From: Roddy Macleod <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:56:25 +0000

This discussion seems well over the top.

Editors with publishing and library experience, available to do the
background work, and backed up with scholarly reviewers - sounds OK to
me.  The SSD website looks well organised (and a lot better and easier
to use than some I've seen).  And, for goodness sakes - it's a
startup!

Something more relevant to warn against? How about all the 'predatory
journals' http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ and the 'Criminal
Impersonation' of faked postings

http://lisnews.org/listed_predatory_publishers_fight_back_with_criminal_impersonation

Or the rubbish stuff from some established journal publishers:

http://roddymacleod.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/rubbish-stuff-from-publishers-6/
http://roddymacleod.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/journal-publishers-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-i-name-names/

Roddy MacLeod

On 18 December 2012 00:08, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:49:22 -0600
>
> Is there a list of these 100 registered reviewers publicly posted
> anywhere?  And why are reviewers "registered" anyway? Normally, a
> journal goes to find the best reviewer anywhere, not just limit the
> selection to a predetermined list.  For a journal that claims to cover
> all of the social sciences, 100 would seem to be a severely inadequate
> number to draw upon.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
> > From: Dan Scott <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:11:53 +0000
> >
> > Stevan:  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.
> >
> > Dan Scott