Lets move on to the more demanding stuff.
According to our remit we should discuss the future structure of the journals, their content and how to attract authors and readers. During the Madrid I discussed these issues with several people and I think we need to enter this discussion as openly as possible.
Structure
The structure of the journals (what goes where) is not an uncontroversial issue. Section editors are not going to be happy if they perceive that we are moving “their” content to another journal, but there is nothing to prove that the present division of the material is optimal.
I would identify the following challenges for the future of the journals:
A: Foundations of Crystallography
This journal is slim and the subheading is daunting. Joining it with B is probably not an option considering that we should not change the number of journals. Perhaps “Frontiers of Crystallography” would be a better choice. It certainly has a more forward-sounding name to me.
Content-wise this could mean that A could be the vehicle for introducing new topics to the journals. Are there particular fields of crystallography where we are missing out on good content? I think the answer is yes.
One idea that was brought up at the JCOM in El Escorial was to make Acta A the flagship of the journals where high profile material should go, much in the spirit of Angwandte that filters down content to Chemistry or Nature that defers material to its sister journals.
B: Structural Science, C: Crystal Structure Communications
This is where the need for clear-cut definitions are most urgently needed. We should list subjects such as chemical crystallography, materials science, crystal engineering, disorder, aperiodics, charge density studies, mineralogy etc etc etc to define a scope of these journals.
D: Biological Crystallography
This journal is doing quite well in terms of visibility and size
E: Structure Reports
This journal has a well defined scope and a sustainable business model.
F: Structural Biology and Crystallization Communications
This journal is still building its niche. It could be the next open access project mimicking the role of E in the biological world.
G: Applied Crystallography
This journal is doing well and has a well defined role. There has sometimes been an overlap with A, but this is best taken care of by finding the right role for A
Journal of Synchrotron Radiation
This project used to be a badly leaking vessel, but it is now pulling its weight financially, and it is performing well in terms of visibility. The scope is fine, but business of this journal still requires attention.
Reader and authorship
A working relationship between the journals and its users is obviously something that needs maintenance. How do we make the journals attractive to authors? High scientific standards are good, and here we are in good shape. The standards of the journals are excellent. Perhaps the standards are too high in some respects.
Example:
I see no reason why we shouldn’t publish structural work where the data standard is poor, as long as it is as good as it gets. Some systems do not yield good data, and for these systems, analysis is time-consuming and difficult. Good work on bad data should be encouraged because this is challenging and this is certainly where some of the interesting future lies. Anyone can solve the structure of a well crystallized, simple compound, but it takes a structural scientist of some distinction to properly analyze nanocrystalline disordered systems. It is interesting to note that this attitude is endorsed for aperiodic structures where the data quality isn’t always the best. The same is true high pressure work, but little of that comes our way.
The impact factor game is one that we cannot ignore. We need to find a way to relate to impact without chasing it at the cost of integrity. Acta D stands out as an excellent example of how it is possible to sustain a good impact factor without compromising content. We should think of ways to actively work on this.
Enough for tonight,
Sven
Review of Journals
Re: Review of Journals
Concerning the meeting in Chester on Monday 14 Nov 2011. Arrival on Sunday is fine, however, I do not know whether it will be possible to finish the discussion at a time when it still will be possible to catch a night flight back home. Peter, please, could you provide an overview on transfer times to/from Chester from/to London's airports.
Concerning the journals, we face quite different challenges due to the very different communities the journals are addressing (large and dynamically growing biocrystallography vs. shrinking rest).
Acta A: "Foundations of Crystallography"
The scope of the journal has to be widened. 100 years after von Laue's discovery, a journal devoted only to the Foundations of Crystallography has become obsolete. There were different suggestions for a new subtitle, such as "Advances in Crystallography" or "Frontiers of Crystallography". These subtitles would allow to include any timely topic that is not already covered or at least not in the focus of the other IUCr journals. In addition to the areas already covered by Acta A ("Theoretical and mathematical crystallography"), new areas could include "Structure prediction", "Structure/property relationships", "Photonic and phononic crystals" if structure/property relationships are in the focus, "Crystal physics" if not applied, "Nanocrystals", "Crystallography of Surfaces"...
