Peter,
How much infrastructure is necessary with the existing Open Source and
commercial systems for submitting journal articles? I have much less experience
than you, but in the little editing and writing and reviewing I have done, the
only truly time consuming part of peer review is the negotiation between the
editor and the author about just how much change is necessary, or the need to
repeat peer review on the adjusted manuscript. I do not see how anything the
publisher can do relieves the editor of this burden--indeed, it is what editors
are for, and why we do not simply automated the manuscript handling
systems.
How do assists shepherd peer review--I presume you mean they send reminders
about late reviews, but this is certain one of the functions that does not
require human intervention.
What mailing costs are there with online submission?
It is reasonable for a university to ask for reimbursement of office overhead when
the journal is either a for-profit journal, or a "non-profit" one that nonetheless earns
a good profit to be used for non-journal-related activities. If journals were truly
non-profit, and did not require services that became unnecessary years or decades ago,
universities would be more willing to subsidize the trivial remaining costs.
They already do for the very small journals, even if they do not yet provide the entire
cost of publication.
Publishers provide copy editing, and provide the interface with the commercial
service that hosts the journal. What else do they do besides limit access and
collect subscriptions?
David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
previously:
Bibliographer and Research Librarian
Princeton University Library
dgoodman_at_princeton.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Banks <pbanks_at_BANKSPUB.COM>
Date: Saturday, December 2, 2006 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Open Letter to Philip Campbell, Editor, Nature
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> ³As editor, I receive the submissions, I contact the reviewers, I
> send the
> submission to the reviewers, I bug the reviewers when they haven't
> sent the
> reviews in on time, I receive the reviews, I read the reviews, I
> file the
> reviews, I decide which paper goes into the journal on the basis of
> thereviews. The publisher has no hand whatever in the peer review
> process.²
> I think we are looking at a difference in disciplines. For biomedical
> journal of any size, the publisherıs responsibilities include
> creating and
> managing an online database of manuscripts and reviewers,
> supporting the
> salaries of assistants who shepherd peer review, paying rent and
> utilitiesfor the the journalıs university office, supporting and
> upgrading the
> systems for online peer review, paying for all mailing costs, etc.
>
> The publisher does not intrude in editorial decisions...but
> provides the
> infrastructure and personnel that enable peer review to happen at all.
>
> That being so, publishers are a key part of the research
> enterprise, and
> suggestions that they should be silent on matters of pertaining to
> IRs are
> inappropriate....and very counterproductive to those who want to
> IRs to take
> off.
>
>
> On 12/1/06 8:33 AM, "Christopher D. Green" <christo_at_YORKU.CA> wrote:
>
> > As editor, I receive the submissions, I contact the reviewers, I
> send the
> > submission to the reviewers, I bug the reviewers when they
> haven't sent the
> > reviews in on time, I receive the reviews, I read the reviews, I
> file the
> > reviews, I decide which paper goes into the journal on the basis
> of the
> > reviews. The publisher has no hand whatever in the peer review
> process.
>
> Peter Banks
> Banks Publishing
> Publications Consulting and Services
> 10332 Main Street #158
> Fairfax, VA 22030
> (703) 591-6544
> FAX (703) 383-0765
> pbanks_at_bankspub.com
> www.bankspub.com
> www.associationpublisher.com/blog/
>
>
>
>
Received on Sun Dec 03 2006 - 00:57:12 GMT