And a comment chris:)
I saw the CAUTION on the theme of your posting and GOT SCARED!!!
It seems that you have misunderstood us:) We are not dangerous, we don't
eat people we don't bring poison, we are not mafia, we are just people we
want to do things instead of "typing easy critiques". = out time is more
valueble from typing critiques and in parallel drining coffee in a nice
chair..
sorry to the list for the aggressive way but i saw the CAUTION in christ
posting and thought i am in a nuclear war:)
Best
Miltos
> In a posting to this list Miltiadis D. Lytras wrote:
>> We set the 1/2009 as the day of the grand launch, since then we will
>> present to the research community more than 10.000 people worldwide that
>> formulate our editorial boards.
>
> I suggest to members of this list that this is not a viable or reliable
> scheme. Miltiadis Lytras provided a link to a site which lists a very
> large number of scientific journals in a wide variety of fields, some
> are quite specialised, others are amazingly generic (eg Journal of
> Philosophy, Journal of Social Science, etc). All are "works in progress"
> waiting for the detail of editorial team and policy to be posted.
>
> They also claim to be hosting "3 World Summits" This appears to be a
> plan to hold the ATHENS WORLD SUMMIT ON THE KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY in
> September 2008, and at the same time/place there will be THE FIRST
> INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON OPEN RESEARCH and THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL FORUM
> ON PEACE MAKING
>
> However there are no details of these events despite the very short time
> available. The claim that this will be the "first international forum on
> open research" is extremely naive in view of the important international
> events that started with the Budapest Open Access Initiative sponsored
> by George Soros in 2001 <http://www.soros.org/openaccess/>, very clearly
> a serious and productive international forum on this topic 7 years ago.
>
> They claim to have 40 CHAPTERS around the world but there is no
> indication of where they are or who is running them, like the journals
> they appear to be intentions rather than reality. The website gives no
> indication of who is running ORS, it has no names of anybody involved,
> it has an address but no telephone number (but it has a page where you
> can pay them money to join).
>
> The visual presentation of the project is very aggressive with garish
> graphics and little animated images flashing away. As designers we may
> put this down to naive enthusiasm or we might feel that by our actions
> we reveal ourselves and somebody who uses such an approach is not taking
> themselves seriously as scholars. The rhetoric throughout is focused on
> the injustice and foolishness of current publishing systems and vague
> high-sounding aspirations rather than a reasoned argument for a new
> model. The new model proposed is a lot like the old model but with no
> indication of how it will be financed. It is not as progressive as
> Biomed Central which has both a radical concept of peer review and a
> novel business model, both of which seem to be working so far for their
> particular community.
>
> My main concern is that there are two ways to set up a project like
> this. One route is to create a pilot with one or two journals run by
> reliable people and allow it to grow as your experience and resources
> grow, the other is to construct a huge complicated scheme and hope that
> enough people will join it, and that you will be able to solve all the
> technical and organisational problems involved to make it work, that's
> the ORS method.
>
> In their attempt to make it work these people are making unfeasible
> promises about how fast your papers will be reviewed and published (by
> reviewers that do not appear to be recruited yet).
>
> So please approach this with caution.
>
> best wishes from Sheffield
> Chris Rust
>
>
|