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 -

Forum > Articles & News > Post A Message
You are writing a reply to the message of Rainer Krankenhagen dated at 13:04 Sep-03-2019

Thank you for posting a feedback to:
"Editorial: Rolf Diederichs about Peer Review and Conference Proceedings"
Your feedback will be added to the article and also posted to the forum. Authors with email address will receive your feedback as well.

Upload Files (optional for attachments)

Your Name
Your Email*

Member's Profile Author's Profile Exhibitor
*MyNDT Members shall use their profile email addresss to ensure a link to their profile! We invite Non Members to register before submitting a message here
Subject: Re: Editorial: Rolf Diederichs about Peer Review and Conference Proceedings
Message: Post Matter is Limited to NDT ! Posting Rules. Please ready our Privacy Policy
Notify replies to me:

Security Question:

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

Rolf Diederichs
NDT.net, Germany, Joined Nov 1998, 616

Rolf Diederichs

Joined Nov 1998
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.


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.

Rolf Diederichs
NDT.net, Germany, Joined Nov 1998, 616

Rolf Diederichs

Joined Nov 1998
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.


Product Spotlight


TKM-459CE combi applies 2 methods of hardness control: UCI and Leeb. It provides high-accuracy tes
ting of metals and alloys as well as items of different sizes and configurations, their hardened layers and galvanic coatings. Device represents results in HB, HRC, HV and others. Shock-, dust- and water-proof housing with intuitive software make this gauge easy to use in all working conditions.

Cygnus 6+ PRO Multi-Mode Ultrasonic Thickness Gauge

The Cygnus 6+ PRO thickness gauge is the most advance gauge within the Cygnus range with key featu
res including: comprehensive data logging; A-scan and B-scan display; manual gain control; Bluetooth connectivity; and much more. With its unique dual display and three measuring modes (Multiple-Echo, Echo-Echo and Single-Echo), this surface thickness gauge offers maximum versatility for inspections.

Varex Imaging Large Field of View (FOV) Digital Detector Arrays (DDAs)

A larger FOV DDA can reduce the space and volume of the X-ray inspection system on the factory floor
, enable faster scanning times, better throughput and better resolution images at a lower dose. Customers can also save time and money. With these benefits in mind, Varex Imaging has designed a family of large FOV detectors (4343HE, XRD 1611, 4343DX-I, 4343CT) for our industrial imaging customers.

A1525 SOLO

A1525 Solo – the most compact and affordable TMF unit with two phased array transducers and 3D v
isualization and analysis software in standard delivery set. A compact, ergonomic and easy to handheld Phased Array unit based on Total Focusing Method for easy-going imaging of inspection objects with two-dimensional and three-dimensional visualization and evaluation of inspection results.

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