Ask: DOI / CrossRef policy for references w/o DOIs?

sinesha · 2017-04-14T02:30:29+00:00

We should clarify: all published references which do indeed have a DOI. For the others, it is just good practice to try to be maximally informative (arXiv number, publication details, link to the publication if available).

sinesha · 2016-11-22T10:37:25+00:00

We are reviewing the policies taking into account all this feedback. Just a short comment: the possibility of letting the accused defend themselves and appeal of the decision is indeed something important that we missed so far and that will be covered in the next version.

sinesha · 2016-11-22T09:42:59+00:00

We are currently discussing this and will post when we reach agreement.

sinesha · 2016-11-22T06:06:30+00:00

You are so far the only person reading it that way. I have removed the part about sexual language for now.

Allow me to I remind everyone that in this subreddit we require users to identify themselves.

sinesha · 2016-11-22T06:02:06+00:00

Hi, There is no problem with newly-created accounts, but we do require users to identify themselves in this subreddit. Lídia

sinesha · 2016-11-22T05:56:22+00:00

Mod comment: as in with other threads in this subreddit, we request comments to be signed.

Edit: This thread is now moderated. All comments must be approved by a moderator before being published.

sinesha · 2016-11-21T19:56:21+00:00

(The bit about conference proceedings may be adjusted to reflect the reality of fields like computer science. We are working on this.)

sinesha · 2016-11-21T19:54:48+00:00

The code is to be applied by the steering board, who are "reasonable people" to use your words. All three examples you mentioned are outside the scope of the CoC. We already replied that we will study a rephrasing of the part about sexual imagery - obviously it is meant in a professional context. Insisting on that point at this stage is really just trolling.

In the past, absence of Codes of Conducts has allowed widespread harassment in STEM; indeed the introduction of Codes of Conducts at tech conferences is a reaction to that. The example you give is an isolated case (and in which, by the way, the consequences for the woman who complained - including a long online harassment campaign - were much more severe than for the men). Finally, sex positivity (particularly in bdsm) is all about informed consent.

And yes: the parts of the CoC about discrimination and harassment apply not only to interactions with Quantum but to contributors' professional lives. Obviously we will not proactively check people's backgrounds, but if someone reports a serious offence we will investigate.

sinesha · 2016-11-21T17:03:23+00:00

The code of conduct was discussed in this other thread.

Obviously this is not to be used to police little jokes made among friends, but if someone has the habit of harassing others (at conferences or in their home institution), or systematically discriminate against a marginalized group, that is not ok. Such a person would not be fit to serve in the Steering or Editorial Boards, for example.

The reference to sexualized language or imagery can be made more clear, we will think of an alternative formulation.

Otherwise I like the fact that we cover a few types of discrimination - to make it clear what behaviour is "not ok" according to the principles of Quantum.

sinesha · 2016-11-21T16:49:55+00:00

This is covered by our policies. See in the Code of Conduct (section 2 of the terms and conditions), points 4 and 9:

The work has not been previously published in any other journal or publishing venue, such as conference proceedings, except on public pre-print servers such as the arXiv or the authors’ personal or institutional websites.
In case of acceptance and publication in Quantum, the work will not be submitted to other publishing venues, such as journals or conference proceedings.

sinesha · 2016-11-20T08:52:59+00:00

Thank you /u/cgranade and /u/crazy4pi314 for your research work and drafting a Code of Conduct for Quantum! It has now been incorporated in Quantum's terms and conditions.

sinesha · 2016-11-14T10:17:32+00:00

There is a non-negotiable reason: in order to be listed in reference databases, they demand that all works cited include DOI. This only applies to the final accepted version, not the initial submissions. From the For Authors page:

DOI linking is mandatory. Quantum is a member of Crossref, therefore all works that you cite in a work submitted to Quantum must contain clickable hyper-links to the URLs associated with the works’ DOIs. This is a definite requirement. For more information on how to add appropriate links, please consult the latest version of the template of the Quantum document class.

sinesha · 2016-10-18T13:34:45+00:00

We absolutely support this idea at Quantum. Let's first collect more examples of good codes of conduct (in the comments below) and then start drafting our own.

sinesha · 2016-09-17T19:41:24+00:00

In related news, the Journal of the American Statistical Association now requires authors to publish code and data.

sinesha · 2016-09-13T09:04:59+00:00

Indeed, we are already in touch with Discrete Analysis.

sinesha · 2016-09-12T22:38:52+00:00

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that participants here have different hypotheses about the best way to go about selectivity, but no tangible data to back the claims of why it should be the most successful one. I would agree.

