A Name for Open Astrophysics?
Regular readers of this blog may recall that while 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 was unwell for much of the summer, and more recently have had lots to do in connection with my forthcoming move to Sussex, so things have moved more slowly than I’d hoped but I just wanted to take this opportunity to give my assurance that this project is definitely going ahead. We have a (good) website design with ample space and other resources to run it, and a sufficient number of persons of suitable eminence have agreed to serve on the Editorial Board. It will basically be a front-end for the Arxiv, but will have a number of interesting additional features which make it a lot more than that. I’d prefer to save further details to the official launch, which is now planned to take place in January (as it would probably get buried in the pre-Xmas rush if we tried to launch before then). I can also confirm that the service we will provide will be free at the start, although if the volume of submissions grows we may have to charge a small fee for refereeing. And when I say “small” I mean small, not the hundreds or thousands of pounds charged by the rip-off merchants.
One thing I would like some ideas about, however, is the name. My working title for this project is The Open Journal of Astrophysics, which I think is OK but what I’d really like to do is break away from the old language of academic publishing as much as possible. I did think of the People’s Revolutionary Journal of Astrophysics, but feared that it might then split into Trotskyite and Marxist-Leninist factions. In any case the very name “journal” suggests something published periodically, whereas my idea is to have something that is updated continuously whenever papers are accepted. I’m therefore having second thoughts about having the word “Journal” in the title at all. Open Astrophysics might suffice, but I’m sure someone out there can come up with a better name. I know that Shakespeare said that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but I think a good title might make the difference between success and failure for this initiative…
That gives me the idea of enlisting the help of the denizens of the internet for some help in coming up with a better title; given the nature of the project, this seems an entirely appropriate way of proceeding. So please engage in collective or individual brainstorming sessions and let me have your suggestions through the comments box!
Follow @telescoper
In the Dark 
November 4, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Great that this is going ahead. I think dropping the word “journal” makes some sense, although there might be some conflict between the big picture (making science work better) and the practicalities (getting people to submit papers to this new publishing mechanism). If we’re in for a penny though, why not just “Astrophysics”? Why be defensive and spell out “Open”, when we believe this is simply how science should be done? Also, there’s a lot to be said for short and definitive – “Science,” “Nature,” and “Cell” are all brand leaders, for example.
November 4, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Hi Phil – I agree with you, if open access is to become the standard, then having “Open” in the title might look dated 10 years down the line (same goes for words like “online”). I also like the gravitas of the single word title, but why not the more general/inclusive “Astronomy” rather than Astrophysics?
November 4, 2012 at 12:38 pm
‘we may have to charge a small fee for refereeing’. How much did you have in mind? I’m not sure I’d pay all that much to do it.
November 4, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Ha bloody ha.
November 4, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Astrophysics Archive
Astrophysical Archive
Archive for Astrophysics
AstrophysicA
November 4, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Following the Math 2.0 movement (which has similar goals), Astro 2.0 might work, too.
November 4, 2012 at 1:26 pm
[…] “Regular readers of this blog may recall that while 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 …” (more) […]
November 4, 2012 at 1:47 pm
You could try something in latin to make it sound established and avoid anglo-centrism, perhaps:
liberum caelestia – which may mean “free heavens”
November 4, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Etheric Journal of Astrophysics…
November 4, 2012 at 2:21 pm
A nice title would be ‘Almagest’
Short and catchy, and the original was so successful that little predating it survives.. And it includes the name of a new observatory.
November 4, 2012 at 3:06 pm
How does “Astrophysics Direct” sound? It conveys the idea that it goes direct from the researcher to the public domain bypasssing third parties.
November 4, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Too close to “Tescos Direct”, implying a) tax dodging status and b) “value” astrophysics.
November 4, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Sounds like an insurance firm for astronomers (e.g. “Claims Direct”, “Direct Line”); sorry
November 4, 2012 at 6:21 pm
We’ll be dodging tax primarily by not generating any income…
November 5, 2012 at 8:07 am
I looked up synonyms for “direct” to avoid this problem. Among them was “In your face”. Now I like that “Astrophysics in your face” looks like a winner to me!
November 4, 2012 at 3:14 pm
aperta astronomia (open astronomy) , shortened to ApAst
November 4, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Copernicus is a great name since he did the greatest revolution in Astronomy after the Middle Age…
November 4, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Ω < 1.
November 4, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Astro
Telescoper
I have no negative feelings towards use of the word “journal” – thinking of that word more as a record of something than implying periodic publication, but I’m sure an etymologist will put me right.
November 4, 2012 at 5:54 pm
I guess the “jour” part of the word is a bit of a giveaway.
November 4, 2012 at 6:06 pm
“Open” is somewhat of a buzz word, but does have the correct connotation.
