I agree with most of what is said BUT one thing, namely "rating". Again this temptation to give marks like for pupils at school? This is slightly different from, but actually essentially equivalent to, ranking journals (see the other discussion): what universal criteria would be used? how to prevent fooling the system with your good friends-colleagues giving good marks provided you do the same with them, etc.
What is needed is validation, period. No mark, no ranking, no numbers: please let us stop this primary school tendency.
Sorry for my strong opposition, but the (mis)use of numbers and ranks is perversely invading everything: let us at least struggle against it in our scientific publications.
There exist an interesting project concerning scientific publishing inthe field of hep-th, namely, the SCOAP 3 project scoap3.orgSpeaking briefly, this project is targeted to making all quality journalsin this field open access. These journals would be paid by some fund to makethe published articles open access, and libraries would pay not to publishers,but to this fund.There are certain criteria for the journals to be eligible forthis programme. At the moment the selection and evaluation ofjournals is in process, and the procedure will be fully operationalfrom 2013.It might be reasonable to consider using a similar funding modelalso for mathematical journals, or just joining this project.
It seems worth mentioning that a general discussion on this and related topics is currently taking place there: http://www.math.ntnu.no/~stacey/Mathforge/Math2.0/
Event chaired by S. Benjamin (Oxford Materials), including T. Gowers, Victor Henning (Mendeley), Robert Kiley (Wellcome Trust), Alison Mitchell (NPG), Alicia Wise (Elsevier), Cameron Neylon, and Lord Robert Winston.
Gowers discussion of review boards overlaid on arXiv.org begins after 1:23 in video.
Sorry, you must be logged in to comment. Please login or register to comment.