From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:38:16 -0500

On 2012-12-16, at 4:07 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>From: Dan Scott <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:11:53 +0000
>
>A correction: as the press release and our editorial policy
>make clear, we carry out a full peer review. We also have over 100
>registered referees.

The editors of SSD appear to be a former Emerald publisher
(http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dan-scott/10/b31/903) and a special
collections librarian
(http://guides.lib.fsu.edu/profile.php?uid=12572), not researchers.

The only issue the journal has so far published has 5 papers published
by the former publisher, which mainly appear to be marketing
literature for the journal itself, and a short number of journals
published by the journal's editorial board. Only two papers appear to
be from outside the small group that run the journal.

Submissions and peer-reviewers are recruited as follows:
http://www.socialsciencesdirectory.com/index.php/socscidir/article/view/32/69

"Please support us in our efforts. We need submissions and we need
volunteers to review them in their areas of expertise. Both can be
done by registering with Social Sciences Directory as a User."

University of Nottingham policy-makers are encouraged to read more
about SSD: http://www.socialsciencesdirectory.com/index.php/socscidir/index

and then to ask themselves:

(1) Is this what U. Nottingham means by peer review?

(2) Is this how U. Nottingham would assess whether there is a niche or
need for a new peer-reviewed journal?

(3) Is this how U. Nottingham would have assessed journal quality in
deciding whether to subscribe to it?

(4) Does U. Nottingham consider that journals should be selected (by
authors, subscribers, or "members") on the basis of their economic
model rather than their quality?


Stevan Harnad


>From: Roddy Macleod <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:33:25 +0000
>
>To be fair, is there any evidence that this is freeing submitted
>research from peer review?  The announcement states "...whilst
>maintaining editorial quality controls. All research papers will
>undergo peer review..."
>
>Roddy MacLeod


On 14 Dec 2012, at 01:11, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:23:13 -0500

Here is the kind of "membership" deal Nottingham has just signed:

"All you can publish" for a year, from a no-track-record journal with
Mr William Martin Modrow and Mr Dan Scott as its editors and a team of
web-recruited volunteers.

For years I and others had been repeating: "The purpose of OA is to
free peer-reviewed research from access-tolls, not to free research
from peer review."

Finch's folly looks like it's instead steering (some) UK institutions
toward the latter.

Lay back, consider social science research, and think of England...

Stevan Harnad