Scope of the journal

I would support an epi-journal with a large scope with all the aspects of the field :
- Theoretical mechanics and applied maths for Mechanics
- Modeling and Simulation in Mechanics
- Solids, structure and materials
- Experimental Mechanics.
If the journal is successfull. I will be possible to split it in sub-journals as the European Journal of Mechanics or Physica.

The remaining question is shout the field : Solids, Fluids, both ?

@mathiaslegrand What do you think ?

I think that we should start with a broad scope, that is structural and fluid mechanics (even more as long as it is related to mechanics). The novelty of such a journal is not on the "scope" but on how the journal is managed, I believe.

• Numerical Methods in Mechanics

If part of the journal focus on numerical method, I will encourage the editor board to impose an open-source policy so the reviewers can test the method. This kind of journal will have a huge impact in the community. I am tired to try to replicate results from papers without success.

I think the scope of the epi-journal should be as large as possible, so as to invite other communities to get involve in the same kind of initiatives.
The "mechanics community" is a very broad term as well, so I support the idea of including solids, fluids, experimental, numerical, theoretical, engineering, biomaterials,...

On devrait aussi commencer a publier des resultats negatifs, non ?

C'est a dire ce qu on ne reussi pas a faire, pas a comprendre. Les experiences qui marchent pas, ou que l'on ne comprend pas....

This is an interesting point but how do we decide that "negative results/experiments" have a value? If we start publishing all negative results... (I'm using English as more and more international colleagues might soon join this discussion group)

Basically on the same grounds that you would judge a positive result has value. "Positiveness" is indeed a value judgment. However clarity of hypotheses, detailed experimental conditions when appropriate, and a rigorous and well explained approach already go a long way towards valuable negative results. Add to that a critical analysis of why the results were found negative and perhaps a few detailed hypotheses as to how to improve future efforts and results ... and there is already plenty to chew, discuss, and promote valuable research.

I feel this opportunity would be particularly interesting whenever a topic is attempted by a research team, with failure, and they would like to leave a testimony of their attempt before moving to something else, e.g. because they don't have the capabilities to explore the potential new avenues they have drawn for obtaining better results (either because of time, means, or specific skill). Such a paper would open a wide avenue for other teams to carry on the unfinished, yet significant and valuable work of their peers.

Yes, I also think it is a very good idea, and we just had a discussion about it since some PhD have the feeling that they sometime go into directions that were tried before, unsuccessfully, but about which there exist no trace...
The review process might very well be able to determine the interest of such "negative results" (or unsuccessful experiments...) as well as it can evaluate actual publications?

Do you plan to include Waves, sound and vibration?