[DFSci] Knowledge sharing

Graeme Horsman graeme.horsman at googlemail.com
Tue Mar 12 01:33:10 PDT 2019


In the UK, for REF2021, our papers (in accordance with the journal
guidance, post/pre print, etc etc, not the final versions) must be held on
an institutional repository and these must be accessible once accepted.
Therefore technically we are forced to share them so I guess this model is
currently in operation and whilst the final version rests with the journal,
the core paper is often freely available by request.

As Josh said, there have been journals which have come and gone and given
that we are ranked on the quality our publications and one of the criteria
is where they have been accepted and how reputable this is, I imagine some
will swerve submitting anywhere they think may fold. In fact I think there
are now a lot of established journals in and around this area which you
would have to tear people away from in terms of publishing there as they
probably tick a lot of boxes in terms of quality and area.

A complete move to OA would put the costs back on the submitter and may
stunt the amount of content which gets submitted. Not everyone can afford
to pay to have all their work submitted - or at least I can't :(

I think a journal aligned with a big reputable publisher is a good initial
indicator of quality and there is an awful lot of work goes on behind the
scene to manage and get content in suitable formats and this is what the
costs get you.

Graeme

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 5:55 AM Simson Garfinkel <simsong at acm.org> wrote:

> We went through a similar discussion with the SOUPS conference.
>
> SOUPS ended up affiliating with USENIX, and it has worked out very well.
> The conference did get more expensive, but USENIX took over the conference
> management. We are also getting more people at SOUPS now, as we are getting
> people from the other USENIX conferences that we are co-locating with.
> USENIX is open access. All in all, I think that it’s been a win.
>
> Another option is to look at ACM.  The IMC conference is similar to DFRWS,
> in that there is a lot of practitioner involvement, and IMC has open access
> proceedings. IMC is a low-cost conference (IMC 2017 pricing was £390 early
> registration for students up to £620 late registration for non-ACM
> members).
>
> I understand that Elsevier does a lot of work moving our articles from
> what people submit to something that is archival quality. I’m not sure it’s
> worth it.
>
> Simson
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 2019, at 12:54 AM, Brunty, Josh <josh.brunty at marshall.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > To add some value to this discussion I might add that you can obtain
> both Digital Investigation and Computer Law & Security Law for an
> additional $50 (or maybe a little more now--I cannot remember) as part of
> the Digital Evidence page as an add-on to your American Academy of Forensic
> Sciences (AAFS) membership:
> >
> http://news.aafs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2016-Subscription-Form.pdf
> >
> > Although one might argue that the AAFS membership is a little high ($165
> per year) plus the add-on cost for journals, the roughly >$200 membership
> gives access to 3 peer-reviewed journals, which includes a digital
> subscription to the Journal of Forensic Sciences.  This access is a major
> factor I choose to renew my AAFS membership every year.
> >
> > Although traditionally I have chosen to share my knowledge with
> practitioners via untraditional methods (i.e. conference talks, message
> boards, email listservs) my conversion over to academia has shown me that
> there is added value in having an established, peer-reviewed journal with
> the backing of a major publisher to increase the journal's impact.
> Additionally, having a mechanism to archive these articles for the
> long-term (more than 5 years) is something to consider as well. I've seen a
> few quasi-reputable digital forensics journals pop-up over the years, only
> to fold after a few years due to a lack of quality submissions and
> disinterest in the editorial/review boards.  The papers that were once part
> of these open-access DF journals were never archived to my knowledge and
> almost impossible to find in present day. Although it might be after
> thought to the here-and-now, I think it is our responsibility for the next
> generation of digital forensics professionals to be able to easily access
> our research of today 30 years from now with minimal effort.
> >
> > That said, I very much appreciate your efforts of eliciting feedback
> from the field Eoghan and desire to make the journal better, and whatever
> direction and changes Digital Investigation decides to take in the near
> future I will be happy to help support and evangelize it.
> >
> > -Josh Brunty
> > josh.brunty at marshall.edu
> >
> > On 3/11/19, 7:11 AM, "DFSci on behalf of Eoghan Casey" <
> dfsci-bounces at lists.dfrws.org on behalf of eoghan at disclosedigital.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >    Joe,
> >
> >    In the early days, DFRWS was aligned with the free (online only)
> International Journal of Digital Evidence (IJDE). When the digital forensic
> community decided there was a need for a peer reviewed (in print) journal,
> we established Digital Investigation.
> >
> >    We periodically look into alternative open access possibilities, but
> have not found a viable alternative. There are a growing number of
> predatory publishers out there, so we have to be careful.
> >
> >    I agree with Spaf on all points, and I strive to maximize what the
> digital forensic community gets from Digital Investigation.
> >
> >    Eoghan Casey
> >
> >    On 11 Mar 2019, at 00:26, Joe Sylve <joe.sylve at gmail.com<mailto:
> joe.sylve at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >    How feasible would it be to abandon Elsevier and go completely open
> access?
> >
> >    On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 3:15 PM Eoghan Casey <
> eoghan at disclosedigital.com<mailto:eoghan at disclosedigital.com>> wrote:
> >    Dear friends, colleagues and members of the community I do not yet
> know:
> >
> >
> >    Both as an author and Editor-in-Chief of the Digital Investigation
> journal, I understand the importance of accessibility of knowledge in our
> field.
> >
> >
> >    While working hard to ensure that Digital Investigation meets the
> needs of our community, I continuously strive to increase the accessibility
> of content as described here:
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.journals.elsevier.com/digital-investigation/news/inroads-to-digital-investigation
> >
> >    I also encourage authors to make their own papers available on their
> personal websites or blogs, and by other means described here:
> >
> >    https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/sharing
> >
> >    I welcome your reasonable suggestions to make Digital Investigation
> better serve our international community.
> >
> >    Eoghan Casey
> >    _______________________________________________
> >    DFSci mailing list
> >    DFSci at lists.dfrws.org<mailto:DFSci at lists.dfrws.org>
> >
> >    Manage your subscription at:
> >    http://lists.dfrws.org/listinfo.cgi/dfsci-dfrws.org
> >    _______________________________________________
> >    DFSci mailing list
> >    DFSci at lists.dfrws.org
> >
> >    Manage your subscription at:
> >    http://lists.dfrws.org/listinfo.cgi/dfsci-dfrws.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DFSci mailing list
> > DFSci at lists.dfrws.org
> >
> > Manage your subscription at:
> > http://lists.dfrws.org/listinfo.cgi/dfsci-dfrws.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> DFSci mailing list
> DFSci at lists.dfrws.org
>
> Manage your subscription at:
> http://lists.dfrws.org/listinfo.cgi/dfsci-dfrws.org
>


More information about the DFSci mailing list