[Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy

[Jacob Barhak]

Hi Matt,

The link you sent is relevant yet will take a long time to process - there are many ideas out there in that conference. 

As for your second remark regarding partnering. Well, you can have a very basic solution with little effort using github and just specifying how to use it properly. The 2013 github publication model combined with the 2012 open review policy may be a good base. From there on you can always build further. Yet first you should have a solid  simple base. 

If you wish to test an external partner for publication it is possible to test beforehand by submitting a paper and see how it is handled - I can help here if you have specifics in mind. 

Thanks for your fast response. 

        Jacob

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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