Toll Free Number: 866-757-4161
Toll Number for International: 1-517-968-4405
Participant passcode: 5807653
If you are outside the US, you may want to refer to this pdf for specific country information re accessing these telecon lines. Meeting notes in blue font; they need further editing and clarifications but this should be completed by the weekend. Purpose of the Telecon: Discussion where all can voice opinions that help identify key issues and form a consensus view on how to move forward. Background: What precipitated this interaction: New publications lead at AGU; wants to bring his experience at Science to the journals at AGU. Space Weather has some of the same challenges as EOS. It is one of the most expensive journals and so wants to look closely at this. Also Louis indicated he might want to step down at end of December. Wants to use new opportunities at the Wiley platform to further Lou's vision for Space Weather. There are two different productions paths for the Space Weather and for the Quarterly so this is something AGU wants to look at. Want to emphasize at AGU wants to promote Space Weather and bring more readers to it. AGU supports it and wants to continue it. Do want to understand the overlap between JGR-space physics, Radio Science, and Space Weather. Need input how to take such ideas forward. Regarding potential overlap between journals. Space Weather covers a much broader range than Radio Science. However it is thought that there were as many as 10 papers in the past year that could have gone into Radio Science and it is thought the same in reverse could be true. Suggestion: Could we re-vector Space Weather Quarterly more like the IEEE magazines and not just looking at the Space Weather Journal itself but also at the Radio Science Articles and JGR papers. Perhaps more tutorial types of things? The Space Weather Journal provides a home for articles that would not appear or be appropriate for the Science Journals. The editors choice went away for a while but has now been re-instituted for Space Weather. This mechanism can be used for the purpose of bringing attention to relevant content that appears across these journals. AGU wants to find ways to help authors better vector their submissions. There is a partnership between Space Weather Quarterly and International Space Environment Center. We want to explore that partnership more and how we can utilize that partnership further. There are a variety of other underlying issues that we need to take up, including how to keep the distribution list for the quarterly. Total yearly cost for the quarterly is about $100k for ~1400 subscribers. Suggestion: Examine more efficient ways to re-compose and re-layout content of the journal for the quarterly. Is it core that the Quarterly must be printed? The quarterly was underwritten by the agencies (NSF actually) for half of its life. Ended when the five-year grant expired. A new grant has not been submitted but could be in the future. Quarterly was instituted as a hardcopy compendium to be distributed to those that are not likely to be access our information in other ways. Top-Level Points for Discussion / Is there agreement that: - There is a need for both a Space Weather Journal (SWJ) and a Space Weather Quarterly (SWQ). Quarterly has a very important purpose. It is easily dropped in a bag and read on the train. We want to look at innovative ways to deliver it. For policy makers, is it the print version or the electronic version that is more effective. For some key audience, the print version is probably the better although that can change with time as more folks turn to e-readers. A quarterly distribution may not be the only way we want to deliver the information; we may be able to distribute information on other time scales as well.
- How about advertisers for the Quarterly? How much effort has there been to get advertisers. AGU's and Wiley's experience that for the size of the print run, it isn't traditionally thought to be cost effective. A long term sponsorship relationship, that includes advertisements, may work. It was mentioned that a proposal to the funding agencies might be well received at those agencies. First, we will want to settle some of these production issues so as to write the most effective proposal.
- There is a suggestion that the Quarterly can expand its boundaries to highlight content beyond the boundaries of being a reflection of the SWJ and beyond what Howard Singer has done with the Editor's Choice. Would that be an acceptable idea? Why not?
- Will AGU accept in their business plan, that because the journal serves AGU, its members, and society in policy areas as well as contributing to science research, that at least temporarily, both the SWJ and the SWQ will continue while changes are evaluated (establishing a proper editorial transition process, possible new publishing formats, level of support from AGU staff, etc.). Is this something we want to recommend? How long to allow for this process?
- Regarding immediate issues, what happens on January 1? Can we entice Lou to stay on to keep the journal/quarterly progressing smoothly during this period? What do the advisory committees recommend? What is the AGU planning? How do we work together?
- It is important for Lou to stay on during this time of transition. We need an interim period where we continue what we have for now. Brooks confirmed we need a nice logical plan and smooth transition. Don't want to put a specific timeframe. Some of the issues that space weather is facing concerning distribution will only fester with time and need to be addressed. This is no criticism of the editors of Space Weather but AGU needs to correct some things that transpired before Brooks came on board. This is a high priority for Brooks. We have good momentum and ideas.
- Regarding the new possibilities with Wiley (e.g. special collections etc.), what do we need to do to understand these better and perhaps see demos from comparable products to see how they would serve SWJ subscribers. Do the new Wiley capabilities really solve the key issues related to the SWJ and SWQ? It will be essential to have an iterative development process between the developers and the consumers.
- What are the most important issues to focus on first? What should we be including in our next discussions?
For agenda next time. Plan seems to be very opened ended. What requirements are being imposed on us from AGU? We need this so we can make concrete plans as soon as possible. Impact factor of 1.37 seems to be on the lower end. Will that be part Look at possibiliity of agency funding more. Should we be discussing the competing journals? Should we understand the position of that journal? To make sure we understand what they are doing so that we can better inform our strategy. To prepare for the telecon, you may want to review/add to the information already in circulation Space Weather appears in the news:
http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/11009/20131119/deep-space-radiation-hazards-quantified-future-mars-exploration.htm http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4982/20131119/scientists-collect-new-quantifiable-measurement-cosmic-radiation.htm | 