Open Journal of Astrophysics: Update
Regular readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Bonkers) may recall that a few weeks ago I posted an item in which I suggested setting up The Open Journal of Astrophysics. The motivation behind this was to demonstrate that it is possible to run an academic journal which is freely available to anyone who wants to read it, as well as at minimal cost to authors. Basically, I want to show that it is possible to “cut out the middle man” in the process of publishing scientific research and that by doing it ourselves we can actually do it better.
I have been unwell for much of the summer, so haven’t been able to carry this project on as much as I would have liked, and I also received many messages offering help and advice that I have been unable to reply to individually. But I can assure you that I haven’t forgotten about the idea, nor have I quietly withdrawn the financial backing I suggested in my earlier post. Indeed, my interest in, and excitement, about this project has grown significantly over the summer as new possibilities have been suggested and my resentment about how the academic publishing industry hijacked the Finch Report has deepened.
In fact, quite a lot of effort has already been put in by people elsewhere thinking about how to set this journal up in the best way to make maximal use of digital technology to produce something radically different from the stale formats offered by existing journals. I hope to be able to report back soon with more details of how it will work, when we propose to launch the site, and even what its name will be, Open Journal of Astrophysics being just a working title. I think it’s far better to wait until we have a full prototype going before going further.
In the meantime, however, I have a request to make. The Open Journal of Astrophysics will need an Editorial Board with expertise across all astrophysics, so they can select referees and deal with the associated correspondence. The success of this venture will largely depend on establishing trust with the research community and one way of doing that will be by having eminent individuals on the Editorial Board. I will be contacting privately various scientists who have already offered their assistance in this, but if any senior astronomers and/or astrophysicists out there are interested in playing a part please contact me. I can’t offer much in the way of remuneration, but I think this is an opportunity to get involved in a venture that in the long run will benefit the astronomical community immensely.
Oh, and please feel free pass this on to folks you think might be interested even if you yourself are not!
Follow @telescoper
In the Dark 
August 27, 2012 at 1:53 pm
This is excellent news. Probably the type of thing that Berners-Lee had in mind with his developing of the web.
It’s a very exciting idea and I hope the astrophysics community can provide a successful model for other academic fields to follow.
August 27, 2012 at 2:11 pm
I’d like to suggest creating a mailing list (i.e. Google group) to set up the journal – I’ve found dedicated mailing lists to be excellent catalysts for grassroots project, otherwise it’s hard for people to know who else is involved, and to have group discussions.
September 3, 2012 at 8:50 am
Just to be clear, I’m not talking about officially tying this ‘journal’ to a Google group, I’m talking about *planning* the journal, i.e. now. We’re still far from actually having a journal – I’m just saying that by organizing some kind of discussion group, it’s easier to have focused topic-based discussions than in comments on a blog post.
Whether it’s google groups, majordomo, mailman, etc. is unimportant. My suggestion was simply to have some kind of email-based discussion group where people can join and view all previous discussions.
(off topic: you can use google groups without having a google account and every going through their web interface, just using email)
August 27, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Yes – I know of someone who kept an eminent scientist on his letterhead, as a consultant to his project, even after the eminent scientist had died, and when I complained simply added “(deceased)”.
August 27, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Peter, if this very worthy project takes off then you will be offered a very large sum of money by an academic publisher to hand it over to them. In the past I have thought seriously about sending a copy of Faust to some physicists who became ‘quants’ in finance. I have every confidence that you are less temptable.
As Tom Wilson implies in his fine critical comment on Finch (to which you have linked, above), open access journals exist already. Is the different model, toward which you are aiming, different because of the hope to coordinate with the arXiv?
August 27, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Anton,
We’re working on a number of new ideas that make this venture very different from anything that exists at the moment, including ways for readers to comment on the papers and also regular editor’s commentaries on highlight papers which should make it more accessible to people outside academic research.
On your first point, I’d hope that if we can set this up and get it working then I’ll be able to persuade the Royal Astronomical Society to take it over and run it on a not-for-profit basis. However it currently makes so much money out of Monthly Notices that this might be difficult!
Peter
August 27, 2012 at 4:43 pm
What is your bottom line? That is very very important!!
August 27, 2012 at 5:25 pm
This is a not-for-profit venture.
August 27, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Would you tell us the major differences between your journal and the journal: Journal of Cosmology (Rudy Schild)?
August 27, 2012 at 10:56 pm
I very much expect the difference will be that the new journal will have a strict standard of refereeing, a standard like mainstream journals such as the Astrophysical Journal, the Monthly Notices of the RAS, and Astronomy and Astrophysics.
August 29, 2012 at 3:19 am
Am I a crackpot??
August 29, 2012 at 2:21 pm
MAX PLANCK: “An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents; it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning. “
August 29, 2012 at 3:00 pm
It is true that you would have welcomed Tsung Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang for their Parity violation when you had been in the 1950s.
However, according my understanding of you, you would not have welcomed Planck’s quantum idea when you had been in the 1900s. you would not have welcomed Nicolaus Copernicus’ heliocentric cosmology when you had been in the 1550s.
August 29, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Modern trouble with physics is that the population on the globe is huge and people have to make a living of their own, so do physicists who run the huge dark business which is supported by the same religion: The Big Bang theory.
August 29, 2012 at 3:16 pm
If I am not wrong, you are the first person on the globe who wrote, though indirectly, that I am a crackpot.
August 29, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Dear HeJin
You are wrong. Don’t twist Phillip’s words.
Have you any connection to or publication in JOC?