An alternative would be to turn Acta A into a kind of "Nature Crystallography", i.e. to collect the highlights of all other IUCr journals and put them into Acta A. I am not sure whether this would be applauded by the section editors of the other journals.
Besides a change in the scope of Acta A, also its structure could be changed with the goal to transform it eventually into an open access journal. In a first step we could have a Letters/Short Communications section, which is open access, and an Articles section that is still closed access.
Acta B: "Structural Science"
I fully agree that we should publish the best possible structural papers, even if their R factors are poor compared to those of standard structure analyses. This can be the case for structure analyses collected under extreme conditions or of samples of intrinsically poor quality or extremely high complexity.
Best regards,
walter
Concerning the journals, we face quite different challenges due to the very different communities the journals are addressing (large and dynamically growing biocrystallography vs. shrinking rest).
Acta A: "Foundations of Crystallography"
The scope of the journal has to be widened. 100 years after von Laue's discovery, a journal devoted only to the Foundations of Crystallography has become obsolete. There were different suggestions for a new subtitle, such as "Advances in Crystallography" or "Frontiers of Crystallography". These subtitles would allow to include any timely topic that is not already covered or at least not in the focus of the other IUCr journals. In addition to the areas already covered by Acta A ("Theoretical and mathematical crystallography"), new areas could include "Structure prediction", "Structure/property relationships", "Photonic and phononic crystals" if structure/property relationships are in the focus, "Crystal physics" if not applied, "Nanocrystals", "Crystallography of Surfaces"...
An alternative would be to turn Acta A into a kind of "Nature Crystallography", i.e. to collect the highlights of all other IUCr journals and put them into Acta A. I am not sure whether this would be applauded by the section editors of the other journals.
Besides a change in the scope of Acta A, also its structure could be changed with the goal to transform it eventually into an open access journal. In a first step we could have a Letters/Short Communications section, which is open access, and an Articles section that is still closed access.
Acta B: "Structural Science"
I fully agree that we should publish the best possible structural papers, even if their R factors are poor compared to those of standard structure analyses. This can be the case for structure analyses collected under extreme conditions or of samples of intrinsically poor quality or extremely high complexity.
Best regards,
walter
-
Peter Strickland
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 1:17 pm
Re: Review of Journals - Chester arrangements
This reply concerns the first point made by Walter, concerning arrangements for the meeting in Chester. I will respond to the other points in due course.
The best airports to fly to for the meeting are Manchester or Liverpool. The transfer time by taxi to these airports is usually between 45 and 60 minutes, depending on the time of day. I would not recommend transfer directly from London's airports.
For everyone attending, if there are further questions about travel arrangements, do not hesitate to contact me. When you have made your arrangements, please contact me and I will book your hotel room and taxis as required.
I will also send the above by email.
Peter
The best airports to fly to for the meeting are Manchester or Liverpool. The transfer time by taxi to these airports is usually between 45 and 60 minutes, depending on the time of day. I would not recommend transfer directly from London's airports.
For everyone attending, if there are further questions about travel arrangements, do not hesitate to contact me. When you have made your arrangements, please contact me and I will book your hotel room and taxis as required.
I will also send the above by email.
Peter
Re: Review of Journals
Sven has posted his first message on 14 September. Let me add a few initial remarks to rock the boat a bit before we get into more detailed discussions.
If anyone had to decide from scratch how the Union should be involved in scientific publishing (and reducing our task to journals), nobody would come up with the idea of having eight journals and over 150 (co-)editors, each one working mostly on one of the journals only. One would start by considering how the field of crystallography and related areas could be sensibly covered and kept coherently alive. As in other fields of science, one could think of defining subdivisions termed theoretical, experimental, and computational. This would not work well for crystallography nowadays. Another possibility would be to distinguish basic and applied papers, and in addition in our case, structure reports.
