LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  May 2013

CODE4LIB May 2013

Subject:

Re: FW: reviewing/ranking journals

From:

Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 22 May 2013 13:47:29 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (49 lines)

I like the concept, but my gut reaction is that the best way to address
this issue is for authors to know where they're publishing and communicate
with editors.

It's essential for authors to make sure a submission is appropriate and ask
for timelines, feedback, or anything else that might be appropriate. It's
also not a bad idea to talk to colleagues about what you're thinking of
doing. This gives far more accurate expectations than ratings by a small
number of unknown individuals who may have been working with a different
editorial board.

For example, the woman who had the bad experience simply sent in an
article. She didn't check with the editor to make sure the topic was what
they're looking for. She probably didn't adapt it to the style or
objectives. She waited 6 full months after hearing nothing before even
sending a ping. Upon receiving no response, she waited another couple
months before bugging them.

Had she done simply checked with the editor to see if her topic was
appropriate, they probably would have either said no or told her what she'd
need to do to make it appropriate. Had she asked about timelines or
anything up front, she would have known when to expect a response and when
to follow up. Her situation bad, but it was entirely avoidable.

I'm not suggesting that ratings are a bad idea, but I wouldn't want to
encourage anyone to use them as a substitute for proper communication.

kyle


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:37 PM, David Lowe <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> C4L folk-
> To be comprehensive, the project this guy suggests would be a big
> undertaking, but I'm thinking about running the idea past some possible
> library-land funders and getting back to him:
>
> http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2013/05/17/its-time-for-journals-to-be-author-reviewed/?cid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en
>
> Funding aside, anyone interested in the concept?  Happy to hear your
> thoughts, online or off.
>
> Just have this wild notion that, if done right, we could connect regular
> (annual?) qualitative metrics from such a portal and other sources to
> metrics for content in our repository and become a depended-upon component
> of the measuring infrastructure related to tenure, promotion, and the
> like--in addition to the preservation/archival role we serve.
> --DBL
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager