scikit-image paper

Juan Nunez-Iglesias jni.soma at gmail.com
Mon Nov 18 03:47:25 EST 2013


Hey Stéfan,

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <stefan at sun.ac.za>wrote:

> >    - F1000 Research
>
> I'm a bit concerned by what I read here:
>
> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/01/15/pubmed-and-f1000-research-unclear-standards-applied-unevenly/


Scholarly Kitchen have it in for open access in general and seem to think
there is nothing wrong with the business-as-usual model of scientific
publishing. I imagine that this is not true of the present list of authors,
but am happy to be corrected. Just have a quick browse of their past posts
and try to find something positive about OA.

You can just read a few of Fernando Perez's blog posts, particularly the
recent one about the Sloan/Moore data science initiative, to find out what
I think of business-as-usual science and publishing.

Quick rebuttals of the post's two main points:
"unclear standards applied unevenly" "cynical and confusing mélange of
incomplete editorial practices"
Yeah, welcome to peer review. This is true of all journals — the fact that
it's not open doesn't mean it's not there.
"Yet, these rejected articles continue to be published on the F1000
Research site."
It's called a preprint. arXiv papers don't get taken down when they don't
pass peer review (ditto for closed github PRs). Why should these? They are
clearly marked as Rejected. F1000 Research is an experiment in openness in
publishing and I think it's a worthwhile one.

Having said these things, it's definitely a risk publishing there. (My
impression though is that scikit-image as a library speaks for itself and
the choice of journal is a choice of what model we want to support, rather
than which journal will be more prestigious.) *But, *more importantly, it
seems that F1000 Research is indeed slanted towards the biological
sciences; I was under the impression that it was a catchall journal. So, it
might not be the best fit.

[rant over] =)

>    - JMLR MLOSS [sklearn published here]
>
> Impact factor is about 3.4, which at least gives some indication that
> its content is valued.
>

If we are going to worry about JIF, PLOS ONE has 3.7, and *does* accept
papers from all disciplines. (You will also find a Scholarly Kitchen post
about how a JIF of 3.7 is a sign that PLOS and open access are doomed.)

Currently my two top candidates then are JMLR MLOSS and PLOS ONE. (The
latter does charge $1300 US per article.)

Let's stick to using wrapped lines, otherwise editing using our normal
> configurations becomes painful.
>

Agreed.

Juan.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scikit-image/attachments/20131118/bea88442/attachment.html>


More information about the scikit-image mailing list