Originally, and for twenty years (see A. Authier, Acta A65, 1999, 167-182, for the history of our Journals), there was just one Acta Cryst. that grew to a bit more than 2000 pages a year, including all structural papers at the time. In 1968, a split of Acta into Section A (crystal physics, diffraction, and theoretical and general crystallography, published as one volume, six parts per year) and Section B (structural crystallography and crystal chemistry, published as one volume, twelve parts per year) was (not unanimously) decided along with the creation of JAC (which was initially meant to deal with methods only). Acta B soon reached levels of around 3000 pp. per year. The idea grew to separate (again) the structure papers, and Acta C was created, absorbing ‘Crystal Structure Communications’ (L. Cavalca and M. Nardelli). Since early 1983, these sections have existed with the subtitles ‘Foundations of Crystallography’, ‘Structural Science’, and ‘Crystal Structure Communications’, all under the same editorship. When Acta D was created upon demand from the biological field in 1993 with a separate Section Editor, it was soon decided to also have different Section Editors for the other sections of Acta. JSR followed in 1994/1995, Acta E in 2001 and Acta F in 2005. None of the new journals found unanimous support from the beginning, and it still remains debatable whether new trends must always result in a new journal – a standard problem with all publishers… Currently, about 5600 pages appear in seven journals (vs. 5200 in Acta E). Of these seven, three look viable (D, F, JAC) with about 1500 pp. per year, while A, B, JSR with only 700-800 pp. per year may be called subcritical and the positioning of C is presently unclear. Small journals tend to show many signs of instability.
One should seriously look at the possibility of combining A with B and JAC with JSR. The present subdivision of material is not optimal. One should not hesitate to consider some changes (worries about name changes and future impact factors are of a transitory nature, and other journals have managed such situations), but one needs exact financial information on single and coupled subscriptions, and, of course, agreement on the scientific profiles of the journals. Discussions on the future of our Journals have always been a major ingredient of the Union’s activities. Our task might be quite serious this time in evaluating basic patterns for the foreseeable part of the future – but some courage will certainly also be required to face and deal with new developments.
Among the issues we should address, I would emphasize
a) further ways to move to Open Access (THE publishing model that will probably win),
b) issues relating to ‘Online Only’ publishing,
c) new categories of papers (e.g., really ‘rapid’ communications, short and up-to-date features, reviews, ‘editor’s choice’),
d) extending our scope(s) to include lost or neglected and new areas (where are we weak and why?),
e) improvements in scientific editing (training, interaction, review boards, etc.).
This text is not meant to be complete or an expression of final aims. We should, however, not miss the opportunity to look at all conceivable ways to move forward and stay ahead in the publishing field. Before we meet, we should receive better documentation on subscription matters. A lot of useful information is contained in Peter Strickland’s triennial ‘Chester report’ on the Journals that you have most probably seen (I do not find any link at the moment).
Best wishes,
Gernot
If anyone had to decide from scratch how the Union should be involved in scientific publishing (and reducing our task to journals), nobody would come up with the idea of having eight journals and over 150 (co-)editors, each one working mostly on one of the journals only. One would start by considering how the field of crystallography and related areas could be sensibly covered and kept coherently alive. As in other fields of science, one could think of defining subdivisions termed theoretical, experimental, and computational. This would not work well for crystallography nowadays. Another possibility would be to distinguish basic and applied papers, and in addition in our case, structure reports.
Originally, and for twenty years (see A. Authier, Acta A65, 1999, 167-182, for the history of our Journals), there was just one Acta Cryst. that grew to a bit more than 2000 pages a year, including all structural papers at the time. In 1968, a split of Acta into Section A (crystal physics, diffraction, and theoretical and general crystallography, published as one volume, six parts per year) and Section B (structural crystallography and crystal chemistry, published as one volume, twelve parts per year) was (not unanimously) decided along with the creation of JAC (which was initially meant to deal with methods only). Acta B soon reached levels of around 3000 pp. per year. The idea grew to separate (again) the structure papers, and Acta C was created, absorbing ‘Crystal Structure Communications’ (L. Cavalca and M. Nardelli). Since early 1983, these sections have existed with the subtitles ‘Foundations of Crystallography’, ‘Structural Science’, and ‘Crystal Structure Communications’, all under the same editorship. When Acta D was created upon demand from the biological field in 1993 with a separate Section Editor, it was soon decided to also have different Section Editors for the other sections of Acta. JSR followed in 1994/1995, Acta E in 2001 and Acta F in 2005. None of the new journals found unanimous support from the beginning, and it still remains debatable whether new trends must always result in a new journal – a standard problem with all publishers… Currently, about 5600 pages appear in seven journals (vs. 5200 in Acta E). Of these seven, three look viable (D, F, JAC) with about 1500 pp. per year, while A, B, JSR with only 700-800 pp. per year may be called subcritical and the positioning of C is presently unclear. Small journals tend to show many signs of instability.
