Dear all,
Thanks for the stimulating discussion on the scope of JASSS. As an economist, I must say I feel at home in JASSS. I only published once there, but the paper was highly cited from both economists and social scientists in general. This is possibly because the paper had to do with the philosophy of simulation. This is surely a value added for JASSS, which, as stressed by Kathleen and Pietro, we must strive to keep as it is and possibly push it further.
I do believe that JASSS is alread quite open to interdisciplinary submissions, I do not have at all the perception that it is ruled by a close circle of sociologists or by narrow-monded people.
Having said that, I also believe that Klaus is right when he speaks about the insularity of social scientists: this is particularily true for economists, and among them those doing computational stuff (as you may know, still a minority among mainstream economists). Relatedly, I think that a fruitful avenue to pursue is to try and connect more and more our research in computational economics (and social sciences in general) to fields like ecology, climatology, etc. (along the lines suggested by Claudio), in a more integrated and interdisciplinary framework, exactly as Klaus was mentioning in is reply.
This is something JASSS should increasingly do, but without enlarging too much its scope, which as noted by Flaminio is already wide. At the end of the day I believe that "computational social science" (with emphasis not only on theory and applications, but also on methodology and epistemological issues) is already a sufficiently-encompassing framework for most of us, and it can surely attract other people from different disciplines.
Perhaps more effort is due on our side to increase JASSS visibility and weight in our local communities and countries, which is not only a matter of IF but it has also to do with academic politics -- I think of journal ranks and lists used to evaluate candidates to academic positions.
Finally, a word on JASSS vis-à-vis other OA outlets. Although I recently published a paper in PlosOne, I do not like its business model. Yes, research is open access and collectively we save money because the taxpayer must not pay two times for what s/he has already paid for, but the whole mechanism goes in a rich-get-richer direction, and is especially frustrating for young people who do not have adequate funding. Personally, I find PlosOne or NSR publication fees outrageous, and I believe that they can keep such high fees because there is not enough competitive pressure. This is something JASSS should benefit from, if we will be able to increase the quality of publications and their impact while maintaining the policy of accessible fees and maybe opening up the journal to the possibilities that a post-publication review system and social networks can already allow for.
All the best
Giorgio
-----
Follow me on Twitter: @giorgiofagiolo
Giorgio Fagiolo
Associate Professor of Economics
Laboratory of Economics and Management
Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies
Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 33
I-56127 PISA (Italy)
Tel: +39-050-883359
Fax: +39-050-883344
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://www.lem.sssup.it/fagiolo/welcome.html
Il giorno 03/dic/2014, alle ore 08:57, Hofstede, Gertjan ha scritto:
> Hallo all. Thanks for this high-quality discussion that is itself very worthwhile.
>
> I very much like the fact that in JASSS both theories and the models based on them are taken seriously.
>
> Gert Jan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: News and discussion about computer simulation in the social sciences [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pietro Terna
> Sent: dinsdag 2 december 2014 23:07
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [SIMSOC] JASSS "Scope"
>
> I absolutely stay strictly to this, thanks for expressing it in such a way,
>
> Pietro
>
>
> Il 02/12/14 22:56, Kathleen Carley ha scritto:
>> I think that some of that would be fine - but one thing that has kept
>> JASSS special vis the other simulation journals has been the
>> social/theory side of things and the philosophy of simulation. I think
>> we would want to keep that and not just focus on techniques and math.
>>
>>
>> On 12/2/2014 1:29 PM, Sallach, David L. wrote:
>>> I agree that JASSS has been open to all the social sciences, plus
>>> other research domains in which research strategies are
>>> methodologically relevant. If we wish to emphasize
>>> interdisciplinarity in the journal, we may want to especially
>>> encourage research that explores cross-domain interaction.
>>>
>>> As long as we are having this type of discussion, there is another
>>> question that pertains to JASSS focus. If the progression of other
>>> disciplines is any indication, we can expect the role of simulation
>>> in the research process to shift. More innovations will be in domain
>>> mathematics and/or its validation, with simulation models exploring
>>> the resulting spaces and shapes, including how the modeled processes
>>> scale up. Should we expect JASSS to publish mathematical innovations
>>> and their associated validation techniques, as well as the simulation itself?
>>>
>>> David L. Sallach, Social Scientist
>>> Social and Behavioral Systems
>>> Systems Science Center
>>> Global Security Sciences Division
>>> Argonne National Laboratory
>>> 9700 South Cass Avenue
>>> Argonne, IL 60439
>>> (630) 252-5760
>>>
>>> From: Claudio Cioffi-Revilla <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> Reply-To: Claudio Cioffi-Revilla <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 8:51 AM
>>> To: "[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> Subject: Re: [SIMSOC] JASSS "Scope"
>>>
>>> JASSS as it has always been: focused on computational social science,
>>> not on just computational sociology. Many excellent papers across
>>> *all* the social sciences, and complex adaptive social systems, have
>>> been published in the Journal, including computational sociology. My
>>> own research interests are on conflict, climate change, disasters,
>>> complex crises, and CSS methodology, and I have always seen JASSS as
>>> a premier outlet for all of these and other topics, as long as the
>>> CSS approach is central. JASSS is a great asset to the CSS community
>>> precisely because it has managed to stay away from a single
>>> computational discipline. It should remain that way and stay abreast
>>> of the latest developments and advances in CSS.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------
>>> Claudio Cioffi-Revilla, Ph.D.
>>> Professor of Computational Social Science Interim Vice President for
>>> Research Director, Center for Social Complexity George Mason
>>> University
>>> 4400 University Drive, MSN 3A2
>>> Fairfax, Virginia 22030 USA
>>> Tel. (703) 993-2268 | kheflin2 AT gmu DOT edu Executive Assistant:
>>> Ms. Kelly Heflin
>>>
>>> /All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the
>>> point is to discover them.-/Galileo Galilei
>>>
>>>> On Dec 2, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Edmund Chattoe-Brown
>>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> Three thoughts:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Having one paper rejected is not very good evidence for base for
>>>> any "trend" in the policy or publication pattern of JASSS. Even
>>>> having it published in a paper with a higher IF doesn't necessarily
>>>> make it a better paper. (This is a worryingly common delusion amongst academics:
>>>> See ""Censorship", Early Childhood Research Quarterly and
>>>> Qualitative
>>>> Research: Not So Much Aced Out as an Own Goal?" on
>>>> https://leicester.academia.edu/EdmundChattoeBrown.)
>>>> 2) JASSS can only publish what it receives. It is possible that, for
>>>> example, psychology is less aware on average of this as a publishing
>>>> outlet than sociology is. That is certainly something that could be
>>>> investigated (and ESSA is already offering money to reach new
>>>> communities) but I doubt it is a "policy" nor resolvable by policy.
>>>> 3) I am not sure that the pursuit of impact factor is a very wise goal.
>>>> A free online journal will always get a "boost" over a print journal
>>>> (because increasingly people cite what they can get not what they
>>>> need.) It may be a tactless example but an IF of 1.733 puts JASSS at
>>>> 29 in the
>>>> 138 journal sociology list. That is pretty good for such a
>>>> specialist journal. Many of the journals above it are general and
>>>> the specialist ones usually have large practitioner readerships
>>>> (Journal of Marriage and the Family, Sociology of Education.) There
>>>> are a few exceptions to these patterns but on the whole I doubt we
>>>> would _expect_ to be able to beat most of these journals in impact.
>>>> Let's submit, review and publish the best articles we can (so that
>>>> people will want to cite them) and the IF will take care of itself.
>>>>
>>>> I think there are useful discussions to be had about reaching and
>>>> including small or nascent ABM communities (history, criminology,
>>>> education, Social Network Analysis) both for JASSS and ESSA/WCSS but
>>>> this is a matter of "marketing" and personal contact/persuasion not
>>>> JASSS "policy". Inviting these groups to put together themes, tracks
>>>> or special issues is an option (as would be commissioning rolling
>>>> subject area reviews: See American Behavioural Scientist 1999,
>>>> 42(10) for four
>>>> examples) but this doesn't really bear on the bulk of JASSS business.
>>>> (To get JASSS rolling back in 1998, we did a lot of persuasion to
>>>> get credible submissions until after a year or so people would do it
>>>> themselves. If we want more psych - or whatever - in JASSS, who
>>>> knows a really good "mainstream" psych who would be willing to be
>>>> persuaded to put something in?)
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>>
>>>> Edmund
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Edmund Chattoe-Brown
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://www.fastmail.com - Accessible with your email software
>>>> or over the web
>
> --
> The world is full of interesting problems to be solved!
> Home page http://web.econ.unito.it/terna
