| Pages:
1
2
3 |
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6219
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Unmoved
Member Is Offline
Mood: Organised
|
|
Is this an attempt to solve a problem that does not actually exist?
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3022
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
I wouldn't publish my PhD work in this journal, but I have done a lot of work during master/bachelor thesis that will never be published anywhere.
This journal would be nice to give people the chance to publish otherwise unpublishable work. Also this journal would be free, compared to normal
journals which range from 1500 too 5000 euro to publish.
My personal bachelor/master work wouldn't be interesting for this journal as it was cellular biology stuff.
[Edited on 7-6-2018 by Tsjerk]
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4508
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
No, it wouldn't be: GoogleDocs has
terrible formatting and nowhere near as many options as MS word. It does not handle anything more complex than a simple essay very well at all. The
collaborative aspect is about the only thing it has going for it.
Also, please don't jump into the discussion just to plug your own project, I see what you're doing here...
|
|
|
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
Posts: 2692
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Big
|
|
^strongly agree. I recommend people check out TexStudio or another LaTeX editor. LaTeX is a bit daunting, but it makes the best-looking papers.
Quote: Originally posted by Texium (zts16)  | Ita vero! I actually took four years of Latin in high
school.
Not sure how I feel about that title. I like the tongue-in-cheek nature of it, but I think I'd prefer Acta Chemica Libera, which is equally
catchy and would be a more literal translation of Journal of Independent Chemistry.
Also LOL at your mention of Tetrahedron Letters |
I can get behind Acta Chemica Libera. I don't like a title that implies "amateur chemistry" for two reasons: first, it makes the journal look
subpar in a citation list, and second, it discourages submissions from people who work in a lab, and we already have some people in this thread saying
they would submit otherwise-unpublishable work from their master's program and such.
[Edited on 7-6-2018 by clearly_not_atara]
[Edited on 04-20-1969 by clearly_not_atara]
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3022
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
Until now I think this whole thing is a great idea. I think the only thing that could backfire on us would be any reason not to cite/submit to this
journal, for any type of submitter/citer. Of course people with money and resources to publish in renowned journals wont't publish here, but that is
not our target audience (publishing wise that is). If people start to publish, people citing will follow.
I think there is quite a group of chemists working in actual labs who know us by heart, but who will never cite us because there is no way to do so,
and no reason to.
It takes years and years to become renowned, but for now I think we should aim for ''not being looked away from''. I think we are popular, we should
just make it easier for them; that is how you sell stuff.
|
|
|
Hegi
Hazard to Others
Posts: 199
Registered: 27-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No idea.
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Tsjerk | Until now I think this whole thing is a great idea. I think the only thing that could backfire on us would be any reason not to cite/submit to this
journal, for any type of submitter/citer. Of course people with money and resources to publish in renowned journals wont't publish here, but that is
not our target audience (publishing wise that is). If people start to publish, people citing will follow.
I think there is quite a group of chemists working in actual labs who know us by heart, but who will never cite us because there is no way to do so,
and no reason to.
It takes years and years to become renowned, but for now I think we should aim for ''not being looked away from''. I think we are popular, we should
just make it easier for them; that is how you sell stuff.
|
Definitely agree with this opinion. Our target audience and authors are amateur chemists mostly. It will be great for amateur chemists to get free
articles about syntheses that can be easily performed at home. And of course, if published periodically... the articles and syntheses will be
categorized by volumes of articles... NO MESS.
Our webpage has been shut down forever cause nobody was willing to contribute. Shame on you all!!!
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4508
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Tsjerk | Until now I think this whole thing is a great idea. I think the only thing that could backfire on us would be any reason not to cite/submit to this
journal, for any type of submitter/citer. Of course people with money and resources to publish in renowned journals wont't publish here, but that is
not our target audience (publishing wise that is). If people start to publish, people citing will follow.
I think there is quite a group of chemists working in actual labs who know us by heart, but who will never cite us because there is no way to do so,
and no reason to.
It takes years and years to become renowned, but for now I think we should aim for ''not being looked away from''. I think we are popular, we should
just make it easier for them; that is how you sell stuff.
|
Yes, this is exactly why I think we should start it. And while it takes years to become renowned, you'll
never become renowned if you never start. It's like the saying about planting a tree- the best time to do it is 20 years ago, but the second best time
is today.
I have also met quite a few people who work in labs at my university who know of this forum and have used it before without creating an account.
Putting our research in a format that allows it to be cited academically would be an excellent way to improve our status and reputation.
