Evaluating our journal


This year's editorial had a lot to do with the future of the archaeology publishing world – a future that looks bleak – and an Open Access model that should confront neoliberal trends in academic publishing. It might sound strange coming from a journal sponsored by a company, but we believe our ethical stand on this matter is crystal clear.
One of the issues we need to address now is the quality of the journal. There are certain things we are not willing to change. For instance, we believe that a large academic Editorial Board, which has little or no involvement in the real daily affairs of the journal, would not change anything for the better. However, there clearly is room for improvement and we ask you to help us in this effort.



Radboud University Nijmegen has launched "Quality Open Access Market" (QOAM) to evaluate Open Access journals in a collaborative way. We want to use this tool in order to improve the journal, so we will not ask you for a 5.0 to be greener than anyone, but a sincere opinion on our journal so that we change towards a real 5.0.
In order to participate, you need to have an institutional email, and it would be better if you have been an author, as some of the questions are related to the editorial process. Jaime already participated and, as you can see, he is aware of some things we are missing. So, fill out your score cards to help us keep improving!
Our plans for the future include some small changes. A first dilemma we have has to do with the use of DOI. As you know it is being largely used by top journals, but we do not see its real benefit beyond an easier tracking system for cross references within the traditional indexing arena. After all, it is just a link to another already existing link. The difference? The price. You have to pay in order to get it, feeding someone's business.
Are we wrong? Maybe. This is why we also want to encourage you to share your ideas for improvement with us, explaining why you think they must be implemented.
Thanks a lot in advance and we can’t wait to see your comments!

The Editorial Team


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Welcome to AP Journal

DGUF Conference 2015 - Is the public creating a different archaeology? Analyses of a power shift. (Tübingen, 14-17th May)

Points of You - Volume 4