Open to thoughts about publishing the AIMS journal this year.

Hello DI:

We did a call for papers earlier this year for a new journal. We received 35 articles and have been going through the review process. The process has set a high bar, and of the 35 we’ve been filtering articles, either through quality concerns or the authors stepping away from the process. All fine and appropriate.

We are now down to one article that is nearing the end and may meet all the requirements.

My question: should we publish a new journal with one article, or simply start the process over again next year and hope for the best?

Thoughts?

PS – for what it is worth here is the peer review process we’ve been following: Peer Review Process

 

Is this an online Journal or print? I'm out of my league on this one. I would think you would not want to have a Journal with only one article? Maybe I'm wrong? Seems kind of silly to me.

Perhaps a Blog of articles (with a less stringent review process) might be more appropriate? If you are trying to get the word out about your institution I would think a full on Web 2.0 CJ would be in order. But then you may lose some credibility. IDK on this one.

Good luck.

 

Dave,

I think you need to restart the process, but you also need to be fair to the author who has submitted quality work.

Perhaps you review the work, provide the author with feedback, and then point the author to another journal - while explaining the situation?

Shawn

 

I'm going to go the other way, and throw down some arguments in favor of publishing:

(1) It gets your journal out there. Even if it's only got one article, it's a start.

(2) It shows commitment to your author, who jumped through all those hoops.

(3) It shows commitment to the process, and the quality of its outputs.

Instead of thinking of it as a journal with only one article, I would think of it as "priming the pump."

Just some thoughts...

Tom

 

Thanks for the thoughts so far. I’m torn. I agree I feel obligated to the one person who will probably make it through the process. They have done a lot of work. I also feel like a journal with one article might draw some odd looks.

The goal here is to build a publication that feeds our frameworks, linking the market driven research to out particular viewpoints, which are starting to make their way onto paper between the study guides and books we are publishing.

I don’t know… the other option we have would be to pad it with other things we are researching, delineating the peer review stuff from our research stuff.. but then we’re out of the realms of journal and into the realms of magazine…

Odd situation, honestly…

 

Have you thought about contacting the author and explaining the situation and soliciting his/her feedback?

Shawn

 

Yes, and I agree that has to be part of what happens no matter which way we go. But, I’m hesitant to enter that conversation until I’ve explored all options and I know what I’ll be talking to them about.

The more and more I think about it, I am leaning to a more magazine style release with a peer review section, which might be the best way to get everyone what they expect.

BTW, this will be a print release not on electronic release; I think you asked that earlier…

 

If it is print, I would not publish. If it is an electronic release, I would consider publishing. You said that it is print. One article is not much. Perhaps for the first issue, you could consider electronic publishing. As you build capacity, you could then move to print.


Tom Nixon
Best Online High Schools

 

As the first edition, I would publish all articles received. I would then highlight the one that meets the journal's criteria, at the same time, point out those that do not meet the journal's requirement and why (with specific comments). That way, this first edition would serve as reference for those sending in articles in the future. Acquiring or using this first edition, with examples of accepted articles and those rejected, would become an important part of sending in articles that meet the journal's standards. Indeed, showcasing all articles that you received, as well as the ones that were accepted would speak volumes about the quality of the journal. Also, it'll be a good opportunity to introduce the journal and to show its quality requirements or expectations (in terms of the articles/case studies/research), in my opinion, and I think you should publish it (if the cost of doing so is reasonable).

 

Interesting concept. Intriguing, however I’m not sure how many of the authors will be thrilled about having their articles published as failures with open critiques. That element seems a little harsh; I’m not trying to punish people for having tried. Also the agreements I put in place don’t really account for this scenario, not that it isn’t interesting and worth further analysis.

 

That would be an excellent way to make some people very upset, for sure!

 

What about publishing them anonymously without author names? Except the authors in question do not consent or have no interest in re-submitting their articles for future publication, you can publish rejected articles as work-in-progress or as research work that readers should expect to see in subsequent publications (without the open critiques). What I'm driving at is a way to publish this first edition with enough content that keeps it interesting, yet valuable as a reference for future years (considering what you are faced with).

If you don't devise a means to publish it, what happens if the situation repeats itself, (where few articles submitted for future publication meet the journal's requirement)? Alternatively, it may also be a good idea to relax the requirements and make it into magazine-style, like you said. However, keeping it as journal that publishes high quality work (even if it contains few articles) would attract "real scholars" in long run, and ofcourse, taken much seriously. I think enough folks are not aware of it yet. When more folks hear about it, especially, distance learners, you'll get enough than you can handle. In that case, quality would not just set it apart, it would be a deciding factor for those looking to plunge into publishing.

 

Interesting model. My strategy was to combine 'new think' intellectual capital with a few 'old think' established concepts. As everyone here knows, in higher ed if you look to different or do to much people don't understand, it is easy to be dismissed.

I had wanted a real high quality traditional journal to supplement some cool new books and free intellectual content (which I have been accused of pimping even here ). Also, from a journal standpoint doing it all at once is actually a lot easier than having new stuff show up all the time and having to line up people to review it.

However, having said that, I am always open to what works.....

 

It seems to me, that the usual path for journals to grow is either out of an existing research group with a specific focus (e.g. a bunch of academics who are working in a similar area and for some reason see a need to start their own journal - therefore have a constant supply on papers by themselves, colleagues or PhD students) or to grow the quality as it gets older.

You got to take a look from the authors perspective - why should they submit their article to your journal and not to one which has already a reputation in the field or is somewhat "ranked". As far as I can see there is not really any convincing argument for submitting, there is no well-known authority in the field as the editor, not a very narrow focus of the journal, there is no well known publisher involved, no reputed University as the "host", etc pp. You got to make the "why the AIMS journal" clearer if you want to convince high quality authors that your journal is the right place for their research.

My more constructive suggestion would be to position the journal at the academic publishing entry level, i.e. graduate student level students but having it published by a decent distributor (elsevier, springer, etc). There seem to be an increasing drive towards peer reviewed publishing even under the PhD level and if the quality and submissions go up you can either rise the standards or just spin of another journal.

 

Publishing

I would second those comments. Starting a journal just for the sake of starting one is not good. A journal should be of credible work. If the work you have received so far is not worthy then you cannot publish it, it must be revised.

Beginning with an online journal is the most responsible way to go until you receive enough submissions. I believe you are working hard to increase your institutions credibility and offer more opportunity and benefits to your graduate students. However, publishing too early would be a disservice to your students. Their papers are sometimes years worth of work that they are asking their peers to evaluate. You can't let them down by allowing inferior work to be published and destroyed in a critique by the academic community. That would only lower their credibility and your institutions.

Now, if you want to do a series of news articles about their research, that would be acceptable. If it is a higher standard you are working toward, then don't compromise. Publishing the one paper on the internet and having it published/distributed by the likes of Elsevier or Springer or another well regarded organization is the best direction to take.