There are still other things that need to be discussed. How will we make the journal available? I envision that issues could be posted in the
References subforum, so that it is free for trusted forum members to download, but hosted on another site on a pay-per-article basis like other
journals, so that the authors and reviewers could have the opportunity to be rewarded for their work. I doubt that people would create accounts just
to try and get into the References section, and even if they do, well, I wouldn't say that snagging some new members who might decide to contribute
would be a bad thing. I realize that this may seem ironic considering how many of us use SciHub to avoid paying for articles...
|
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by HeYBrO |
they wouldn't want it published here, they would want it published in a reputable journal.
[Edited on 7-6-2018 by HeYBrO] |
Hmmm, I stopped my submission to Frontiers in Chem | Inorg Chem for this 
Although, im not completely institution affiliated currently.
|
|
|
Vosoryx
Hazard to Others
Posts: 282
Registered: 18-6-2017
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Serial Apple Enjoyer
|
|
Love this idea, and "Acta Chemica Libera" certainly has my vote.
"Open your mind son, before someone opens it for you." - Dr. Walter Bishop
|
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Texium (zts16) | | I envision that issues could be posted in the References subforum, so that it is free for trusted forum members to download, but hosted on another
site on a pay-per-article basis like other journals, so that the authors and reviewers could have the opportunity to be rewarded for their work.
|
Hmm.. Pay per article.. How many of them are really going to buy our articles~ I could pay for the maintenance cost if thats what we're trying to
cover.
[Edited on 7-6-2018 by DubaiAmateurRocketry]
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4508
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
Maintenance costs would only possibly be an issue if we DID decide to have pay-per-article for outsiders. If we make it available for free for
everyone on sciencemadness.org, maintenance costs would be $0.
The question is, would it be considered a journal if it was just another part of this site, like a more professionally formatted and peer-reviewed
version of the Member Publications section, or should we actually work to set it up as a "real" journal?
|
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
It would work bothways, however If its a section of the forum, it'd be best if its find-able on scholar search engines.
|
|
|
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
Posts: 2692
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Big
|
|
Here's what I propose:
* Reading articles is free for non-members, but we use the elementary OS model. Anyone who downloads a paper is asked to name their own price, but they can enter zero dollars if they want. We should
suggest $1, or $2 if payment fees make $1 impractical.
* Submitting articles is free with no requirements to Sciencemadness members who either
*- were a member on or before 2018-June-6
*- have been a member for 2 years and contributed at least 100 posts in each year, or otherwise have contributed 100 posts in each of two years, not
necessarily consecutively
* For other submissions, authors must agree to complete (by filling in blanks) and sign a "review commitment letter" declaring that they will help
peer-review a future submission to the journal, if their submission is accepted. For submissions with multiple authors, we ask for two authors to
agree to review a future submission. Usually each submission will have two reviewers, so we should break even.
This makes it easier for us to maintain, preventing us from becoming overwhelmed with review work. Peer review requires someone to actually do it
after all. If people don't keep their promises, we can blacklist them I guess.
[Edited on 04-20-1969 by clearly_not_atara]
|
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
replying to above:
2 reviewers seems okay but it should be an odd number, of 1 says yes, and another says no, the publishing a paper, is it yes or no? this question can
be answered if we had 3 reviewers. (eg: 2yes 1no=publish green light)
Secondly, optional payment seems like a great idea.
third, i don't think people who submit should be committed to review in the future, i can almost promise you that there will be non SM members who
will submit.
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4508
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by clearly_not_atara | * Submitting articles is free with no requirements to Sciencemadness members who either
*- were a member on or before 2018-June-6
*- have been a member for 2 years and contributed at least 100 posts in each year, or otherwise have contributed 100 posts in each of two years, not
necessarily consecutively |
I think any Sciencemadness member should be able to submit articles/letters for
free, regardless of how many posts they have. If a submitted article is utter crap, the reviewers can deny it without wasting much time on it. Post
count doesn't mean a whole lot, and we always try to avoid things that might encourage post-whoring.
| Quote: Originally posted by clearly_not_atara | * For other submissions, authors must agree to complete (by filling in blanks) and sign a "review commitment letter" declaring that they will help
peer-review a future submission to the journal, if their submission is accepted. For submissions with multiple authors, we ask for two authors to
agree to review a future submission. Usually each submission will have two reviewers, so we should break even.
This makes it easier for us to maintain, preventing us from becoming overwhelmed with review work. Peer review requires someone to actually do it
after all. If people don't keep their promises, we can blacklist them I guess. |
I'm not sure about requiring
authors to review other works. I was picturing that some members would volunteer to regularly review submissions in their particular area of expertise
(eg: organic, inorganic, EM). You can't guarantee that the reviewers available at any given time are knowledgable about the subject of the article
needing review. For instance, I would not be of much help in reviewing an EM article (wtf is "brisance" anyway?). I agree with DAR that 3 reviewers is
better than 2 for breaking ties, as well as just being more thorough. My suggestion would be somewhat of a hybrid system, though, where each new
article is reviewed by two regular volunteers and one previous author who doesn't review regularly.
