[Open-access] more open access particle physics

Tue Sep 25 12:38:53 UTC 2012

On 25 September 2012 13:28, Ross Mounce <ross.mounce at gmail.com> wrote:
> I do of course understand that Nuclear Physics B has a higher Journal Impact
> Factor than Acta Physica Polonica B. And so I appreciate Mike's points and
> am looking forward to your blog post on this.
>
> BUT, subtly, it doesn't actually answer the question I asked:
>
> Does Nuclear Physics B really provide >3 times more added value than a
> publication in Acta Physica Polonica B?

The market says: yes.

> The Journal Impact Factor is something unrelated to the intrinsic value of
> the services provided by the publishers: copyediting, arranging peer review,
> providing typeset HTML, PDF & dead-tree versions.

If only that were true. Actually, copyediting (when it happens at all)
and arranging peer-review (which is both arranged and carried out by
unpaid volunteers) are not areas where publishers make any significant
contribution. What publishers do provide -- the thing they sell -- is
the brand name. A paper in Nuclear Physics B is like a Lacoste shirt.
It's no better in intrinsics than than one made by a different label,
but it costs more because it has the prestige.

(This is why Bjorn Brembs thinks the only way out of this mess, in the
end, will be to destroy the entire journal system. I am not sure that
I disagree.)

> The quality of work
> provided by the authors is what generates citations, that drive the
> calculation of the JIF. This is NOTHING to do with the publishers and their
> vessels for articles (journals), except for the self-reinforcement effect of
> articles appearing in high JIF journals, that are perceived justly (or not)
> to be better to cite than articles in lower JIF journals.

You do persist in talking like a rational being.

> I appreciate the careerism involved and it's supposed reliance on Journal
> Impact Factor, but according to this recent Nature piece
> (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7415/full/489177a.html) that may
> not be as true as many academics think it is.

The tragedy is, it doesn't actually matter whether it's true or not.
So long as people think it is, they will emasculate their work to get
it into Science or Nature, and they will pay three times as much to be
in Nuclear Physics B as in Acta Physica Polonica B?

In other words, it's all about perception.

Which is probably good news, in the long run, because it means it can
be addressed by education. And also of course by Planck's Principle.

> Let's not make the excuses for people. This list is here to ask the tough
> questions :)

Yes. But you can't then complain if you don't like the answers!

I run into this a lot in the comments on SV-POW!. We're fortunate on
that blog to have an audience made up of more or less equal parts
amateurs, idealistic young early-career professionals, mid-career
professionals seeking advancement, and old pros. It's fascinating to
see the variation in attitudes between (and less often within) these
groups.

-- Mike.