Fleshing out rules for new journals. #6
Conversation
|
|
||
| <sup>*</sup> Note this is especially important if the journal would ever want to use NumFOCUS as a fiscal sponsor/host. | ||
|
|
||
| New journals should also be prepared to contribute to the running costs of the Open Journals (e.g., Crossref and Portico membership. DOI registration fees. Web hosting. Infrastructure maintenance.) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes - what specifically do we want them to contribute? A 1/n share (where we have n journals)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think so - 'contribute to' is very vague to me
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this document need to explicitly say how much they will contribute? the cost models are open, so they could see what these things look like already, and I would imagine a new journal would contribute some amount based on its level of activity/size
| - Be open access ([Diamond/Platinum or Gold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access#Definitions)). | ||
| - License journal content (e.g., articles) under a [CC-BY license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). | ||
| - Follow an open peer review process. | ||
| - Publish a cost model (e.g., https://joss.theoj.org/about#costs). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do all our journals do this now (e.g. JOSE, JuliaCon, Open Journal of Astrophysics, Journal of Brief Ideas)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess this actually goes for all the musts, not just this one...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No. JOSE and JuliaCon are compliant I think, Open Journal of Astrophysics & Journal of Brief Ideas are partially compliant here.
I would suggest we address any low-hanging fruit here (i.e., add clear licensing if it doesn't exist) but otherwise grandfather these journals in, or simply don't 'count' them as Open Journals journals.
| - License journal content (e.g., articles) under a [CC-BY license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). | ||
| - Follow an open peer review process. | ||
| - Publish a cost model (e.g., https://joss.theoj.org/about#costs). | ||
| - Have a code of conduct (e.g., [Contributor Covenant](https://github.com/openjournals/joss/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md)) and a documented process for dealing with infringements. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The JOSS code of conduct refers to "project maintainers". I guess it was written for software development projects, not journals. In the context of JOSS, it is misleading because it could refer to the maintainers of the project that is the topic of a submitted article. Maybe replace by "editorial board", or some subset of the editorial board?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@khinsen - Is your concern with this document (governance.md) or a different document?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My direct concern is with this document. It recommends a code of conduct for future journals that I consider badly worded. As someone involved with a candidate journal, that matters for me. It may well be that it matters for the JOSS editorial board as well, but that's not for me to decide.
In other words: if JOSS decides to update its code of conduct along these lines, I am fine with recommending it as a model for others. As it is, I think it's not a good model.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, I now understand your concern. Do you want to suggest changes in the JOSS CoC that would address your issues? Or suggest a different CoC we should mention as an example in this document?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about citing the Contributor Covenant Web site directly? Since version 2, it says "community leaders" instead of "project maintainers", which looks a lot better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you have suggestions you want to make for https://github.com/openjournals/joss/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md as well, please do
👋 @labarba @kyleniemeyer @danielskatz @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @karthik . Following our call in May, I'e written up our notes to try and capture our discussion around rules for new journals.
Please add any comments/feedback/improvements.
/ Fixes #3