One should seriously look at the possibility of combining A with B and JAC with JSR. The present subdivision of material is not optimal. One should not hesitate to consider some changes (worries about name changes and future impact factors are of a transitory nature, and other journals have managed such situations), but one needs exact financial information on single and coupled subscriptions, and, of course, agreement on the scientific profiles of the journals. Discussions on the future of our Journals have always been a major ingredient of the Union’s activities. Our task might be quite serious this time in evaluating basic patterns for the foreseeable part of the future – but some courage will certainly also be required to face and deal with new developments.
Among the issues we should address, I would emphasize
a) further ways to move to Open Access (THE publishing model that will probably win),
b) issues relating to ‘Online Only’ publishing,
c) new categories of papers (e.g., really ‘rapid’ communications, short and up-to-date features, reviews, ‘editor’s choice’),
d) extending our scope(s) to include lost or neglected and new areas (where are we weak and why?),
e) improvements in scientific editing (training, interaction, review boards, etc.).
This text is not meant to be complete or an expression of final aims. We should, however, not miss the opportunity to look at all conceivable ways to move forward and stay ahead in the publishing field. Before we meet, we should receive better documentation on subscription matters. A lot of useful information is contained in Peter Strickland’s triennial ‘Chester report’ on the Journals that you have most probably seen (I do not find any link at the moment).
Best wishes,
Gernot
-
Peter Strickland
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 1:17 pm
Re: Review of Journals
I am posting some more detailed information on the journals, which is made up of information provided to the recent meeting of the IUCr Journals Commission and also some financial forecasts for 2011 and 2012.
I hope this will give a clearer background to the current discussions for members of the Committee.
You will see that in addition to the matters already expressed in the forum, there are possibly two more ideas that might be considered, i.e. the attachment includes outline plans for two possible new journals.
We are at an interesting time for journals publication and, because of our ties with Wiley-Blackwell, we are currently strongly tied in to how well the Big Deal - in which publishers sell online subscriptions in large bundles - fares over the next few years. However, I agree with Gernot that any planning for the future should look at further ways to move to open access, as I also think that this will be the model that will probably win in the long term.
I am reserving my comments for the moment on merging of journals. Any such proposals would need to make scientific and business sense, and we would need to model proposals very carefully (most likely in conjunction with Wiley-Blackwell) to try to work out their effect on future revenues.
Finally, I will work with Mike Dacombe to see if we can provide further information on subscriptions/consortial sales in the next 1-2 weeks.
I hope this will give a clearer background to the current discussions for members of the Committee.
You will see that in addition to the matters already expressed in the forum, there are possibly two more ideas that might be considered, i.e. the attachment includes outline plans for two possible new journals.
We are at an interesting time for journals publication and, because of our ties with Wiley-Blackwell, we are currently strongly tied in to how well the Big Deal - in which publishers sell online subscriptions in large bundles - fares over the next few years. However, I agree with Gernot that any planning for the future should look at further ways to move to open access, as I also think that this will be the model that will probably win in the long term.
I am reserving my comments for the moment on merging of journals. Any such proposals would need to make scientific and business sense, and we would need to model proposals very carefully (most likely in conjunction with Wiley-Blackwell) to try to work out their effect on future revenues.
Finally, I will work with Mike Dacombe to see if we can provide further information on subscriptions/consortial sales in the next 1-2 weeks.
- Attachments
-
- forecasts_Madrid EC papers.pdf
- Financial estimates for the journals prepared for the Executive Committee meeting by Mike Dacombe
- (721.65 KiB) Downloaded 571 times
-
- journals_review_committee_information.pdf
- General information on the journals
- (943.05 KiB) Downloaded 575 times
Re: Review of Journals
It is good to see from the documents supplied by Peter that all IUCr journals are profitable, from the cash cow ActaCryst C to the least financially rewarding, JSynchrRad. Less cheering up is the number of subscriptions, which decreased by more than 50% during the last twenty years, if we neglect the beneficial influence of the consortial agreement with Wiley Blackwell.
Concerning the suggestions submitted by Peter, I think that a proceedings journal may bring more service to some meeting organizers and generate some profit. It may be quite useful if it will be established as an open access journal.
I am not so convinced, however, by starting one more journal. Of course, I fully agree that we should have one open access journal, however, it would cannibalize the other IUCr journals. I already suggested to start open access first for a section of a journal, for instance, for a newly to establish Letter/Rapid communication section in ActaCryst A. This would have the advantage that ActaCryst A could still be part of the Wiley Blackwell consortial package and generate income by open access fees.
Perhaps we should also think about an online Virtual Journal of Crystallography. For more information see the home page of the virtual journals of the AIP (http://www.virtualjournals.org/).
Concerning the suggestions submitted by Peter, I think that a proceedings journal may bring more service to some meeting organizers and generate some profit. It may be quite useful if it will be established as an open access journal.
I am not so convinced, however, by starting one more journal. Of course, I fully agree that we should have one open access journal, however, it would cannibalize the other IUCr journals. I already suggested to start open access first for a section of a journal, for instance, for a newly to establish Letter/Rapid communication section in ActaCryst A. This would have the advantage that ActaCryst A could still be part of the Wiley Blackwell consortial package and generate income by open access fees.
Perhaps we should also think about an online Virtual Journal of Crystallography. For more information see the home page of the virtual journals of the AIP (http://www.virtualjournals.org/).
Re: Review of Journals
Open Access: A move to more open access would only be realistic if most of the other reputable journals go the same route. For the researcher it involves the extra cost of page charges at a time of tight research funding. Why pay page charges for publication in Union journals as long as other top journals (I am thinking especially of the wide range of excellent American Chemical Society journals) do not require them.
Combining journals: I do not favor combining Acta A with Acta B and JAC with JSR. Crystallography spans a broad range. We would lose a significant part of our contributors if we would dilute the specific flavor of the individual journals by such a retrenchment. JSR, for example, has become a journal of choice for the Community developing and using the Advanced Light Sources and is attracting papers that used to go to Nuclear Instruments and Methods. Acta B should and can recoup a position in the Crystal Engineering field and become a true journal of Chemical Crystallography. Acta C should make room for less accurate but nevertheless correct structures.
The 'Big Deal(s)': We are clearly very sensitive to future developments in this respect. Do we have a plan B apart from the possibility of Open Access? How many of our subscriptions are now electronic only?
Acta A
Acta A is still the flagship of our publications. Most (but not all) of the papers describe new mathematic algorithms, new methods of crystal structure solution, analysis of symmetry in 3D and higher spaces, new approaches to data analysis and measurement. In general the papers are more mathematical than those in other IUCr publications. In most cases Acta A is the only suitable medium for publication of such papers. It thus fulfils an essential function for the Union and for the continuing development of the field. A rapid communication section is attractive. How could we make sure that it is indeed rapid?
One may question if the subtitle 'Foundations of Crystallography' is still appropriate as the foundations of the field have by now been well established. The Committee should discuss other options though a too detailed subtitle should be avoided. The papers deal with fundamental crystallographic issues and often describe new methods. The fundamental aspect remains crucial. Acta B is basically different from Acta A.
Acta B
Papers published in Acta B cover a broad range. They include charge density studies often combined with theoretical calculations, incommensurate structures and quasicrystals, inorganic structures, powder diffraction, some electron diffraction, phase transitions and intermolecular interactions. Although many of the papers are of high quality it is a very diverse collection.
Currently the journal does not play a central role in Chemical Crystallography. Strikingly missing are papers in the large field of crystal engineering and supramolecular crystals. Such papers are presented at ACA meetings and IUCr Congresses but are absent from our journals. A solution would be appointment of a second Section Editor who is a leader in the field and is well known in the Chemical Crystallography Community. Several names come to mind. A special section on Crystal Engineering should be implemented and initiated with a number of invited papers by experts in the field. Grouping other papers according to subject should be considered. The number of charge density and modulated structure papers in Acta B is considerable, even in single issues.
