New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics

Time to announce the first publication of 2021 in the Open Journal of Astrophysics. This one was actually published a few days ago but  it took a bit of time to get the metadata and DOI registered so I held off announcing it until that was done.

The latest publication is a lengthy and comprehensive review article (67 pages altogether) by Allahverdi et al. which has 26 authors from all round the world. It is entitled The First Three Seconds: a Review of Possible Expansion Histories of the Early Universe and is a study of the various possible evolutionary histories of cosmic expansion possible with a wide range of cosmological models with their implications for baryogenesis, nucleosynthesis, primordial gravitational wave production, and many other things besides.

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. This is one for the Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics folder.

And so Volume 4 begins. Volume 3 had 15 papers, Volume 2 had 12 , and Volume 1 just 4 so we’re growing slowly but surely! Let’s see how many we publish in 2021. I can tell you  we have some very exciting papers in the pipeline…

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

  1. The universe is not expanding. If it were, the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort galaxies and galactic clusters – e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. No distortions observed. A telling text:

    Sabine Hossenfelder: “The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different – and just don’t expand. It’s not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don’t. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies.” http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/08/you-dont-expand-just-because-universe.html

    • telescoper Says:

      I’m a little confused as to why you quote a source that says unambiguously that the Universe as a whole is expanding apparently to support your opinion that it isn’t.

  2. Pentcho Valev Says:

    Her conclusion “Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies” is puzzling and, in my view, unwittingly reveals a fatal contradiction in the expansion theory. Why are galaxies and even galactic clusters not expanding at all?

  3. Phillip Helbig, your argument is invincible.

  4. Peter. When will the journal get an official impact factor? Also in many Indian universities, one needs publications in Scopus indexed or web of Science journals. Many other new astrophysics journals are cataloged in Scopus. Request you to do the same for OJA (if not done) Thanks

    • If you are worried about the impact factor, you might be publishing for the wrong reasons.

      Also, who owns Scopus? Conflict of interest?

    • telescoper Says:

      The impact factor is a nonsense. But if you’re really interested the impact factor for Year N, which is published in year N+1, is based on the average number of citations obtained in Year N for papers published in Years N-1 and N-2 so it requires two complete years of publishing. For the OJA, the first official IF will be published in 2022 based on the citations gained in 2021 (this year) for papers published in 2019 and 2020. Earlier years were incomplete.

      As for Scopus, Elsevier decides who gets listed. All we can do is apply.

      • Also, it is well known that citations are highly skewed; the mean is higher than the median. Especially in the high-impact-factor journals, a few highly cited papers are responsible for the high mean. So if your paper is not one of those highly cited papers (in which case anyone interested would probably know about your paper anyway, wherever it was published), then it probably has fewer citations than a typical paper in a journal with lower impact factor.

        And why two years?

        Looks at the paper for which Steven Weinberg won the Nobel Prize. There are many papers which are highly cited and highly influential which received no citations at all in the two years after they had been published.

        It’s like the top of the pops: who sold the most records this week? Many musicians were never in the top 10, but were in the top 100 for decades, selling more altogether.

        So even if the number of citations is important (that in itself is highly dubious, considering the various reasons why a paper can be highly cited), concentrating on the two years after publication is daft. And doing so for other papers published in the journal rather than your own paper even more so.

        At best, one could argue that being in a high-impact-factor journal gives some indication of the quality of the paper before it has time to collect citations (but, see above, most papers in high-impact-factor journals have fewer citations than typical papers in lower-impact-factor journals). But who cares? If the person in question already has 100 papers, what do the most recent matter in the overall evaluation? And if the person is just starting out, then one can read all of their papers and form one’s own opinion.

        Of course, there are bean counters who judge people via the impact factor of the journals they publish in. But do you want to please the bean counters or do you want to do good science?

        As for Scopus, the main motivation for the Open Journal of Astrophysics was to offer an alternative to the overblown publication costs of journals published by the likes of Elsevier. As such, I think that it would be nice if the OJA didn’t even apply, otherwise it is a tacit admission that Elsevier is calling the shots, at least to the extent that bean counters use Scopus.

      • telescoper Says:

        There is so much article-level bibliometric data readily available that it makes absolutely no sense to use journal-level descriptors.

      • telescoper Says:

        The choice of two years seems completely arbitrary to me. Note it also excludes citations to papers within two years of publication, which in fast-moving subjects can be a large number.

      • Indeed. As I mentioned, one might need a proxy for a person who has just written his first article or whatever, but in that case one can just read his entire published output oneself.

      • Not only is it arbitrary, but there are notable papers which had extremely few, even zero, citations in the first two years and today are among the most influential papers in all of physics.

      • telescoper Says:

        Yes, both ends of the counting window are problematic.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: