where expertise comes together - since 1996 -

The Largest Open Access Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Conference Proceedings, Articles, News, Exhibition, Forum, Network and more

where expertise comes together
- since 1996 -
955 views
Articles & News
Rainer Krankenhagen
Rainer Krankenhagen
13:04 Sep-03-2019
Editorial: Rolf Diederichs about Peer Review and Conference Proceedings

The problem is even more complicated. There are many different interests, some of which are contradictory.
TThe scientist wants to spread his results as far as possible.
The conference organiser does not want to be stuck on costs and therefore has to accept a minimum number of contributions. In addition, he wants to ensure the highest possible level of the conference. Finally, he wants to offer good service and make the documents available to all participants at the beginning of the conference.
Administrations and funding bodies would like to measure and quantify scientific output. In doing so, they make use of the journals and simply count publications.
The journals themselves have to earn money. They can be paid for each individual article and use the peer review system as a free service from the scientific community.
It will be interesting to see whether and how the initiative on Open Access for publicly funded research will affect this network of relationships.

Best wishes
Rainer Krankenhagen

2
 
 Reply 
 
Rolf Diederichs
Director,
NDT.net, Germany, Joined Nov 1998, 608

Rolf Diederichs

Director,
NDT.net,
Germany,
Joined Nov 1998
608
20:24 Sep-03-2019
Re: Editorial: Rolf Diederichs about Peer Review and Conference Proceedings

In Reply to Rainer Krankenhagen at 13:04 Sep-03-2019 (Opening).

zoom image


Open Access Comparision

"the problem is even more complicated" yes you are absolute right. For that reason I was not able to catch all aspects in the editorial. The second editorial from Ed Ginzel was thought as a supplement to give additional insight (https://www.ndt.net/search/docs.php3?id=24694) .

I support your summary of the problems and can add some more. There are not only scientist speakers on a conference moreover there are a lot of industry speakers and in some conferences they are the majority and usually their papers do not fit to a peer review. So where to publish these papers? not at all? Would that be fair? For that case a non peer review proceedings or a hybrid method suits best.

I think where is a will there is a way to solve most of the problems. The following different methods are possible.
Case A. Non Peer Review => NDT.net Open Access

Case B. Peer Review => Peer Review Publisher Open Access CC by 4.0 => NDT.net Open Access

Case C. Peer Review => NDT.net Open Access (submit with ISBN the proceedings to Scopus Index)

Case D Hybrid (Case A + Case B) This is the most flexible solution.

Case D we can break down in:
Case D1. All Papers in Proceedings but x% invided for extended Version Peer Review Publisher (Non Open Access Dead End or Open Access => NDT.net)

Case D2. y% Papers in Proceedings but x% invided for extended Version Peer Review Publisher (Non Open Access Dead End or Open Access => NDT.net)

Method Case A is NDT.net's traditional method since more than 20 years. Case D method have been done for about 10 years, e.g. iCT conferences. Case C was done with EWSHM 2018, APWSHM 2018.

Using here the term "Peer Review" does not means it is always a quality peer review. I read in the ICNDT Journal "close to 500 peer-reviewed papers were presented at the ECNDT 2018" (published in NDT.net). As Ed Ginzel said: "The costs to the conference for a quality peer review of a few hundred papers would be prohibitive and would result in very few papers being published.”

Rainer, you have published here in NDT.net 32 papers in 20 different proceedings. I guess most of these proceedings are not peer reviewed or indexed in Scopus. I am wondering if you would prefer not to have any of your papers here and instead having all your papers only peer reviewed somewhere else published?

In the attached table I have tried a comparison of different publishing methods.

I would appreciate to receiving further feedback.

Thanks,

Rolf
1
 
 Reply 
 
Rainer Krankenhagen
Rainer Krankenhagen
10:48 Sep-06-2019
Re: Editorial: Rolf Diederichs about Peer Review and Conference Proceedings

In Reply to Rolf Diederichs at 20:24 Sep-03-2019 .