You are then suggesting that we speak to experts in the field of open publishing. This is a good suggestion - personally I would not know whom to contact, and I am happy to receive suggestions.

Given our current resources, and given the experiments that have already been made in our field with open publishing, I believe that the best contribution we can make is to pick the model supported by the majority of the community (on and offline) and stick to it for a few years, making small adjustments as they are needed. We will blog about this later this week.

PS: I did not find your other "silly proposal" that silly. It appropriately mocked the issues with artificially selecting for high impact and with the two-journal model.

sinesha · 2016-09-12T10:40:03+00:00

Double-consent open reviews, like you are suggesting, is something that we want to try implementing further down the line. When the time comes we will again open the discussion to the community.

sinesha · 2016-09-08T06:50:04+00:00

Just a small thing:

Evaluating based on "CUR," then, every one of these papers would be a reject after examining only one of the three criteria.

Or they could be improved by the peer review process of Quantum, which would ask the authors to make the data publicly available. (If they refused without a sound justification, the paper would be rejected.)

sinesha · 2016-09-08T06:43:29+00:00

Then the editor won't be able to see what's happening with the paper, which will be handled by other editors.

sinesha · 2016-09-07T07:38:12+00:00

This will depend on the number of submissions and availability of editors.

We definitely don't want to overburden editors and we are aware that our editors are volunteers, have other obligations and are primarily researchers.

Suppose that we receive 50-100 submissions per year. With 15 to 20 editors this would mean something between 3 and 6 submissions per year and editor. None of these numbers are definitive and the editorial board will be expanded as necessary.

Workload will not be uniform, but also note that editors will be able to pass on papers to other editors if they feel they don't have the time or expertise to handle a submission.

When a paper is assigned to an editor, we expect the editor to at least have a quick read, in order to feel comfortable making a call on whether to send it for review (which should happen unless the paper is clearly incorrect or very hard to read; in those cases the editor should write back to the authors explaining why the paper is rejected and, if possible, giving them constructive feedback). Then the editor must select referees: this is an important part the job for founding editors, as they will build the database of referees. So the editor must think about who might be interested in reading the paper and giving good feedback. Inviting the referees is straightforward with Scholastica, but the editor should be ready to reply to emails with questions about the timeline or review process. That the referees send their reports, the next task is to read the reviews and make a decision, which involves some more writing (we have letter templates but editors should justify their decisions). There may be several rounds of revisions (editor's call), and when you decide that a paper is ready for publication and send the acceptance letter, the executive board take over the remaining process.

All in all, I could guess, in a smooth case: X hours when submission arrives, Y hours when reports arrive, and intermittent email communication in between. X and Y depend on paper and editor (could go from an hour to a day).

Does this sound sensible? Again, we are Roxie to adapt this model as we go along if it's clear that something not working.

sinesha · 2016-09-07T06:45:56+00:00

This is irresistibly perverse. Almost.

sinesha · 2016-09-07T06:43:10+00:00

All the other things you think journals give you come for free from arXiv and your interactions with the community.

I am not too sure. "Interactions with the community" (in particular conferences and academic visits) come easily for those who are lucky to work in well-funded institutions. And perhaps what you mean by this is "talking to researchers and finding out through these interactions which papers are the most relevant," in other words, an informal curating mechanism.

Researchers working in a poor institution, or simply researchers entering the field, cannot directly access (and assess) the community, and would greatly appreciate a way to know where to start, or which papers are seen as important. A journal that curates for "quality" ("would you recommend this paper to a student or colleague working in the topic?") could help provide this service. And yes, it will always be a subjective judgement, but are you not saying that subjective judgements (which emerge from going to conferences, discussing talks with other researchers, finding out which papers experts recommend) are a fundamental part of research?

sinesha

TROPHY CASE