New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics

The Christmas rush is definitely upon us and papers are queuing up to be published in the Open Journal of Astrophysics. The latest publication is by Tom Kitching and Anurag Deshpande of MSSL (University College London) and Peter Taylor of JPL (Caltech). It is entitled Propagating residual biases in masked cosmic shear power spectra. This is another one for the folder marked Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics.

Here is a screen grab of the overlay:

You can click on the image to make it larger should you wish to do so. You can find the arXiv version of the paper here.

When I last posted about a new OJA paper I mentioned that it seemed to be taking authors longer than usual to make revisions. There are signs now that some authors are trying to get papers off their desk before the Christmas break so we may have two or three more to publish before the year is out.

P.S. Last week I received an offer from a commercial organization to buy the Open Journal of Astrophysics. I replied politely that it is not for sale.

7 Responses to “New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics”

  1. Phillip Helbig Says:

    A different sort of open access:

    At one can read:

    During the COVID-19 pandemic, Physics Today is providing
    complimentary access to its entire 72-year archive to readers who

    Registration involves providing a name and email address. One can then add or remove various other things in one’s account.

    The website is reasonably sensible by today’s standards, and one can access articles via the table of contents selected from a list of
    volumes and issues.

    • Phillip Helbig Says:

      I’m all for open access, but it has to work in practice. The main problem is that arXiv decides, with essentially no practical route of appeal, what is allowed to appear and what is not—even for things which have been accepted by or appeared in respected journals. As such, I won’t be submitting to arXiv (which, unfortunately, also removes the OJA as an option for me), in either sense of the term, until they clean up their act. (Rest assured; I have not given up, and something will come of it, though I don’t know what or when.)

      In the meantime, folks here might be interested in my latest article on MOND and dark matter, a large part of which is a point-by-point rebuttal to a wrong-headed attack on ΛCDM by David Merritt (published a few years ago and expanded in his recent book). I am actually quite sympathetic to MOND (a sentiment I share with James Binney, who literally wrote the book on galactic dynamics), at least as far as I think that the observations touted in support of it deserve more interest. As such, my main concern is that strawman attacks such as that of Merritt turn people off of something which is actually worth looking into.

    • Phillip Helbig Says:

      I have suspected from the beginning that I am not the only person who has such problems with arXiv (if nothing else—although there is something else—it would be inexplicable why they would choose to reclassify just one of my MNRAS papers in order to have one less abstract for one day in the regular list of abstracts). Several people have told me privately that they share my impression but are afraid to say so in public for fear of retribution by arXiv (i.e. getting banned themselves).

      Still, a cynic might say that that is to be expected from the people I hang out with (perhaps overlooking the fact that said cynic also hangs out with the same people). However, recently, as an aside in another exchange, someone told me that I am far from the first person to voice such concerns and also noted that in the old days, arXiv did publish everything submitted which had appeared in a respected journal, but that that is no longer the case.

      I completely agree that arXiv should reserve the right to reclassify or reject submissions. At least for those which have appeared in a respected journal, however, this needs to be done based on transparent criteria. Fortunately for me, arXiv unwittingly revealed the real reason for the reclassification of my paper, which has nothing to do with my paper itself.

      Stay tuned.

    • Phillip Helbig Says:

      “During the COVID-19 pandemic, Physics Today is providing
      complimentary access to its entire 72-year archive to readers who

      Sorry for the formatting mistake; that quoted above in this comment is a direct quotation from the URL above; the rest are my comments on it.

  2. Buy the Open Journal? Was it to make money or to remove competition by closing it down?

    • Phillip Helbig Says:

      Interesting. Maybe Peter can post a slightly redacted version of the offer.

    • The email contained:

      “While doing research I have found that your journal “The Open Journal of Astrophysics” has tremendous potential would like to express our gratitude for the efforts you have taken for bolstering the journal which fascinates us to contact you for a proposition for your consideration.”


      “We really wish to add your journal “The Open Journal of Astrophysics “ in our catalog. I think it will be the best fit for both of us to achieve great results. ”

      I don’t think they want to close it down, but want to turn it into a for-profit journal. I hadn’t heard of the publisher before they contacted me.

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

%d bloggers like this: