I just got a note in my email. It reads (-ish):
Something like that, anyway. The publisher is Nova Science Publishers, and the correspondant is the Editor-in-Chief, who seems to be involved in a hell of a lot of different fields. But in light of the recent revelations (q.v elsewhere) on the marvelous "peer-review" going on at Bentham of Dr. Jones' paper on the WTC collapse, I thought I would give it a cynical look-see.
The web doesn't say much, or else my Google-fu isn't up to the task. There are some very good scholars who seem to have published through Nova, but there are also some pretty damning criticisms about they way they run some of their journals. Some other potential downsides --- the field of the volume is peripherally related to what I do, but not central. The Email addresses are bla@aol.com and bla@earthlink.net, not bla@novapublishers.com (but that may just be to use AOL's spam filter), and the turnaround time is really tight for a collected volume (but that may again just be a tightly run ship). Finally, I'm not used to seeing small publishers that are willing to consider projects on that wide a range of topics and audiences. But again, low-overhead POD may simply make it worth their while to spend $250 on a project that will net them $500 in return.
So anyone out there know Da <3 of Da Matta?
Dear Dr. Kitten,
We have learned of your published research on [bla]. We would like to invite your participation in our publishing program. In particular, I have in mind a new research or review article for an edited collection (invitation only) being assembled under my direction,[...] If you are interested in participating, please [click your heels three times and say "there's no status like tenure."]
We also invite you to consider serving as the editor of a new collected work under your own auspices. [Ed: "Auspices?" I didn't even know I had them. Is there a cream of something I can take for that? -- drk.] or by proposing [anything that you think would be a publishable project up to and including a collection of artwork].
Something like that, anyway. The publisher is Nova Science Publishers, and the correspondant is the Editor-in-Chief, who seems to be involved in a hell of a lot of different fields. But in light of the recent revelations (q.v elsewhere) on the marvelous "peer-review" going on at Bentham of Dr. Jones' paper on the WTC collapse, I thought I would give it a cynical look-see.
The web doesn't say much, or else my Google-fu isn't up to the task. There are some very good scholars who seem to have published through Nova, but there are also some pretty damning criticisms about they way they run some of their journals. Some other potential downsides --- the field of the volume is peripherally related to what I do, but not central. The Email addresses are bla@aol.com and bla@earthlink.net, not bla@novapublishers.com (but that may just be to use AOL's spam filter), and the turnaround time is really tight for a collected volume (but that may again just be a tightly run ship). Finally, I'm not used to seeing small publishers that are willing to consider projects on that wide a range of topics and audiences. But again, low-overhead POD may simply make it worth their while to spend $250 on a project that will net them $500 in return.
So anyone out there know Da <3 of Da Matta?