Skip to content

Fleshing out rules for new journals. #6

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fleshing out rules for new journals. #6

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
62418b7
Fleshing out rules for new journals.
arfon Jun 1, 2021
37216ad
Update governance.md
arfon Jun 3, 2021
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
24 changes: 20 additions & 4 deletions governance.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -51,10 +51,26 @@ Subcommittees may be established by the Steering Council to assist in managing t

### Editorial policies and processes

Individual journals are responsible for their own editorial process, including their editorial board composition. However, by being an Open Journals publication, each journal must:
Individual journals are responsible for their own editorial process, including their editorial board composition. However, by being an Open Journals publication, each journal:

**Must**

- 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).
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz Jul 16, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do all our journals do this now (e.g. JOSE, JuliaCon, Open Journal of Astrophysics, Journal of Brief Ideas)

Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz Jul 16, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess this actually goes for all the musts, not just this one...

Copy link
Member Author

@arfon arfon Jul 17, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

Copy link

@kyleniemeyer kyleniemeyer Jul 19, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with @arfon

- 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.
Copy link

@khinsen khinsen Aug 18, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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?

Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz Aug 18, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@khinsen - Is your concern with this document (governance.md) or a different document?

Copy link

@khinsen khinsen Aug 18, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz Aug 18, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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?

Copy link

@khinsen khinsen Aug 18, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz Aug 18, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's fine with me

Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz Aug 18, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If you have suggestions you want to make for https://github.com/openjournals/joss/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md as well, please do

- Nominate a member of their editorial team to join the Open Journals steering committee.

**Ideally should also**

- Use the [Open Journals](https://github.com/openjournals) open source toolchain.
- Be aligned with the [NumFOCUS mission](https://numfocus.org/community/mission)<sup>*</sup>

<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.)
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz Jun 1, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems too vague

Copy link

@kyleniemeyer kyleniemeyer Jun 1, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

which part? the costs?

Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz Jul 16, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes - what specifically do we want them to contribute? A 1/n share (where we have n journals)?

Copy link

@karthik karthik Jul 16, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems to be spelled out now.

Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz Jul 17, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think so - 'contribute to' is very vague to me

Copy link

@kyleniemeyer kyleniemeyer Jul 19, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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
- Have an open review process
- Use the Open Journals open source toolchain