In fact, the answer is not that simple. In terms of content, I don't differentiate between a conference and a normal publication in a magazine. Actually the two variants represent different kinds of communication and not every result can be represented meaningfully in 15 or 20 minutes.. Then, of course, it also depends on the audience at the conference. Therefore a conference paper will normally not have the content of a journal article. But there are also short articles in journals. That's why you think in advance about what would fit where. In reality, the contribution for the journal is then worked out more thoroughly, there are several versions during the development, which can also differ significantly. Therefore the time required is much higher. In other words, I would not have been able to publish the 32 contributions mentioned above in journals, although most of them would have been suitable in terms of content (novelty, scientific level).
Therefore, the answer is that I am actually quite satisfied. In rankings, the conference contributions should be given less weight (corresponding to the typically lower expenditure, but should not be neglected).
In general, I would like to see a stricter selection of conference papers and financial considerations should not playing a role. If the number of registrations is too low, the volume could be reduced accordingly and parallel sessions could be omitted. Or the conference could be cancelled completely. Everyone has already been annoyed about bad contributions and would have done something more meaningful in that time.

 
 Reply 
 
Rolf Diederichs
Director,
NDT.net, Germany, Joined Nov 1998, 608

Rolf Diederichs

Director,
NDT.net,
Germany,
Joined Nov 1998
608
23:30 Sep-08-2019
Re: Editorial: Rolf Diederichs about Peer Review and Conference Proceedings

In Reply to Rainer Krankenhagen at 10:48 Sep-06-2019 .

Concerning a better conference quality. It is not so easy for a committee to guarantee good contributions, but at least the contribution should meet the theme of the conference. On hand of the program and abstract book participants can avoid listening bad talks and instead using the time for networking, exhibition etc.. However, much easier is a review (not a peer review but at least screening) of the conference papers for the proceedings. In my practice I received so many PDF files that could be easily rejected even from someone without knowledge in NDT.

As usual we can continue collecting here a lot of good arguments pro publishing Open Acess in NDT.net, however, we have to face other irrational reasons:

- Politics of some NDT societes (I am sure some doing active campaigns against NDT.net)

- The committee is influenced from academics (usually the committee members are academics)

- The chairman gains personal benefits by specific publishing method (e.g. connection to a publisher)

- Sometimes lake of publshing knowledge (some even didn't knew what is a creative common license)

These kind of problems will always hinder a rational best practice of publishing conference contributions, like here in NDT.net.

 
 Reply 
 

Product Spotlight

FMC/TFM

Next generation for Phased Array UT is here now with FMC/TFM! Have higher resolution imaging, impr
...
oved signal to noise ratio, characterize, size and analyze defects better with access to several wave mode views and save raw FMC data for higher quality analysis.  Some of the benefits are:
  • Beautiful Image! Easier to understand what you're looking at
  • Completely focused in entire image or volume
  • Much easier to define setups before inspection
  • Easier to decipher geometry echoes from real defects
  • Oriented defects (e.g. cracks) are imaged better
  • See image from different wave modes from one FMC inspection
  • FMC data can be reprocessed/analyzed without going back to the field
>

YXLON Cougar EVO

Scalable small footprint X-ray inspection systems for assembly and laboratory applications. The
...
YXLON Cougar EVO series was designed to provide the "best-in- class" inspection solutions for SMT, semiconductor, and laboratory assembly applications, while maintaining a small system footprint for maximum convenience. With optimized software and hardware, these systems produce higher quality and more consistent results than other electronics inspection systems currently on the market.
>

NDT.net launches mobile-friendly design

NDT.net has revamped its website providing a mobile-friendly design.The front page received a comp
...
letely new design and all other sections are now reacting responsively on mobile devices. This has been a major step to make our website more user- friendly.
>

Immersion systems

ScanMaster ultrasonic immersion systems are designed for high throughput, multi shift operation in a
...
n industrial or lab environment. These fully integrated systems provide various scanning configurations and incorporate conventional and phased arrays technologies to support diverse applications, such as inspection of disks, bars, shafts, billets and plates. All of ScanMaster immersion systems are built from high accuracy scanning frames allowing for scanning of complex parts and include a multi-channel ultrasonic instrument with exceptional performance. The systems are approved by all major manufacturers for C-scan inspection of jet engine forged discs. Together with a comprehensive set of software modules these flexible series of systems provide the customer with the best price performance solutions.
>

Share...
We use technical and analytics cookies to ensure that we will give you the best experience of our website - More Info
Accept
top
this is debug window