Evaluation of outlets

[kevinykuo]

This proposed task would evaluate the actuarial and insurance journals and make recommendations as to where to send papers. Things to consider may include

• Rankings by tenure committees, as we want to encourage early career researchers to collaborate,
• Open access,
• Turnaround time,
• Biases toward theoretical vs. empirical studies, and
• Reach.

The deliverable should be a document that will live in this repo, and will inform researchers in making tradeoffs. E.g. anecdotally, Variance is read by more practitioners in the US but has a huge backlog of accepted but not yet published papers; MDPI's Risks is open access and has faster turnaround but has less prestige than IME which may take months for each review round, etc.

Looking for someone to take the lead on this.

[kevinykuo]

Relevant: https://www.scienceeurope.org/making-open-access-a-reality-by-2020/

[kevinykuo]

More recent news related to Elsevier https://www.chronicle.com/article/In-Talks-With-Elsevier-UCLA/245311

UC ended up dropping Elsevier https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/open-access-at-uc/publisher-negotiations/uc-and-elsevier/.

The only audience that the outlet prestige affects is really the grad students and new faculty. So let's wait to get their insights, but for everyone else Risks is probably a reasonable default.