Comments on ‘The open research value proposition’

These are some comments on The open research value proposition: How sharing can help researchers succeed, shared through Twitter.

151: I find this a very controverse section. On the one hand you say: IF = stupid (I agree). On the other side, you support the IF by giving numbers. Wouldn’t a statement รก “we will not give IF for the journals…” be better? Another question: Is there a better way of comparing the quality (content!) of journals? What about indicators for Visibility such as Altmetrics – do they differ for OA/non-OA? (You have “visibility” in the title of this section but all you talk is “journal impact factor here”. This is not good, I think. Sorry ๐Ÿ™ )

268: I really “love” the Eigenfactor list, where almost all “Chemistry”-journals are in the category of “physics” (do not even dare to start a discussion) and most of the journals are very specific to certain regions (“Turkish Journal of…”, “Indian Journal of …”, …). Additionally, the list looks not very polished (I can sort, but only descending category, for example). I know, you are not responsible for this list. However, presenting this list could scare me (and maybe others) off instead of attracting to open science. Do not know how to improve this, however ๐Ÿ™

271: Maybe emphasize that PeerJ is 99$ per article PER AUTHOR, i.e. an average paper with 3 authors costs $297 dollars, which is more useful for comparison. Maybe check the other prices, too. Actually, a table for the average paper (is it actually 3 authors? it is not ONE author, for sure) scenario would be nice. Question: What does it cost to publish a 3-authors-paper in…? (with and without special membership options maybe). You have the data, so present it to the reader! ๐Ÿ™‚

303: The DFG (German Research Foundation) has special programs for OA to support Universities (and in turn authors). Maybe want to add this: