Re: With footnotes (was Re: Open Access to Journal of Web Semantics (JWS))

Peer review is usually not public because it can be embarrassing to the
author. While I understand some people preferred to be embarrassed in
public (such as on mailing lists), this may not be in everyone's interest
and may not lead to more or better research,. Not sure of any experimental
results on the effect of open reviews on submissions or quality.

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:44 PM Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-08-11 10:59, Steffen Staab wrote:
> > I have operated the preprint server for 6 years.
>
> Cool. I stand corrected. Would you mind reviewing the following statements:
>
> * Accepted works at JWS will have a paywalled copy at Elsevier,
> reformatted to publishers styles, PDF (and/or in other formats), and
> considered to be final, canonical, and citable.
>
> * Accepted works at JWS will have a free PDF copy made available from
> www.websemanticsjournal.org, but this copy is not to be cited.
>
> * As mentioned by Ian Horrocks, "Articles on the preprint server are
> post-review, and differ from the published version only w.r.t.
> formatting." [Pending proof]
>
> * Authors can choose to give Elsevier exclusive rights to publish and
> sell their work (to libraries, individuals..), or authors can pay the
> article processing charge (APC) to make the works accessible for free
> from Elsevier's access point. In the case of APC, there is no constraint
> for Elsevier to omit existing charges to libraries for those works.
>
> * www.websemanticsjournal.org and its archive (ie. the preprint server)
> is not funded by Elsevier, but instead funded by public funds.
>
> * Research objects (eg underlying data, tools) are not accessible, ie.
> not hosted by www.websemanticsjournal.org or Elsevier.
>
> * Article contributions to JWS may only use non native Web technologies
> eg LaTeX/Word..
>
> * No JWS Editor to date received payment from Elsevier for their role.
>
> * Peer-reviews are carried out by the community as opposed to Elsevier.
> Reviewers are not paid by Elsevier (or other for-profit). Reviewers may
> be publicly funded through their academic institutions or labs to carry
> out the review process.
>
> * Peer-reviews for accepted and rejected works are not accessible by
> public.
>
>
> Corrections and additional information is most welcome.
>
>
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
>
>