[Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy

[Matthew Turk]

Hi Jacob,

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello to all SciPy organizers.
>
> This is submitted here after an email conversation with some of the organizers pointing towards an ineffective journal publication venue in 2013. Andy invited me to send the conversation here to address a larger pool of opinions in SciPy.
>
> The traditional journal publication system is quite broken and cannot keep up with technological changes. Here are some examples:
> 1. The review processes are cumbersome blind and long
> 2. Journal publications are not geared towards code publication
> 3. Version control and sharing are not embedded in most of those systems
>
> The changing landscape of technology may call for other publication alternatives for the SciPy proceedings that do not need to rely on old journal type publication.
>
> Journal publications are still used for promotion and other recognition within the scientific community, yet if the traditional system is so broken, then it is time for a better alternative. SciPy is a good base for forming such an alternative.

I find this to be an extremely interesting avenue, and SciPy is indeed
a good venue for opening up these discussions.  Last year, Will
Schroeder's keynote touched upon the work being done through the
Insight Journal, which also attempts to address many of these
shortcomings.  The WSSSPE workshop at SC13 this year has several
contributions that discuss publishing models, too:
http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk/contributions/ .

>
> I really liked the path taken in 2012 where reviews were being asked and openly stored with the paper - a non blind review. I would like to see more of this approach. This is more similar to testing software where someone has to sign on a product.
>
> I would suggest some elements that make sense to me to keep publication effective:
>
> 1. Use github or a similar repository or a wiki to publish SciPy proceedings - this will allow linking to code, video, slides, etc.
>
> 2. Emphasize electronic publication over traditional paper formatting. Which can be accomplished using simple RST or MD or similar non demanding non time consuming formatting.
>
> 3. Ensure high quality that is accountable by using open non blind review process.
>
> Note that the latter review process can continue even after publication and paper submitters may be asked to participate in open review as part of participating in SciPy.
>
> There are just a few ideas. I would appreciate a discussion on those issues to help improve SciPy in the future and use its innovative spirit to influence the scientific community in better directions.

Attempting to move the proceedings to a non-traditional journal, or
even start one, could be a very beneficial both for SciPy the
conference and the community.  My main reaction to this is that there
are so many possible partners out there, both within the python/scipy
community as well as in the broader "open science" or even
computational science communities, that we would really need to ensure
we have as many partners in this as possible, which might make it
broader than we can pull off for 2014 proceedings.

-Matt

>
>         Jacob
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers