Dear all,
With regards to this really excellent initiative I am looking in to the various
degrees in transparency of the peer review process. Has anybody examples at
hand of editorials, where they give an overview of number of articles
submitted, and ultimately accepted, and the time the whole
You could check out
http://openaccesspublishing.org/oa11/article.pdf
as well as
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157713000710
green version
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~sugimoto/preprints/Journalacceptancerates.pdf
Bo-Christer
On 12/21/13 5:43 PM, Gerritsma, Wouter wrot
<mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Bo-Christer Björk
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 9:27 AM
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Joint Statement on Princip
Wouter,
Scirev, though having been live for a only a few weeks now, already has
hundreds of crowdsourced journal reviews with information on peer review turn
around times: http://scirev.sc/
But it would be nice indeed if we had more comprehensive data on this.
Best,
Jeroen
Op 21 dec. 2013 o
3 18:27
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best
Practice in Scholarly Publishing
You could check out
http://openaccesspublishing.org/oa11/article.pdf
as well as
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157713000710
gre
18:27
*To:* goal@eprints.org
*Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency
and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
You could check out
http://openaccesspublishing.org/oa11/article.pdf
as well as
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157713000710
gre
library.caltech.edu <mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
*From:*goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
Behalf Of *Bo-Christer Björk
*Sent:* Saturday, December 21, 2013 9:27 AM
*To:* goal@eprints.org
*Subject:*
Dear Claire and other members of OASPA, COPE, DOAJ & WAME
Paper is patient. Journal will explain that they do peer review, double blind,
whatever you wish.
But I think you should award journals for their degree in transparency for the
peer review process.
http://wowter.net/2013/12/24/towards-fiv
Dear Wouter,
There is a lot to say in support of more tranparency. For any system to succeed
it will need wide adoption. So perhaps Elsevier and Thomson Reuters could join
forces here and decide on a commonly used system to be comprehensively
available in Scopus as well as WoS and preferably on
