It seems to me that this and other replies skirt the central issue alluded
to in the original posting, which is what you hope to accomplish -- why do
you want to publish this paper anyway. I don't think that one model fits all
cases, and in any case I wonder now how many people actually read the
journals as opposed to finding out that the paper exists and write the
author for a copy.
This was brought home to me when a student and I wrote a paper which I
suggested sending to Ecological Modelling. His advisor warned against this
on the grounds that ECOMOD has a low impact factor, and as a beginning
researcher this would be a problem for him. And yet, although perhaps not
many ecologists read this journal, it is the main journal in the field and
almost everyone who does ecological modelling reads it. So what matters?
Professional advancement or reaching the right target audience?
In fact, I once co-authored a paper in Bustard Studies, which must be one of
the most obscure journals in the world, and yet we felt that we were
reaching the majority of people working on conservation of the Iberian
Bustard. I don't know of anyone citing the paper, but I think we published
in the right place. If we had managed to place the paper in Science or
Nature we might have gotten promotions, but I don't think it would have
achieved very much in scientific terms.
To talk about journals in "they" terms, as in "Do they ultimately reach as
many people?" is meaningless, although the next sentence, about reaching the
right people comes closer to the truth. You have to choose your journals on
the basis of what you hope to accomplish. Brownie points (citations, impact
factor) are important if you are seeking a promotion. Hitting the target
audience matters if you hope to change policy. Journal cost is relevant if
you want reach scientists in poor countries. Showing up on searches is
valuable, and I like to use publishers which premit free access to abstracts
and provide email addresses for authors.
In short, I think that journals have niches and different papers feed into
different niches. Your choices should be targetted on the basis of your
objectives, not on generalities.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "L Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Open access versus traditional publication models
Personally, I don't think I'd bother submitting papers to anything that
isn't referenced in the mainstream academic databases. Do others agree, or
am I the only "shallow" one on the ecolog list? :-)
Lauren
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:42:48 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Open access versus traditional publication models
To: [email protected]
Dear Ecologers,
I'd like to probe the forum on people's opinion of the publication models
available to scientists today. I (and probably most of us) have seen a
massive rise in the number of open access publications over just the last
2-3 years. And yet this seems to be happening alongside an explosion in
the
number of traditional-style publications as well. What does this all mean
for us ecologists trying to get our studies read by as many people as
possible and by those that can take your information and make a difference
with it – either through further research or policy?
I'll be honest that I'm leery of many of the new open access journals. I
do
see value in them, especially for those who are at underfunded research
centers that don't have access to many of the mainstream publications. On
the other hand, what are they? Do they ultimately reach as many people?
And
do they reach the "right" people – the ones that control aspects of policy
or have top-tier research programs. Are these new journals to be indexed
in
Web of Science or the other academic search engines? So many questions
surround this new format and I just wonder what the rest of the community
thinks.
Andrew