Another requirement that I think we should have is that the articles are published under real names. I understand that some people want to avoid
revealing their real identities, and that's all well and good. Feel free to use a pen name, but if you want to publish, you should declare a first and
last name that you will publish under, because if anyone is going to cite your article, a username will not cut it.
[Edited on 6-7-2018 by Texium (zts16)]
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3022
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
I'm totally in favor of the voluntary payments, but I think Texium has a point on the post-whoring thing when you require a certain number of posts. I
think submitting and reading should be free for anyone, the editor has a first look on it and decides whether to send it to peer-reviewers or not, and
to which peer-reviewers. When there is 1 go and 1 no-go from the reviewers it is up to the editor whether to publish the article or not. I don't think
it will happen often though that one reviewer says absolutely not, and the other says yes without further tests/experiments to be done, but still, if
so it is up to the editor(yes, editors have a lot of power! more than reviewers have. It is not a democracy, and it shouldn't be one).
I think a separate URL for the journal would be appropriate. I guess a second website could be run on the same server SM is running on now? It could
be a simple website based on a free template pulled from the web somewhere (it is not too hard to make a nice looking site from a free template). I
think there should be two parts; one part for reading/downloading articles, and one with a form for submitters. Here submitters can fill out details
about why it should be published and if they e.g. prefer certain reviewers, or if they want to exclude reviewers (this list would be aiming on getting
information which would make the editors' life easier).
i'm starting to think now; if the word gets out that there is a decent, free, peer-reviewed, citable journal where anyone can publish..... multiple
editors wouldn't be a luxury.
Edit: I don't think forcing people to review by including it in the requirements to publish is going to benefit the quality of the journal, better to
have some people doing multiple reviews. I think that if the point comes that the number of articles to review exceeds the free hours of the people
here, there are a lot of PhD students out there that would love to review some stuff, just for the sake of experience and/or to write on their CV.
Edit2: I think a sort of a "bond" between editor and reviewer is beneficial for the quality and stability of the journal, as their would be a mutual
understanding of the criteria for the journal, I think having a lot of 1/2/3 time reviewing people would make communication between editor and
reviewers difficult, and reviewing inconsistent.
Edit3: if there is really a big dispute on whether or not to publish between two reviewers the editor can choose to have a third person review it.
(only the editor knows who is reviewing, the reviewers never have contact with each other, it is sort of an unspoken rule that whatever you are
reviewing stays secret, and you are not allowed to tell anyone what you reviewed or what you opinion is, until the article is published. If the
article is never published you are not to talk about what you know from reviewing).
off topic but for shit and giggles; https://www.improbable.com/
These guys actually gave a Ig Nobel prize to a future Nobel prize winner. Something with a levitating frog and graphene. I know some guys with a fully
written article on coffee taste compared against optical density with the nationality of the coffee maker as a parameter for the standard deviation
(yes, the Germans score best on smallest SD). Improbable asks 1500 euro to publish though, making it too expensive for shit and giggles.
| Quote: | | Another requirement that I think we should have is that the articles are published under real names. I understand that some people want to avoid
revealing their real identities, and that's all well and good. Feel free to use a pen name, but if you want to publish, you should declare a first and
last name that you will publish under, because if anyone is going to cite your article, a username will not cut it. |
Yes
[Edited on 8-6-2018 by Tsjerk]
[Edited on 8-6-2018 by Tsjerk]
|
|
|
Vosoryx
Hazard to Others
Posts: 282
Registered: 18-6-2017
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Serial Apple Enjoyer
|
|
I'm actually not in favour of the using real names... I know that it will take away our legitimacy, but I wouldn't be comfortable posting under my
real name. I'm not exactly hard to find (My username is based on my full name FFS. My YouTube channel contains my first name.) but I don't really want
to make it THAT easy. One of the really nice things about this forum is that everyone remains under the cover of pseudo-anonymity. I'm not super
comfortable with the idea of publishing experiments that are directly connected to my name, and I doubt i'm the only one.
On the subject of a pen name, what's the difference between "John Smith" and "Vosoryx", really? They're both fakes, but one of them has a discernible
connection to my own online personality that can be easily traced back to me, and the other might as well be nothing because it's meaningless, and
poses no actual connection to myself.
All this being said, I'm not really sure this applies to me, being that I don't have the knowledge to ever publish in anything other than YouTube.
