Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] A proposal for evaluating and rewarding the impact of research articles

From: Etienne Joly <atn AT cict.fr>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 16:11:55 +0200


Threading:      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] A proposal for evaluating and rewarding the impact of research articles from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
             Re: [BOAI] A proposal for evaluating and rewarding the impact of research articles from krichel AT openlib.org


--Apple-Mail-16-539253727
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	format=flowed


As a strong suporter of the evolution of scientific publishing towards=20=

completely open access to all primary papers, I have spent quite some=20
time trying to think of a system that would be financially viable. For=20=

those of you who are interested, the result of these thoughts is=20
summarized below, and a more complete document can be found on the=20
"Open Access Now" web server ( =20
http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/  )


For the benefit of the scientific community, completely Open Access to=20=

all primary scientific articles is clearly the only way to go. But to=20
ensure the quality of the papers published, it is hard to conceive that=20=

scientific publishing could be carried out by others than money-earning=20=

professionals. The only viable solution is therefore for the publishing=20=

charges to be levied on the authors. This is in fact very much the=20
route followed by the pioneering enterprise launched as Bio Med=20
Central. On the whole, however, authors have very understandably been=20
reluctant to publish their first rate papers in such journals because=20
of negative perceptions and upfront charges for publication.

I believe, however, that it would be possible to set up a system=20
whereby papers would get evaluated for publication solely on their=20
scientific soundness, whilst the best papers would still get recognised=20=

and their authors rewarded for making important contributions. For=20
example I would envisage that the amount charged for the publication of=20=

their manuscript would be inversely related to the scientific impact of=20=

that paper. The ground basis of this proposal is that papers would be=20
rated retroactively, and this rating would provide the authors with a=20
quotable evaluation of their publications that could be used on their=20
CVs or their grant applications.

In this slightly idealistic scheme, the scientists' main concern would=20=

be to produce the best science they can, and to deliver it in the best=20=

and most complete format to fellow scientists, and not to seduce=20
editors and/or referees. Since acceptability would be based on=20
soundness, not on the evaluation of the interest of the results=20
described, the referee's role would be to help produce the best=20
possible articles. And because scientists would be the payers,=20
scientific publishers would have to compete with one another by=20
providing the best possible service at the best prices to the=20
scientific community.

If you want to read more on how I perceive such a system could work,=20
you can find out on the following link:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/forum/?letter=3D20030722ej


Cheerio

Etienne Joly


******************************************************
Etienne Joly                            |||||||
(pronounce A.T.N.)                       o   o
CPTP, U563 INSERM,                         |
B=E2timent CNRS,                            \./
CHU Purpan,31300 Toulouse
France
E-mail: atn <atn AT cict.fr>
Phone:(33) 561 15 84 04
Mobile :(33) 662 24 59 91
FAX:  (33) 561 49 90 36             life is a beach
******************************************************=

--Apple-Mail-16-539253727
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=ISO-8859-1

<fontfamily><param>Verdana</param><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

As a strong suporter of the evolution of scientific publishing towards
completely open access to all primary papers, I have spent quite some
time trying to think of a system that would be financially viable. For
those of you who are interested, the result of these thoughts is
summarized below, and a more complete document can be found on the
"Open Access Now" web server (=20
http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/  )</color>



For the benefit of the scientific community, completely Open Access to
all primary scientific articles is clearly the only way to go. But to
ensure the quality of the papers published, it is hard to conceive
that scientific publishing could be carried out by others than
money-earning professionals. The only viable solution is therefore for
the publishing charges to be levied on the authors. This is in fact
very much the route followed by the pioneering enterprise launched as
Bio Med Central. On the whole, however, authors have very
understandably been reluctant to publish their first rate papers in
such journals because of negative perceptions and upfront charges for
publication.=20


I believe, however, that it would be possible to set up a system
whereby papers would get evaluated for publication solely on their
scientific soundness, whilst the best papers would still get
recognised and their authors rewarded for making important
contributions. For example I would envisage that the amount charged
for the publication of their manuscript would be inversely related to
the scientific impact of that paper. The ground basis of this proposal
is that papers would be rated retroactively, and this rating would
provide the authors with a quotable evaluation of their publications
that could be used on their CVs or their grant applications.=20


In this slightly idealistic scheme, the scientists' main concern would
be to produce the best science they can, and to deliver it in the best
and most complete format to fellow scientists, and not to seduce
editors and/or referees. Since acceptability would be based on
soundness, not on the evaluation of the interest of the results
described, the referee's role would be to help produce the best
possible articles. And because scientists would be the payers,
scientific publishers would have to compete with one another by
providing the best possible service at the best prices to the
scientific community.=20


If you want to read more on how I perceive such a system could work,
you can find out on the following link:


http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/forum/?letter=3D20030722ej



Cheerio


Etienne Joly


</fontfamily>

<fixed><bigger>******************************************************

Etienne Joly                            |||||||

(pronounce A.T.N.)                       o   o

CPTP, U563 INSERM,                         |

B=E2timent CNRS,                            \./

CHU Purpan,31300 Toulouse

France

E-mail: atn <<atn AT cict.fr>

Phone:(33) 561 15 84 04

Mobile :(33) 662 24 59 91

FAX:  (33) 561 49 90 36             life is a beach

******************************************************</bigger></fixed>=

--Apple-Mail-16-539253727--


[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .