MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2576329034 · doi:10.1002/open.201600165

Open Access is Evolving and <i>ChemistryOpen</i> is Too!

2017· editorial· en· W2576329034 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistryOpen · 2017
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAcademic Publishing and Open Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData scienceComputer scienceNanotechnologyWorld Wide WebMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gone are the days when every mention of open access (OA) came with a long explanation of what it entails. Instead, OA is now widely accepted as a model for scholarly publishing. ChemistryOpen is proud to have been one of the journals there at the start for the chemistry community, being the first society-owned fully OA general chemistry journal, launched in 2011. Since then, ChemistryOpen has gone from strength to strength, and was rewarded with an impressive 2015 impact factor of 3.585. Following this, we have recently seen an increase in both the quantity and quality of submissions, enabling us to achieve our aim of publishing high-quality chemistry to the widest possible audience. A lot has happened in terms of OA over the years, and it is great to see so many funding bodies and institutions advocating OA publishing. One of the most notable driving forces towards OA is the Horizon 2020 programme, in which the European Commission mandates all beneficiaries to publish their work OA, and this notion is being echoed by other institutes and funding bodies the world over. This positive outlook on OA has, however, led to some negatives in the OA landscape. One of the detrimental ways in which some publishers operate is to deliberately adopt journal names that sound almost identical to others. Dr. Peter Gölitz touches on this fact in his latest Editorial for Angewandte Chemie; however, this is a particular challenge for the authors and readers of ChemistryOpen. Although there are many examples, two particular journals with identical scope to ChemistryOpen that have adopted very similar names are Open Chemistry published by De Gruyter with an impact factor of 1.207 (formerly known as the Central European Journal of Chemistry) and Open Chemistry Journal published by Bentham Open. While the journal name and scope may be almost identical, it is important to know that these are not, in fact, one and the same. Perhaps more harmful to OA publishing, on the whole, is the growing number of predatory publishers. This exploitive business model is threatening the progress that has been made over the years with respect to OA publishing and open science. Predatory publishers offer little or no peer review, meaning that there is zero quality control and they often publish plagiarized or fabricated results. They do, however, continue to endorse APCs and pose as reputable publishers, often by advertising fictional editorial boards and false location details. Perhaps the most frustrating feature of predatory publishers is the way in which they aggressively campaign to potential authors, spamming inboxes all around the globe. There are, however, a number of useful websites that are being maintained to advise authors about OA publishing options. One of which is “Beall's List”, which was initially launched in 2010 to warn academics of predatory publishers. The list is maintained by University of Colorado Denver librarian Jeffrey Beall, and seeks to identify all publishers that fit into certain criteria. Most notable, however, is the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), which was launched way back in 2003 at Lund University, Sweden, and remains committed to high-quality, peer-reviewed OA publishing. These resources offer information and advice about OA publishing, and the Editorial Team at ChemistryOpen always recommend that authors and readers take a little precaution, be it prior to submitting an article or when browsing the literature. 1 The past year has seen many changes at ChemistryOpen; most notably, we have implemented a new flat-rate APC. Our standard fees of 2500€ for Full Papers and Communications or 3500€ for Reviews and Minireviews have been heavily reduced to only 1800€ for all article types! This reduced fee will be in effect at least until August 31st, 2018. Therefore, all submissions received by the Editorial Office on or before this date will be eligible for the reduced rate. In addition, all members of a ChemPubSoc Europe national society will be entitled to a further 20% discount, making the APC only 1440€! For further information about other discounts and waivers, details can be found on the journal's homepage at www.ChemistryOpen.org/charges. ChemistryOpen begins 2017 with further changes, and this time it is to our Editorial Advisory Board (EAB). While we are pleased that many of our EAB members will remain for a second term, we are also excited to welcome some fresh faces. The Editorial Team at ChemistryOpen would like to take this opportunity to say a big thank you to the retiring EAB members for all of their help and support over the last few years. We are pleased to announce our refreshed EAB (Table 1), with members from all over the world that offer expertise across all chemistry-related fields, and together we hope to continue our success in publishing high-quality papers. Chairmen Ramón Martinez-Máñez Universitat Polytechnica de Valencia Co-Chairman Thomas Wirth Cardiff University Co-Chairman Jean-Marie Lehn Collège de France/Université de Strasbourg Honorary Chairman Members Fernando Albericio University of KwaZulu-Natal Thisbe Lindhorst Universität Kiel Valentin Ananikov Zelinsky Institute of Organic Chemistry Carlos Lodeiro Universidade Nova de Lisboa Didier Astruc Institut des Sciences Moléculaires Todd L. Lowary University of Alberta Jochen Autschbach State University of New York at Buffalo Stefan Matile Université de Genève Christian Becker Universität Wien Mikko Metsä-Ketelä University of Turku Per Berglund KTH Royal Institute of Technology Pedro Molina Universidad de Murcia Sheshanath V. Bhosale RMIT University Toshiaki Murai Gifu University F. Matthias Bickelhaupt Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Berit Olofsson Stockholms Universitet Renata Bilewicz University of Warsaw Mario Pagliaro Istituto per lo Studio dei Materiali Nanostrutturati, CNR Kathrin Breuker Universität Innsbruck Yuanjiang Pan Zhejiang University David Bryce University of Ottawa Oliver Reiser Universität Regensburg Jianfeng Cai University of South Florida Knut Rurack Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung Juan Cámpora CSIC-Universidad de Sevilla James Rusling University of Connecticut Minserk Cheong Kyung Hee University Albert Schenning Technische Universiteit Eindhoven Young Keun Chung Seoul National University Patrik Schmuki Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg Richard G Compton University of Oxford Min Shi Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry Alberto Credi Universiry of Bologna Norio Shibata Nagoya Institute of Technology Patrick Dansette Université Paris-Descartes Rint Sijbesma Technische Universiteit Eindhoven Matthias D′hooghe Ghent University Holger Stephan Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf Ulf Diederichsen Universität Göttingen Brian Stoltz California Institute of Technology Benjamin Dietzek Friedrich Schiller University Jena Reshef Tenne Weizmann Institute of Science Antony Fairbanks University of Canterbury Matthew Todd University of Sydney Elena Ferapontova Aarhus University Jaume Veciana Institut Ciencia Materials Barcelona Stefan Grimme Universität Bonn Hans-Achim Wagenknecht Karlsruher Institut für Technologie Narayan Hosmane Northern Illinois University, DeKalb Ralph Weissleder Massachusetts General Hospital Christoff Janiak Universität Düsseldorf Charlotte Willans University of Leeds Klaus Jurkschat Technische Universität Dortmund Gunther Wittstock Universität Oldenburg Mats Larhed Uppsala Universitet Johan Wouters Université de Namur Ying-Wu Lin University of South China Vivian W. W. Yam The University of Hong Kong As a multidisciplinary journal, ChemistryOpen covers all aspects of chemistry and its subdisciplines. The journal also features specialized Virtual Issues that seek to highlight particular areas within the chemical sciences of current interest and importance. In 2016, ChemistryOpen launched its latest Virtual Issue, focusing on Advances in Electrochemistry. This Virtual Issue is being prepared in collaboration with Guest Editor, Professor Bernhard Gollas (TU Graz, Austria), and it is still open to new submissions; researchers wishing to contribute to this or future Virtual Issues should contact the Editorial Office via e-mail for further details. On behalf of the entire ChemistryOpen Editorial Team, we thank all of our board members (past and present), reviewers, authors, and readers for their continued support. We very much look forward to being part of the continuing evolution of OA publishing. Dr. Kate Lawrence Deputy Editor ChemistryOpen

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.1130.014
Open science0.0780.047
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it