commented 7 years ago

Is it a general science journal? Or broader? (I love inclusivity!) Is too broad going to be too overwhelming in terms of website management/hosting space?

chartgerink commented 7 years ago

I'd say, call it Reproducible science because that's what it aims to do and facilitate. We can start out by promoting for a specific field that is high in usage of the language(s) based on which the document type we're going to use (e.g., Rmd), but anyone should be able to participate, I'd guess. That way the reproducible manuscripts idea can also be carried across to other fields.

With respect to hosting and space, if we just host the outputs and not the data (because they'd be open hopefully) we'd be okay.

lgatto commented 7 years ago

There's already The ReScience Journal, whose motto is "Reproducible Science is good. Replicated Science is better." That would be very confusing.

@corinalogan - does that journal not already cover what is wanted, or a least the platform + repeatable aspect?

corinalogan commented 7 years ago

Whoa cool about the ReScience Journal - great find @lgatto! It looks like just what we are talking about except for 2 things.

1) it only reviews the reproducibility of the ms and not the content. In my field (animal behavior) journals like PeerJ that select based on scientific validity end up accepting only 50% of the submitted papers. There is a wide range of scientific quality (I also see this as a reviewer) and some papers aren't scientifically valid even though one might be able to replicate the results from a reproducible manuscript. So I would want an additional layer of editorial-managed peer review for the scientific content.

2) It is run off of GitHub, which is a privately owned company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub). I'm new to GitHub, but it seems like a pretty stable company that won't sell out to someone like Elsevier. But I guess there is always that possibility. What do you think?

Also it looks like the ReScience Journal's articles aren't indexed in Google Scholar, which would be important at least to people in biology because this is how most papers are found.

So we could have people submit papers to the ReScience Journal, which checks the reproducibility of the manuscript, and then set up our own GitHub space for the second phase for the manuscripts where the scientific content is peer reviewed. Here, maybe we set up several spaces depending on the field (like channels at F1000 or subjects at Royal Society Open Science). This might better accommodate different traditions in different fields because biologists will want the scientific content peer reviewed, but that might not be important in other fields.

lgatto commented 7 years ago

So we could have people submit papers to the ReScience Journal, which checks the reproducibility of the manuscript, and then set up our own GitHub space for the second phase for the manuscripts where the scientific content is peer reviewed.

I like the idea to have multiple layers, but we need to be mindful that once a paper was published somewhere, it can't be republished somewhere else. This layer model does point to an overlay type of journal.