4 ms·

Consider finding an academic niche in which to really make this product sing; a community that is receptive to the idea. If the PoC can be shown to work in one

by ISL 4y ago

Consider finding an academic niche in which to really make this product sing; a community that is receptive to the idea. If the PoC can be shown to work in one community, neighboring fields can then point at it and say, "see, this thing is working over in community X. Journal Y is going to take three months to get this reviewed, and this paper is kind of a throwaway -- let's try X and see how it goes." arXiv started in a narrow niche that absolutely needed it, perhaps the same will happen here. Long-term, I'm not sure how this system will pay for itself. Keep costs low and dig in for the long haul. Academia can have very low switching costs (a professor can try your service on a whim), but has enough inertia that it can take decades to turn the ship (deans need to know a prospective hire's impact factor in top-tier journals). Also, as a referee -- pay referees what their time is worth. For real. You'll get real good referees if you do.

Test0129 4y ago
The other side of it is reputation. Academic publishing to a questionable journal (even if it's a good journal) can be a black mark on your career. You not only have to get over the hump of at least break even profit but also convince tenured professors stuck in their ways that your journal will gain and keep a positive reputation. This task is insurmountable for the most part. At least with the current way academia works. Current journals have been around for decades, sometimes even reaching the 100 year mark. Back in the ye olde days it was easy for anyone to publish anything (even non-academics). These days these journals are so deeply entrenched in the minds of academics it would be like convincing 10% of fortune 500 companies to switch from excel to your new cool software. Even it's it better they won't because of this mental block.
- dbingham 4y ago
  Yeah, that may be. But it seems worth trying given all the negative impacts of the status quo.
  - Test0129 4y ago
    I'm not saying to _not_ try it. It's just going to be a dumpster-fire-money-pit that has an extremely high probability of either bankrupting you or producing nothing of significant value. This isn't a shot at OP. The best way to force change here isn't yet another journal, but rather fix the access issues of current journals, convince them it's a good idea to be less exclusive (ever noticed certain initials tend to be published more than others?), and moreover stop the university-journal death-bond that currently is in the market. Good luck at any rate.
- blep_ 4y ago
  Could the solution be "don't actually tie it to the journal"? Have the journal treat itself more as an implementation detail than as an end in itself; you didn't publish a paper in the Journal of Lasers, you just published a paper about lasers. This is still a mental shift for academics to get over, but I wonder if it's a more feasible one.
dbingham 4y ago
> Consider finding an academic niche in which to really make this product sing; a community that is receptive to the idea. If the PoC can be shown to work in one community, neighboring fields can then point at it and say, "see, this thing is working over in community X. Journal Y is going to take three months to get this reviewed, and this paper is kind of a throwaway -- let's try X and see how it goes." > arXiv started in a narrow niche that absolutely needed it, perhaps the same will happen here. That's very similar to my thinking - I'm actually hoping to start with the file drawer problem. When we're ready for open beta, put out a call for file drawered papers. It's also been suggested that we start as pre-print, while being clear about the ultimate intentions to become a journal, and go from there. Maybe even reach out to the existing pre-print servers to partner with them in some way. > Long-term, I'm not sure how this system will pay for itself. Keep costs low and dig in for the long haul. Academia can have very low switching costs (a professor can try your service on a whim), but has enough inertia that it can take decades to turn the ship (deans need to know a prospective hire's impact factor in top-tier journals). Noted. The thought is that it could be funded through donations, grants, and eventually by the institutions if it gains enough traction. But yeah, it's becoming clear that grants at the beginning may be the only way. We'll see how much we get in terms of donations once we hit open beta. > Also, as a referee -- pay referees what their time is worth. For real. You'll get real good referees if you do. ...well... the idea is actually to crowd source refereeing and review. And for people to do it because, well, it needs done. Everyone wants good reviews and everyone knows refereeing needs done, so we ask everyone to share the job equally and try to make it as easy and low friction as possible. The pre-publish review system is purely editorial review, aimed at helping authors prepare for publishing. The refereeing system is post-publish, it happens through the voting.

by ISL 4y ago

Test0129 4y ago

The other side of it is reputation. Academic publishing to a questionable journal (even if it's a good journal) can be a black mark on your career. You not only have to get over the hump of at least break even profit but also convince tenured professors stuck in their ways that your journal will gain and keep a positive reputation. This task is insurmountable for the most part. At least with the current way academia works. Current journals have been around for decades, sometimes even reaching the 100 year mark. Back in the ye olde days it was easy for anyone to publish anything (even non-academics). These days these journals are so deeply entrenched in the minds of academics it would be like convincing 10% of fortune 500 companies to switch from excel to your new cool software. Even it's it better they won't because of this mental block.

dbingham 4y ago
Yeah, that may be. But it seems worth trying given all the negative impacts of the status quo.
- Test0129 4y ago
  I'm not saying to _not_ try it. It's just going to be a dumpster-fire-money-pit that has an extremely high probability of either bankrupting you or producing nothing of significant value. This isn't a shot at OP. The best way to force change here isn't yet another journal, but rather fix the access issues of current journals, convince them it's a good idea to be less exclusive (ever noticed certain initials tend to be published more than others?), and moreover stop the university-journal death-bond that currently is in the market. Good luck at any rate.
blep_ 4y ago
Could the solution be "don't actually tie it to the journal"? Have the journal treat itself more as an implementation detail than as an end in itself; you didn't publish a paper in the Journal of Lasers, you just published a paper about lasers. This is still a mental shift for academics to get over, but I wonder if it's a more feasible one.

dbingham 4y ago

> Consider finding an academic niche in which to really make this product sing; a community that is receptive to the idea. If the PoC can be shown to work in one community, neighboring fields can then point at it and say, "see, this thing is working over in community X. Journal Y is going to take three months to get this reviewed, and this paper is kind of a throwaway -- let's try X and see how it goes." > arXiv started in a narrow niche that absolutely needed it, perhaps the same will happen here. That's very similar to my thinking - I'm actually hoping to start with the file drawer problem. When we're ready for open beta, put out a call for file drawered papers. It's also been suggested that we start as pre-print, while being clear about the ultimate intentions to become a journal, and go from there. Maybe even reach out to the existing pre-print servers to partner with them in some way. > Long-term, I'm not sure how this system will pay for itself. Keep costs low and dig in for the long haul. Academia can have very low switching costs (a professor can try your service on a whim), but has enough inertia that it can take decades to turn the ship (deans need to know a prospective hire's impact factor in top-tier journals). Noted. The thought is that it could be funded through donations, grants, and eventually by the institutions if it gains enough traction. But yeah, it's becoming clear that grants at the beginning may be the only way. We'll see how much we get in terms of donations once we hit open beta. > Also, as a referee -- pay referees what their time is worth. For real. You'll get real good referees if you do. ...well... the idea is actually to crowd source refereeing and review. And for people to do it because, well, it needs done. Everyone wants good reviews and everyone knows refereeing needs done, so we ask everyone to share the job equally and try to make it as easy and low friction as possible. The pre-publish review system is purely editorial review, aimed at helping authors prepare for publishing. The refereeing system is post-publish, it happens through the voting.