If the focus is more like a forum/arxiv/repository than a journal then “The Open Forum of Astronomy” would work (astronomy more general than astrophysics).
“The Open Notices of Astronomy” would also work; I like ‘notices’ since it is quite general and implies that other products could be submitted and refereed eventually (code, figures, data), and links with the older style (MNRAS).
I like using a single noun (e.g. Science, Nature), “Astrophysics” is ok, but I think it risks seeming a bit pretentious.
The Peoples Front of Astronomy is bound to get confused with the Astronomical Peoples Front.
November 5, 2012 at 9:18 am
As the People’s Front of Astronomy might have said, what have printed journals ever done for us?
Apart from …
November 4, 2012 at 8:40 pm
How about the single word astropapers or astroarticle.
November 4, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Free Journal of Astrophysics.
November 4, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Is there an astronomical analogy like Haldane’s Sieve? (Main Sequence?) There’s a genetics open [journal | filter | discussion forum | notary] starting up as Haldane’s Sieve.
November 4, 2012 at 9:51 pm
I would suggest that the new venture is explicitly called a journal, whether or not the word “journal” appears in the title. The research community understands what a journal is. I would also suggest that it has volume and page numbers – people are used to them – although there would be no need to have individual issues like printed journals. Accepted papers could be added incrementally once the editing process is finished, using the latest page numbering.
As for a name, well, something like the Open Journal of Astronomy, or the Open Journal of Astrophysics would be fine, but perhaps they lack that extra something. A name that does not include the word “journal” seems quite a bit neater, but including “journal” in its name would reassure the research community about its character.
November 4, 2012 at 10:08 pm
I agree that Journal is not a dirty word. But volume is clearly outdated, given the basis of this project. Use year rather than volume date. Do it by submission date to arXiv, in reverse order of priority, ie year, then month, then day. We might even get our American friends to put the latter two the right way round…
November 5, 2012 at 9:34 pm
I see that the Royal Society is moving to a continuous publication model” which involves giving papers an “unique article identifier”.
November 6, 2012 at 6:50 am
Like the arXiv…
November 6, 2012 at 9:13 am
Yes, just like the ArXiv. Surprisingly like the ArXiv (I’d have preferred something from the Royal Society that looks a little different, to look a little distinct.)
November 4, 2012 at 11:12 pm
‘Articles in Astrophysics’ ?
November 5, 2012 at 8:44 am
[…] same time re-discover their original purpose. Physicist Peter Coles is doing just that and plans to launch a new open access astrophysics journal, as yet unnamed, in January […]
November 5, 2012 at 9:51 am
How about Cosmos? It derives from the Greek word for order, so you can claim to be bringing order to the chaos of the journal system.
November 5, 2012 at 12:37 pm
I think you have to call it the Total Perspective Vortex.
November 5, 2012 at 2:43 pm
‘Astrophysics Stuff’
November 5, 2012 at 3:03 pm
“It really isn’t matter any more.”
November 5, 2012 at 3:47 pm
I think a potential issue with one word pretentious titles (e.g. ‘Astrophysics’) is that they may be difficult to google, at least initially.
It’s a shame ‘Astra’ means mass-market hatchback.
‘astro.phys’ is a pretty zeitgeist-y, although I don’t think you can have .phys as a top level domain yet…
‘Astrode’?
November 7, 2012 at 6:39 pm
Yes, the new journal would need its own LaTeX macros, but surely that would be something that could be set up without too much effort by scientists. (Established publishers might think things like LaTeX macros might be difficult to create, but we have such a lot of computing experience in the research community that we could create macros quickly and easily.)
I would suggest that the journal publishes articles in PDF and postscript format, but also has a website that shows single pages in a standard image format (e.g. JPEG, GIF) in the way the ADS does.
The new journal would need to send published articles to the ADS in whatever formats the ADS likes. The ADS may want to archive the new journal in the same way it archives old editions of major printed journals. Adding current papers from the new journal to the ADS would reassure the research community that the journal will be a long-lived part of the reseach literature. Any ADS archives would be in addition to the journal’s own website.
The use of colour could be the norm on figures. The new journal could allow links to animations on YouTube, provided these are approved by the referee.
November 22, 2012 at 7:02 am
”The Astrophysics Open”
With annual honors for best article, second best article and third best article.
December 13, 2012 at 12:46 pm
With a silver medal for the best paper by an amateur.
January 14, 2013 at 1:05 pm
[…] to authors. That will be going on-line in the not-too-distant future. One thing remaining to be resolved is the name for the new system. I still haven’t decided on that, but at least I now know to whose name it […]
July 8, 2013 at 10:26 am
[…] other thing I would still like some ideas about is the name. I have asked about this before, but still haven’t settled on a compelling selection so I’m repeating the request […]