[TOS] Peer-Reviewed Open Source Journal

[Ross Gardler]

I forgot reply to-all and sent this to Greg only:

2009/3/12 Greg Dekoenigsberg <gdk at redhat.com>:
>
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> 2009/3/11 Leslie Hawthorn <mebelh at gmail.com>:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Since our goal is to create a bridge between FOSS and academia, it makes
>>> better sense to me to have an editorial board composed of folks who have
>>> already bridged it professionally.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> This is very important, there are very few people who have the respect
>> of both sectors. For any kind of peer reviewed journal to become
>> important it must be accepted by both sectors. This means we need to
>> use those who are already in that space and are not risking anything
>> in their career by spending time on such work.
>>
>> There are not too many of these folk about, but there are enough.
>
> So does this mean:
>
> 1. Starting a new journal?
>
> 2. Trying to influence a particular journal?
>
> 3. Trying to influence lots of journals?
>
> 4. All of the above?

Option 1. "starting a new journal" is extremely hard and will take a
long time to gain any real acceptance. However, it is the option that
offers the least barriers in terms of existing process. So, for
example, we could indicate that we expect to be able to view code
development work in an appropriate environment (existing open source
project or public code repository). This option needs to be
accompanied by a conference or two.

Option 2. "trying to influence a particular journal" may be an option.
The question is whether there is an existing journal that is "open"
friendly and flexible enough in its processes for us to change the way
work is evaluated.

Option 1.5 would be to work with a new, as yet unestablished journal
(such as http://osbr.ca previously linked in this thread and
previously unknown to me)

We can probably forget option 3 "influence lots of journals". The existing
journals are already scared of "open" as the "open content" and "open
access" models are shaking up their existing business models. They
also have clearly defined and rigid evaluation procedures. They can't
change those without upsetting the whole process.

Option 4 "all of the above" is always something I prefer to avoid. I
think it is better for us to set an achievable medium term target
(option 1 or 1.5 would be my vote) and a lofty long term goal (use our
medium term goal to influence lots of journals, i.e. option 3).

Having said all that, it depends what resources come to the table. If
the editor of a major journal arrives here tomorrow and says they want
to help us solve this problem I'd immediately go for option 2.

Ross