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