[Taxacom] Fwd: Zootaxa taken off of JCR

[Lyubomir Penev]

Carlos,

This is an old discussion, including on Taxacom, but as you mentioned ARPHA
and Pensoft I feel I have to say something on that.

"Proprietary", "commercial", or "private" do not necessarily mean
"expensive", "bad" or "immoral". Even less would they mean "unsustainable".
All we, who had the chance to live in a certain period of time in certain
countries of this world, know by own, sometimes bitter experience that
"community-owned infrastructures" and "free services" provided but these
are not necessarily good (to say the least in many cases).

I know you like to analyse and look into the matters at the finest possible
detail. I admire that. Why then not compare what taxpayers pay on the
average per published article in a "non-for-profit", "institution-based"
journal and in a "commercial/proprietary" one? You should take different
examples of both of course, but the objective approach would require to
compare both the costs and the level/quality of services provided. You can
also add some more criteria from the open science front, for example, how
really open the published data is, or how much would it cost to the same
poor taxpayers to liberate and re-use data from the plain PDF or structured
XML? At the very end, "free", "diamond open access" journals are paid by
taxpayers through institutional budgets just as the "commercial" open
access journals are paid by the same taxpayers through APCs, aren't they?

If the academic world wants to get rid of commercial publishing, and
more-generally, of non-open-source platforms and infrastructures, then it
should make one step more, I guess, by stopping using Google for example,
or producing own sequencing machinery? Silly example, I know, but take it
just as an illustration on how all this would logically look like at the
end.

Best regards,
Lyubomir

-----
Prof. Dr. Lyubomir Penev
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2186-5033
WoS ResearcherID: O-9982-2019
<https://publons.com/researcher/324250/lyubomir-penev/>
Founder and CEO
Pensoft Publishers <http://pensoft.net>
ARPHA Journal Publishing Platform <http://arphahub.com>
13a Geo Milev Street
1111 Sofia, Bulgaria
Tel +359-2-8704281
Fax +359-2-8704282
Publishing services for journals <http://arphahub.com/about/services> I
Journals <http://journals.pensoft.net> I Books
<http://pensoft.net/books-published-by-Pensoft>
Services for scientific projects <http://pensoft.net/projects>
Find us on: Facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pensoft-Publishers/170816832934216?ref=ts>,
Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/114819936210826038991/114819936210826038991/posts>,
Twitter  <https://twitter.com/#%21/Pensoft>


On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 1:09 PM Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> Donat,
> The International Union of Biological Sciences signed the Bouchout
> Declaration but as far as I can see, it has not signed DORA. I guess that
> is the next step to get rid of the JIF in Taxonomy.
>
> In line with other points in your email, academic publishing needs to be
> taken back to academia, be institutionally supported and be non-profit. The
> current for-profit, private publishing model is unsustainable. The future
> of Taxonomy journals is that of publicly-funded, non-profit academic
> journals. The European Journal of Taxonomy and the journal Biodiversity
> Informatics from Kansas University are good examples.
> About the technology, Pensoft's ARPHA platform was developed to advance
> open access, not open science. The platform is proprietary, so if we want
> that technology into publicly-funded, non-profit academic journals, we need
> to redevelop it again. We need it to be open source and free to use for
> everyone. The best course of action is to do it integrated with the PKP'S
> Open Journal System, so that we can ensure fast implementation in already
> existing journals. Funding for co-creation is available from the European
> Open Science Cloud (
>
> https://www.eoscsecretariat.eu/news-opinion/eosc-secretariat%E2%80%99s-funding-opportunities-lets-co-create-now
> ).
>
> Anyway, I guess we agree that technology is not the solution to misused
> metrics. I hope that the taxacomers had time to digest the JIF logical
> fallacy as I exposed it. The second part is that such fallacy-based metric
> was meant to evaluate journals, so that libraries could decide which ones
> they should buy or subscribe to. Therefore, the metric is two-times
> inappropriate for evaluating researcher's performance. Amazing how the JIF
> and related decision-making systems have not crumbled with the weight of
> their own failure, isn't it?
>
> Cheers,
> Carlos
>
> Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
> Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
> FI-20014 University of Turku
> Finland
> Myriatrix <http://myriatrix.myspecies.info/>
> ResearchGate profile
> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Martinez-Munoz>
> Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
> <https://www.facebook.com/groups/205802113162102/>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>