If you are considering submitting an article to a journal that is new to you then you may be interested in the new Think.Check.Submit tool from a coalition of publishers and organisations with an interest in scholarly publishing.
The tool comprises a checklist to help researchers assess the credentials of a journal publisher. Completing the checklist will enable you to decide whether a journal can be trusted with your work.
If you find this helpful you may also be interested in my earlier post: Spotting the ‘predatory’ publisher.
It has been a bit of a week (already) for publishers of dubious intent to clutter my Inbox.
I must clearly be a researcher of world leading renown (not) to be so sought after. SciencePG has this very morning invited me not only to propose a special issue of a journal but to guest edit it too! Yesterday it was a different publisher and I have no doubt there will be further invitations coming along soon.
Some of these publishers appear to be very plausible. They offer open access, short lead times, ‘free’ submission and they may even allow me to retain my own copyright. So far so good. The sting in the tail comes from the large fees demanded on publication, the absence of any rigorous peer review process and the poor quality of the dissemination. Read the rest of this entry
FAQ: A publisher I haven’t heard of has invited me to submit a paper to their journal. How do I know that they are reputable?
Following the publication of the Finch Report and the subsequent actions of the Research Councils, HEFCE and others, there is more pressure than ever for researchers to ensure that their published outputs are made available to all. This has prompted publishers, both established and new, to reconsider their business models and provide new open access publishing options to researchers.
I have written before about how to find an open access journal for your article, but what happens if the publisher approaches you?
Based on the queries I’ve received from researchers, there seem to be two areas of concern.
Six months have passed since we officially ‘launched’ the Research Support Hub in October 2012. In that time the Hub has:
- published over 270 items on topics of interest to Northampton researchers
- publicised more than 100 training sessions and events
- shared over 175 funding opportunities
- applied over 250 different tags to describe and group this information in a meaningful way
- been viewed over 11,000 times by readers from more than 100 countries
- moved to the first result (out of 111 million) on a Google search for Research Support Hub
But how has it been for you?
Do you find the Hub useful? Are we writing about matters that interest you? Would you like to see more of some topics, or less of others?
After six months it is timely that we review the use of the Research Support Hub and ask our readers what they really, really want. To this end, please feel free to write a comment about this article, or contact one of the contributors directly.
All ideas will be gratefully received.