August 29, 2012 at 6:26 pm
No, I did not try Journal of Cosmology. But I tried almost all other Physics and Astronomy journals in this world. The recent rejection letter is from Indian Journal Of Physics which held my article for over one year and half:
Ref.: Ms. No. INJP-D-12-00047
Identification of Nature’s Rationality via Galaxy NGC 6782
Indian Journal of Physics
Dear Dr. he,
Reviewers’ comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work. Therefore I am unable to proceed further with it.
The reviewers’ comments can be found at the end of this email or can be accessed by following the provided link.
This is your login information:
Your username is: mathnob
Your password is: he8422
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Yours sincerely
Editors IJP
Editor-in-Chief
Indian Journal of Physics
Reviewers’ comments:
The abstract is not written to a standard that warrants review by a legitimate journal
August 29, 2012 at 11:50 pm
Why did you not try Journal of Cosmology?
August 27, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Is the intention for the new journal to publish freely, that is without page charges?
(Many astronomers in British universities publish in MNRAS and in Astronomy and Astrophysics because they do not have to pay page charges – many people do not have access to money to pay page charges.)
August 27, 2012 at 5:24 pm
There will be no page charges and no subscription charges. Any “processing” charges paid by the author will be nominal (i.e. tens of pounds rather than hundreds).
August 27, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Right. A processing charge of tens of pounds. That is cheap, though it does still require authors to have some funding.
That’s still more than some people will have access to, other than from their own bank accounts (never underestimate the extent to which PhD students and postdocs in some departments cannot access funds).
August 27, 2012 at 7:30 pm
We’re not going to charge at the start, but if it takes off I think we’ll have to charge something..unless we can generate some (appropriately-selected) advertising revenue
August 27, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Perhaps a compromise would be to charge established academics only?
August 28, 2012 at 9:51 am
Branson? Virgin Journal of Astrophysics?
August 28, 2012 at 9:52 am
Brian May not…
August 28, 2012 at 12:00 am
Virtual Journal of Astrophysics?
Virtuous Journal of Astrophysics?
(Journal of Virtuous Astrophysics?)
Free Journal of Astrophysics?
Online Journal of Astrophysics?
Green Journal of Astrophysics?
August 28, 2012 at 8:53 am
Some of those were. The last is novel and has some marketing potential.
August 28, 2012 at 8:58 am
I’m tempted to say that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but as a matter of fact the roses in my garden don’t smell at all.
August 28, 2012 at 9:48 am
Green Journal of Astrophysics has the advantage that today it has culturally positive connotations which relate to how it got founded (no trees needed for paper) and if the website frontpage has a green background then in 20 years time the next generation who have never seen paper journals will regard it as relating to that.
August 28, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Has anyone sounded out the arXiv or RAS yet?
Since this chimes with Willetts’ open-access policy (e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/01/open-free-access-academic-research), what about asking him to chip in?
August 28, 2012 at 2:29 pm
I wrote to Willetts 2 weeks ago saying that the Finch report was a missed opportunity to save a lot of money and explaining why. I’ve yet to receive a reply but ministers normally do; at a guess he’s on holiday, which is fair enough in August.
August 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm
He wrote a genuinely impressive book called The Pinch about the relation between demographics and finance, which I would be prepared to categorise as pre-political, ie containing facts that politicians need to know regardless of party.
August 29, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Several people have mentioned the RAS.
I’ll just note that the RAS receives much of its income from journals, through subscriptions paid by the libraries of universities and research institutes. Indeed, the report of the RAS’s honorary auditors this year stated, “60% of income derives from publications. The possible threat from the `open access’ publication model is being thoroughly prepared for.”
The RAS is aware of the potential change in the mode of publishing and is budgeting for a major reduction in the money it receives from the Monthly Notices and the Geophysical Journal International within the next several years. The RAS expects a move to open-access, web-only research publishing; it is just that it is waiting as long as possible before changing itself because of the strong financial advantage it gets from the current model.
The RAS also employs several staff members to run their journal operations: I believe it is currently seven people. These handle the administration tasks associated with processing submissions, interacting with referees and preparing papers for publication. The salary costs are substantial. Any new journal would surely need to provide similar support?
August 29, 2012 at 11:59 pm
I doubt it. Most of those 7 positions are probably sinecures that accreted over time. In the pre-internet age I saw 1-man journals of genuine academic stature. This is not to diss the 7 people who are presently in those positions – I have no reason to doubt are competent and conscientious – but are they actually necessary?
August 30, 2012 at 8:07 am
Actually, the positions are actually mostly part-time, just a few hours a week each. And much of their time is spent interfacing with the publishers Wiley-Blackwell.
August 30, 2012 at 10:36 am
I had assumed those people employed by the RAS were in full-time positions and carried out essential administration tasks for the journals. Peter was once on the RAS Council and will have some insider knowledge.
August 30, 2012 at 10:50 pm
The RAS accounts for 2011 published in the trustee’s report clarify issues, although any conclusions depend on how we treat income and expenditure as opposed to net income.
The 2011 total income was £3.78 million, and this mostly comes from the £3.13 million from publications. However, there were costs of £2.55 million on publications. So there was a net income of £586000 from publications. This compares with an income of £251000 from “membership” (presumably subscriptions). The total non-publication income was £650000, so the publications profit amounted to 586000/(586000+650000) = 47% of the total income after publication costs are taken out.
The standard annual RAS subscription rate is £98 (for people who completed full-time education more than 5 years ago).
August 30, 2012 at 10:51 pm
I’ve just replied to that comment, but it went in the wrong place (above). Apologies.
August 29, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Welsh Journal of Astrophysics?
August 30, 2012 at 1:28 pm
That would in practice deter too many people from submitting. But if, paradoxically, you replaced “Welsh” by some appropriate adjective that was actually IN Welsh, then it would not deter and would be a nice way to acknowledge its basis in Cardiff.
October 20, 2012 at 12:00 am
That paper *passed* peer review…