Re: [visionlist] [cvnet] Open Access responses

Hi Simon,

I fully share your reaction and your interpretation of the responses from our Vision Science journals to the results of Alex Holcombe’s survey. Clearly, there is a mismatch between what folks in the Vision Science community are wanting, and what we are getting, and it seems that the folks in charge of our journals are, by and large, not sure what to say about it at the moment.  

I will say, however, that the “holding” statements from JOV and Psychonomics are entirely reasonable.  Any official changes are going to have be the product of discussion among the appropriate governing bodies.  We cannot expect any official changes to happen over night in response to the Vision Science community’s stated wishes for change.

On the other hand, one might also ask whether there is a valid distinction between “them” and “us” in this case, since the people doing the reviewing and editing are us (the Vision Science community).  So, any changes that start at a “grass roots” level will be by us.  That is, reviewers and editors of our various Vision Science journals who feel strongly about these issues may want to discuss among ourselves what we want, whether that would involve changes of the sort highlighted by Alex Holcombe’s questionnaire, and, if so, what those changes would concretely involve.  Such discussions are surely the most direct way to start moving towards the changes that the questionnaire shows are desired by us in the Vision Science community.

Best wishes,


On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Simon Rushton wrote:
I’ve been looking forward to reading the responses from journals.  Now Hoover has posted them (thank you Hoover) I’m not sure how to interpret them.
Just to recap, Alex Holcombe’s survey prompted almost 400 responses.  93% of people indicated that they “want change NOW” and he invited responses from the journals that serve the vision community.
iPerception/Perception have provided a comprehensive response.
JoV and Psychonomics have issued what I guess we’d call “holding” statements.
JEP:HPP; Vision; Multisensory Research; Vision Research and Frontiers: Perception have not responded.  They must be aware of the discussion and survey responses.
I can’t be the only person that is disappointed by such a poor response from our journals (except Perception/iPerception) to an issue on which the community has expressed such a strong view.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s