Journal contacts

[betatim]

What should we ask from a journal if we make contact with them?

Move this thread of discussion here from #18

[ctb]

We can get "acknowledgement of interest" from GigaScience and/or PeerJ very quickly, I think. Nothing else would really be needed IMO.

[ctb]

Oh, and F1000Research.

[khinsen]

I am on the editorial board of Computing in Science & Engineering. If you think any support from there would help, I can ask. I don't really know what kind of support would be useful, however.

[betatim]

I would ask them: could you imagine using this? Would you be interested in seeing a working demo of it? Similar to the "acknowledgement of interest"

[khinsen]

OK, I'll send a link to this document to the editorial board mailing list and ask for comments.

[betatim]

👍

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:36 PM Konrad Hinsen [email protected]
wrote:

OK, I'll send a link to this document to the editorial board mailing list
and ask for comments.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/betatim/openscienceprize/issues/22#issuecomment-188370517
.

[cranmer]

Not sure what the attitudes are here about:
http://cogentoa.tandfonline.com

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/softwarex/

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/computer-physics-communications/

but I have connections with their editors. The first two are still in the formative stages.

[betatim]

I would point them to pitch.md and ask if they would be interested in seeing a live demo of this happen and if we can write in the proposal that we have an "acknowledgement of interest" from them.

[betatim]

I don't know either of these journals

[cranmer]

the first two are new, but aiming at open access. The second two are specifically looking at software (the first being new and open access, the second being ancient).

But all three are part of big publishing houses (Taylor and Francis, Elsevier)

[khinsen]

I'd say we should be as agnostic about journals as about repository hosting (see #27). On the other hand, we should be clear about going for openness.

Another community we should connect with is Force11. Some publishers, including Elsevier, are represented there as well. I have a few contacts there, but perhaps others here as well.

[betatim]

Right now we are collecting interest from journals to big up the proposal. I think the people who have the contacts should decide if the journal is generally supportive of open science, open access, modern review techniques. I think it would look odd to have a journal known for its paywalls saying "yeah we like this idea" 😄

The journal aren't committing to using the solution, nor are we committing to delivering it to them.

[khinsen]

Authorea is also working along these lines (integrating data and code into publications). I just saw the announcement of a seminar by one of its founders, whose abstract sounded strangely familiar.

[rougier]

@khinsen @ctb No need to say Rescience (rescience.github.io) coud greatly benefit from such effort.

[ctb]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:39:19AM -0800, Konrad Hinsen wrote:

Authorea is also working along these lines (integrating data and code into publications). I just saw the announcement of a seminar by one of its founders, whose abstract sounded strangely familiar.

Oh, that's a good idea! I don't know anyone in particular there, though.

[betatim]

I found this: https://www.authorea.com/users/23/articles/8762 where the authors discuss the paper of the future.

[khinsen]

Welcome @rougier! Yes, ReScience is an obvious client. But I don't think our support of the project matters much to potential funders. I hope that will change!

@ctb @betatim I will meet @apepe next week in Paris at his seminar. Too late for the proposal though.

[cranmer]

I’m friends with Alberto Pepe. Do we have any specific requests? Letter of support / commitment / collaboration?

On Feb 25, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Tim Head [email protected] wrote:

I found this: https://www.authorea.com/users/23/articles/8762 https://www.authorea.com/users/23/articles/8762 where the authors discuss the paper of the future.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/betatim/openscienceprize/issues/22#issuecomment-188821959.

[betatim]

@ctb penned this:

Would you be interested in this kind of thing? We're not signing you up for anything beyond saying "sure, that could be cool" but it'd be nice to show that there are some publishers interested in this kind of thing.

Which to me means that if they say yes we can list their name in the proposal as "these guys like the idea and support it".

[betatim]

Together with pointing them to the pitch.md in the repo.

[betatim]

The following are in:

• Giga Laurie Goodman
• F1000 Michael Markie
• PLOS Computational Biology (waiting)
• CERN open data portal (Sunje Dallmeier-Tiessen)
• Research Ideas and outcomes Lyubomir Penev
• ReScience Konrad Hinsen and Nicolas P. Rougier
• CalTech library Gail Clement
• ...your journal/org here...

[khinsen]

Some CiSE board members promised to look at this. Not sure there will be any good feedback before the deadline.

[betatim]

Nice. Let me know if they get back to you and I will update the list above. I contacted someone from http://opendata.cern.ch waiting for their reply.

[rougier]

I've asked PLOS Computational Biology, waiting for an answer.

[lyubomirpenev]

Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO) Journal is definitely interested to participate too. Contact name: Lyubomir Penev

[betatim]

🎊

[khinsen]

It can't hurt to add ReScience as well, even if it's not yet a glamour journal ;-)

Disclaimer: for those who don't know ReScience, the editors-in-chief are @rougier and myself, and @ctb is on the board as well.

[ctb]

This may also be relevant:

Geoscience paper of the future: http://www.ontosoft.org/gpf/node/1

[betatim]

@khinsen do you know someone at rescience/contacted them?

[rougier]

@betatim Konrad and me are chief-editors for ReScience... And we're very interested of course.

[betatim]

You don't plaster your names across https://rescience.github.io enough ;)

[ctb]

I'm on the ed board at ReScience, too ;).

[betatim]

This is going to look like an inside job!

[ctb]

:)

[betatim]

Reopening as we are still accumulating contacts. Updated comment above to include Gail Clement.