Acta C
This journal clearly fulfils a useful function for rapid publication of structural results. A shortcoming is that inaccurate structures do not pass the bar set by accuracy requirements. Many structure determinations not published in our journals at present aim solely at establishing the connectivity of the atoms and/or the chirality of the molecule. A section on less precise, inaccurate but clearly correct structures would be a service to the chemical sciences. Acta E may cover such structures but it does not allow a discussion of the results.
Journal of Synchrotron Radiation.
The Journal of Synchrotron Radiation is increasingly becoming the Journal of the synchrotron community. Papers published go well beyond crystallographic applications and include imaging, IR, UV and Mossbauer spectroscopy, holography, etc. It is very much a journal of frontier science and does great credit to the Union. Though it is good to see that JSR is now profitable, in this case financial considerations should be secondary.
It is crucial that the title of the journal is suitably amended to include free-electron lasers, which are likely to open completely new crystallographic vistas. We must capture this development and not let publishers jump ahead of us. Possibilities are 'Journal of Synchrotron Radiation and Free Electron Lasers' or adding a subtitle specifying the coverage as is done by Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. Additions or changes in titles of journals should be minimized, but are in fact quite common. Two examples are theJournal of Physical Chemistry (split into A and B + the Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters) and the Journal of the (UK) Chemical Society (split into several parts).
Combining journals: I do not favor combining Acta A with Acta B and JAC with JSR. Crystallography spans a broad range. We would lose a significant part of our contributors if we would dilute the specific flavor of the individual journals by such a retrenchment. JSR, for example, has become a journal of choice for the Community developing and using the Advanced Light Sources and is attracting papers that used to go to Nuclear Instruments and Methods. Acta B should and can recoup a position in the Crystal Engineering field and become a true journal of Chemical Crystallography. Acta C should make room for less accurate but nevertheless correct structures.
The 'Big Deal(s)': We are clearly very sensitive to future developments in this respect. Do we have a plan B apart from the possibility of Open Access? How many of our subscriptions are now electronic only?
Acta A
Acta A is still the flagship of our publications. Most (but not all) of the papers describe new mathematic algorithms, new methods of crystal structure solution, analysis of symmetry in 3D and higher spaces, new approaches to data analysis and measurement. In general the papers are more mathematical than those in other IUCr publications. In most cases Acta A is the only suitable medium for publication of such papers. It thus fulfils an essential function for the Union and for the continuing development of the field. A rapid communication section is attractive. How could we make sure that it is indeed rapid?
One may question if the subtitle 'Foundations of Crystallography' is still appropriate as the foundations of the field have by now been well established. The Committee should discuss other options though a too detailed subtitle should be avoided. The papers deal with fundamental crystallographic issues and often describe new methods. The fundamental aspect remains crucial. Acta B is basically different from Acta A.
Acta B
Papers published in Acta B cover a broad range. They include charge density studies often combined with theoretical calculations, incommensurate structures and quasicrystals, inorganic structures, powder diffraction, some electron diffraction, phase transitions and intermolecular interactions. Although many of the papers are of high quality it is a very diverse collection.
Currently the journal does not play a central role in Chemical Crystallography. Strikingly missing are papers in the large field of crystal engineering and supramolecular crystals. Such papers are presented at ACA meetings and IUCr Congresses but are absent from our journals. A solution would be appointment of a second Section Editor who is a leader in the field and is well known in the Chemical Crystallography Community. Several names come to mind. A special section on Crystal Engineering should be implemented and initiated with a number of invited papers by experts in the field. Grouping other papers according to subject should be considered. The number of charge density and modulated structure papers in Acta B is considerable, even in single issues.
Acta C
This journal clearly fulfils a useful function for rapid publication of structural results. A shortcoming is that inaccurate structures do not pass the bar set by accuracy requirements. Many structure determinations not published in our journals at present aim solely at establishing the connectivity of the atoms and/or the chirality of the molecule. A section on less precise, inaccurate but clearly correct structures would be a service to the chemical sciences. Acta E may cover such structures but it does not allow a discussion of the results.
Journal of Synchrotron Radiation.
The Journal of Synchrotron Radiation is increasingly becoming the Journal of the synchrotron community. Papers published go well beyond crystallographic applications and include imaging, IR, UV and Mossbauer spectroscopy, holography, etc. It is very much a journal of frontier science and does great credit to the Union. Though it is good to see that JSR is now profitable, in this case financial considerations should be secondary.