"Open your mind son, before someone opens it for you." - Dr. Walter Bishop
|
|
|
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
Posts: 2692
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Big
|
|
Pen names mean that you've at least put forth the effort to sound real. It's a style thing, really not much different from typesetting, except it's a
name. You could still be "John Vosoryx" if you want, which would be cited as "J Vosoryx". I won't be using my legal name, but I'll find a convincing
enough pseudonym.
| Quote: | | I don't think forcing people to review by including it in the requirements to publish is going to benefit the quality of the journal, better to have
some people doing multiple reviews. I think that if the point comes that the number of articles to review exceeds the free hours of the people here,
there are a lot of PhD students out there that would love to review some stuff, just for the sake of experience and/or to write on their CV.
|
I understand the sentiment, but I have actually invited people to peer review articles, and you have not. We
have a roughly 85% decline rate on review requests and that's for a journal which has an impact factor, offers (nominal) compensation, and credits
reviewers. In any case, it won't be necessary for probably a few years after the journal starts, so I'm fine to shelve the discussion for now and
revisit it when it matters.
[Edited on 04-20-1969 by clearly_not_atara]
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3022
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Vosoryx | | I'm actually not in favour of the using real names... I know that it will take away our legitimacy, but I wouldn't be comfortable posting under my
real name. |
This SM journal stands or falls with the use of real names. The journal stands or falls with it being cited or not; I cannot cite a pen-name. period
Edit; something went wrong with my browser, sorry.
I don't think it is reasonable to allow people to be able to publish anonymously, that is not how science works; what you publish will have an impact
on the world, not completely predictable at the moment of publication. You should be accountable for your publications at all times.
[Edited on 8-6-2018 by Tsjerk]
|
|
|
Hegi
Hazard to Others
Posts: 199
Registered: 27-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No idea.
|
|
Disagree. IT is a must have to provide real names. Why would you hide yorself? What is the problem?
3 reviewers is a good number. At least two must be for publishing of the article.
Pay for articles NO. Voluntary contributions YES
Format - PDF file available online on a webpage of journal (cheap shit today), texts formatted in LaTex. What do you think? Cover page, table of
contents followed by articles.
Our webpage has been shut down forever cause nobody was willing to contribute. Shame on you all!!!
|
|
|
Eddygp
National Hazard
Posts: 858
Registered: 31-3-2012
Location: University of York, UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: Organometallic
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Tsjerk |
This SM journal stands or falls with the use of real names. The journal stands or falls with it being cited or not; I cannot cite a pen-name. period
Edit; something went wrong with my browser, sorry.
I don't think it is reasonable to allow people to be able to publish anonymously, that is not how science works; what you publish will have an impact
on the world, not completely predictable at the moment of publication. You should be accountable for your publications at all times.
[Edited on 8-6-2018 by Tsjerk] |
Fully agree. If someone is against using real names, post it more casually in prepub or elsewhere. The journal should work properly.
1) No vote count for submission. Not necessary. Just check the science with (PROPER) peer reviewing.
2) Choosing people to peer review should not be done at random. People with sufficient knowledge should be contacted and it should not be taken
lightly as it is one of the main points we have to get right for this idea to work.
3) It should be created and/or published as a "proper" journal, as "properly" as possible. Obviously only a couple issues a year at most (unless there
is particularly good science going on!). However, it should remain free of charge to publish and access.
4) Any kickstarting developments required, or similar stuff, could be funded through a joint Patreon campaign? I can't imagine there being zero costs
if we are to do this properly. It should not be expensive either, though.
there may be bugs in gfind
[ˌɛdidʒiˈpiː] IPA pronunciation for my Username |
|
|
VSEPR_VOID
National Hazard
Posts: 719
Registered: 1-9-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fullerenes
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Texium (zts16) | No, it wouldn't be: GoogleDocs has
terrible formatting and nowhere near as many options as MS word. It does not handle anything more complex than a simple essay very well at all. The
collaborative aspect is about the only thing it has going for it.
Also, please don't jump into the discussion just to plug your own project, I see what you're doing here...
|
I only hoped to provide a working model of my idea. I had no ill intentions.
Within cells interlinked
Within cells interlinked
Within cells interlinked
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
I think the journal is a superb idea. I do think it would be good if authors claiming to have credentials could verify them somehow. It is also
reasonable to require that the peer reviewers use their real names and affirm that they are not reviewing their own articles. As far as requiring
those who publish to use their real names... I think the quality of the content is far more important than whether an author uses a real name. There
are and have been numerous online journals covering controversial subjects where it is standard practice to use a pen name, and they are often cited.
If there is any concern over a need to differentiate between those using a real name and those using a pen name, an author bio could be included
discussing the background of the authors, which would be verifiable in the case of real authors and probably fantastical for everyone else. Scientists
who are afraid of using their real names should have a place to publish legitimate research.
I know I'm not the only one here who knows LaTeX. I think the hardest part of publishing a journal would be coming up with enough content for regular
issues.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
