[HN Gopher] Directory of Open Access Journals
___________________________________________________________________
Directory of Open Access Journals
Author : Tomte
Score : 80 points
Date : 2021-05-07 08:45 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.doaj.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.doaj.org)
| motiejus wrote:
| I am a non-academic software engineer who wrote something that
| might interest academic cartographers[1], and am contemplating to
| write an article about it.
|
| This will be a helpful to limit the choices to where it should be
| published.
|
| Thanks, noted!
|
| [1]: https://github.com/motiejus/stud/tree/master/IV
| anewhnaccount2 wrote:
| Here's another resource with diamond open access only (without
| article processing charge/pay to publish):
| https://libereurope.eu/article/new-report-recommendations-on...
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| I feel like a clearer distinction needs to be drawn between open-
| access journals that are offered by non-profit learned societies
| (often no charge to publish), and open-access journals that are
| offered by the for-profit publishers (often high charges to
| publish).
|
| I don't have a permanent post in academia and am often away from
| funded positions while I do other things with my life, but I
| remain interested in my field and I publish the occasional paper.
| I can do that because I don't need to pay to publish in my field.
| But OA journals that are pay-to-publish discourage contributions
| from those who aren't lucky enough to have a grant-soliciting
| apparatus behind them (or lots of money to pay out of their own
| pockets).
| OmicronCeti wrote:
| This site also seems to miscontrue what an APC is, and has
| always struck me as just papering over the problems in the
| publishing industry. For example: Some journals are open access
| (ie anyone can read the papers) and require a $2,500 APC to
| publish. Other models have a $0 APC and the journal paywalls
| the article to cover their overhead (and squeeze out disgusting
| profits)--this would not be open access.
|
| However, these are frequently the same journal! It depends on
| the author's budget which model it follows.
|
| The final model requires $0 APC and all articles are free to
| read for anyone (this is probably the HN ideal--as well as my
| own) but these are virtually non-existent since peer
| review/editing is time and labor intensive.
| anewhnaccount2 wrote:
| Peer reviewing is typically unpaid in all cases. People are
| donating their time and the result of their hard research
| work to for profit businesses because it's the only way to
| get ahead (prestige).
| OmicronCeti wrote:
| Peer review should always be unpaid. Some journals will
| give you a $100 discount voucher, but I've never heard of
| anyone being directly compensated.
|
| My own rule of thumb is that I have to to three peer-
| reviews for every one paper I publish, since my paper will
| have three reviewers (usually). That way I can stay at
| review/submission equilibrium!
| anewhnaccount2 wrote:
| Okay, I was actually responding to your "but these are
| virtually non-existent since peer review/editing is time
| and labor intensive", but I suppose you were referring to
| the process of finding peer reviewers.
| OmicronCeti wrote:
| Yeah most academics dread doing a peer review, because
| honestly if you actually get sent one that's a good fit,
| four out of five times the paper is in very rough shape,
| and the onus is on you the reviewer to point out and
| correct every problem.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| This depends on the field. What I get sent as a peer
| reviewer is generally in pretty good shape already, and
| the author has simply missed a relevant publication here
| or there, or got a factoid wrong. So, the paper was
| already nearly publishable as it was, and it didn't take
| me more than a few minutes really to make it even better.
| Often my work in these cases is its own reward.
|
| I actually got sent my first outright awful paper
| recently, and there wasn't in the end much of an onus on
| me. The flaws of the paper were so blatant that I could
| simply tell the editor that the entire premise was
| unsound without having to go into much detail, and the
| editor understood.
| periheli0n wrote:
| Most common is the hybrid model, where journals are paywalled
| but authors can make their article Open Access by paying a
| fee. This is ideal for the publisher, because they get money
| from both subscriptions and APCs, while universities pay
| double, once for the subscription and again for apcs.
| medstrom wrote:
| In the spirit of open, https://pubpeer.com/ lets anyone do peer
| review (in modern terms known as posting a comment). And
| https://scite.ai tells you the number of replications and
| citations.
|
| As end user you can already merge all this with their browser
| extensions, but it could be cool if DOAJ embedded those comments
| and replication counts for the benefit of all visitors.
| OmicronCeti wrote:
| I really like https://www.connectedpapers.com/ for visualizing
| the connections between papers and topics that go beyond simple
| cross-referencing.
| shishy wrote:
| I work at scite (https://scite.ai) and wanted to mention we
| also have a visualization feature to show you how papers cite
| one another!
| forgotpwd16 wrote:
| I like PubPeer idea and that it allows (basically, only has)
| reusable anonymous registrations. But though comments (from
| quick look on various articles) are high quality, if it was
| more popular very probably non-academic-related discussions
| will happen which will require time on author's side to filter
| through.
| tokai wrote:
| Wouldn't make any sense as pubpeer is not limited to OA
| publications.
| medstrom wrote:
| That fact would not affect DOAJ.
| OmicronCeti wrote:
| I'm currently working on my PhD and I'm familiar with this list
| and site. In my field at least (geoscience), there are very very
| few high-quality journals on this list. The available journals
| basically fall into two categories: extremely specific ("Vadose
| Zone Journal") or outside the mainstream ("Mongolian
| Geoscientist").
|
| While I wish it were different, there is basically no incentive
| to publish in any of the journals in my field unless your
| research matches one of the extremely specific journals. I hate
| publishers probably far more than the average person (I love
| paying $2,500 out of my grant to get a paper published, only for
| the production team that has been outsourced to India botch the
| file conversion, put it online without my approval, and ghost me
| for two months!), but few serious academics in my department
| would consider any of these.
|
| Prestige can charge a premium, and without prestige your career
| is a non-starter sadly.
| Terretta wrote:
| To your point, the flip side as a _consumer_ of academic white
| papers, is where can I go to get everything in an individual
| hobbyist subscription pricing?
|
| I want one subscription for all of gate-kept STEM (or maybe one
| each for tech, for engineering and math, and one for science
| and medicine), then be able to just link and read as though
| using Zotero, Mendeley, or Papers but with access to all the
| things.
|
| As a corporation, journal subscriptions are nominal relative
| to, say, Gartner. For academics, you're covered in budgets. But
| for oneself as an individual, I cannot find a reasonable
| source.
| input_sh wrote:
| I feel no shame in using Sci-Hub and neither should you. Peer
| reviewers aren't paid with your money, and neither are the
| writers. You're only paying the middlemen with the
| subscription or without it. Fuck them.
|
| If it's not on Sci-Hub (happened to me only once), email the
| author and upload it there afterwards.
| OmicronCeti wrote:
| >is where can I go to get everything in an individual
| hobbyist subscription pricing?
|
| No. Many of the journals listed will have _some_ OA papers,
| while other papers will be paywalled. There are few journals
| (like Nature) that are entirely free to read sadly.
|
| https://sci-hub.ee/ is the way. Just give it a DOI and you're
| good to go.
| periheli0n wrote:
| You can always email the authors for a copy. Most will be
| happy to share.
|
| Also, preprints are getting ever more common. Manuscripts get
| uploaded to preprint servers like Arxiv.org before being peer
| reviewed, and usually updated with the peer reviewed version
| once accepted in a subscription journal.
| OmicronCeti wrote:
| Some journals are trying to capture that space too, many
| are developing their own pre-print servers for who knows
| what reason.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-07 23:01 UTC)