It is crucial that the title of the journal is suitably amended to include free-electron lasers, which are likely to open completely new crystallographic vistas. We must capture this development and not let publishers jump ahead of us. Possibilities are 'Journal of Synchrotron Radiation and Free Electron Lasers' or adding a subtitle specifying the coverage as is done by Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. Additions or changes in titles of journals should be minimized, but are in fact quite common. Two examples are theJournal of Physical Chemistry (split into A and B + the Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters) and the Journal of the (UK) Chemical Society (split into several parts).
-
Peter Strickland
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 1:17 pm
Re: Review of Journals
I agree with Philip that work needs to be done on Acta B, particularly to attract authors in the Crystal Engineering field, and that this might be best achieved by considering the appointment of a second Section Editor who is a leader in this field or in Chemical Crystallography. With regard to Acta C, I also agree that we do need to see how the journal could capture "less precise, inaccurate but clearly correct structures".
Regarding a plan B, open access should be seen as a long-term option that we could move to. As a result of the open-access publication of Acta E, we now have a great deal of practical experience that could be used to make such a move. Our main plan is to continue to work with Wiley-Blackwell, ensure that we understand what is happening in the journals market and try to respond quickly to any new developments. We are currently in a reasonably good position to do this, in that we run our own submission and production systems, and also create and host our own web content. This should mean that we continue to have a reasonably strong position in any future negotiations with other publishers.
I am attaching a recently published article that sets out a number of current and future issues related to journals publication that may be of interest to the Committee.
Regarding a plan B, open access should be seen as a long-term option that we could move to. As a result of the open-access publication of Acta E, we now have a great deal of practical experience that could be used to make such a move. Our main plan is to continue to work with Wiley-Blackwell, ensure that we understand what is happening in the journals market and try to respond quickly to any new developments. We are currently in a reasonably good position to do this, in that we run our own submission and production systems, and also create and host our own web content. This should mean that we continue to have a reasonably strong position in any future negotiations with other publishers.
I am attaching a recently published article that sets out a number of current and future issues related to journals publication that may be of interest to the Committee.
- Attachments
-
- journal_publishing.pdf
- (255.99 KiB) Downloaded 612 times
Re: Review of Journals
Just a quick comment on the posts by Philip and Peter, especially concerning Acta B. The points raised have been reoccurring during the last several years (in fact, the worries about Acta B - and A - have been around, to my limited historical memory, for over ten years), but no immediate remedy has been found. The idea of just adding another Section Editor (a potential insult to the present one; we have rightfully reduced the number of Section Editors for JSR, of similar size, and now we attempt to augment this number for Acta B???) might have helped in the old days, when authors selected a journal because an eminent colleague was in charge. This is not the case any more. Today, the most imnportant 'attractor' is the impact factor, and this results from good papers. In this respect, we are not very successful in any of our journals. Our most highly cited papers are almost exclusively related to computer programs and data handling. If one takes these off, the remainder produces less impressive figures (I will, after I have fully reestablished my working environment following a recent relocation of my office, send some numbers). My main concern is how to improve this situation; competent and expedient service, better visibility of the journals, networking among certain communities (especially around major reserach centers and facilities) and within the Union (Commissions!), new platforms might help. What else?
Best wishes, Gernot
Best wishes, Gernot
Re: Review of Journals
It may not be very helpful for our discussion but I have to say it once more. It is not only our own fault if we are not able to put new life into our journals. What runs very well is the publication of routine structure analyses and some applied crystallography. Our problem is to attract the excellent original work published in PRL, Nature Materials, PNAS, Angewandte Chemie,..... It is the general decline of classical crystallography, it is the image of crystallography as the science of structure analysis, it is the continuous loss of crystallographic chairs at German and Swiss universities,... Now the Nobel Prize was awarded for the discovery of quasicrystals - more than 10 000 papers have been published on this topic since 1984, how many in one of the IUCr journals? Only around 200, why not more? Most original crystallographic work is done by physicists, chemists, etc. who would not call themselves crystallographers and who are not aware of the fact that they are performing crystallographic research. How can we convince them to publish in crystallographic journals?