From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 14:00:25 +0100

Re: 'the criteria that actually matter to authors', see 'Author perceptions
of journal quality' by John Regazzi and Selenay Aytac, Learned Publishing
21:225-35, 2008 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/095315108X288938)

Sally

Sally Morris
Email:  [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:47:15 +0000

In light of this conversation about criticism of various publishing
practices and what should count as evidence, I wonder how list members feel
about the suggestion made in this blog post that a forum should be created
for academic authors to recount both their positive and negative experiences
with specific journals:

http://bit.ly/YP9X3y

It seems to me that this idea offers several advantages.  It would provide a
broader perspective than any blog written by a single person, it would focus
on the criteria that actually matter to authors, and it would offer an
opportunity to both condemn or praise the practices of specific publishers.
It would offer the rest of us the opportunity to really learn which
publishers are "extracting money from the system of scholarly communications
while providing no significant service in return" from the point of view of
those who expect to benefit from those services.

Kevin

Kevin L. Smith, M.L.S., J.D.
Director, Copyright and Scholarly Communication Duke University Libraries
Durham, NC  27708 [log in to unmask]