Archive for the 'Publishing' Category

"PeerJ Grows Steadily With Papers, Authors"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Self-Archiving on October 22nd, 2014

Phil Davis has published "PeerJ Grows Steadily With Papers, Authors" in The Scholarly Kitchen.

Here's an excerpt:

PeerJ is growing, publishing more papers and attracting more authors, although it is not clear whether the company is moving toward financial sustainability. In a crowded market of multidisciplinary open access journals, the success/failure of PeerJ may be determined when it receives its first Impact Factor.

Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

Be Sociable, Share!

    "The Open Access Advantage for American Law Reviews"

    Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on October 21st, 2014

    James M. Donovan et al. have self-archived "The Open Access Advantage for American Law Reviews."

    Here's an excerpt:

    Articles available in open access formats enjoy an advantage in citation by subsequent law review works of 53%. For every two citations an article would otherwise receive, it can expect a third when made freely available on the Internet. This benefit is not uniformly spread through the law school tiers. Higher tier journals experience a lower OA advantage (11.4%) due to the attention such prestigious works routinely receive regardless of the format. When focusing on the availability of new scholarship, as compared to creating retrospective collections, the aggregated advantage rises to 60.2%. While the first tier advantage rises to 16.8%, the mid-tiers skyrocket to 89.7%. The fourth tier OA advantage comes in at 81.2%.

    Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Data from Nature and Palgrave Macmillan’s Author Insights Survey

      Posted in Open Access, Publishing on October 21st, 2014

      Nature Publishing Group and Palgrave Macmillan have released data from their Author Insights Survey.

      Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

      The survey, which contains views from 30,466 researchers, is the biggest publisher survey of authors' views to be made open access.

      NPG and Palgrave Macmillan are making this anonymised data available in order to achieve greater understanding between authors, funders and publishers, particularly with regard to open access.

      Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

      Be Sociable, Share!

        Fair-Use and E-Reserves: "A Reversal for Georgia State"

        Posted in Copyright, Digital Copyright Wars, E-Reserves, Publishing on October 20th, 2014

        Kevin Smith has published "A Reversal for Georgia State" in Scholarly Communications @ Duke.

        Here's an excerpt:

        The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its ruling in the publisher appeal of a district court decision that found most instances of electronic reserve copying at Georgia State to be fair use. The appellate court ruling is 129 pages long, and I will have much more to say after I read it carefully. But the hot news right now is that the Court of Appeals has reversed the District Court's judgment and remanded the case back for proceedings consistent with the new opinion. The injunction issued by the District Court and the order awarding costs and attorney's fees to GSU have been vacated.

        Read more about it at "Publishers Win Reversal of Court Ruling That Favored 'E-Reserves' at Georgia State U." and "A Win for Publishers."

        Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

        Be Sociable, Share!

          "Tweets as Impact Indicators: Examining the Implications of Automated Bot Accounts on Twitter"

          Posted in Publishing, Scholarly Metrics, Social Media/Web 2.0 on October 17th, 2014

          Stefanie Haustein et al. have self-archived "Tweets as Impact Indicators: Examining the Implications of Automated Bot Accounts on Twitter."

          Here's an excerpt:

          This brief communication presents preliminary findings on automated Twitter accounts distributing links to scientific papers deposited on the preprint repository arXiv. It discusses the implication of the presence of such bots from the perspective of social media metrics (altmetrics), where mentions of scholarly documents on Twitter have been suggested as a means of measuring impact that is both broader and timelier than citations. We present preliminary findings that automated Twitter accounts create a considerable amount of tweets to scientific papers and that they behave differently than common social bots, which has critical implications for the use of raw tweet counts in research evaluation and assessment. We discuss some definitions of Twitter cyborgs and bots in scholarly communication and propose differentiating between different levels of engagement from tweeting only bibliographic information to discussing or commenting on the content of a paper.

          Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

          Be Sociable, Share!

            "Freedom of Information Requests Uncover the Lack of Transparency in Journal Subscription Costs"

            Posted in Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Serials Crisis on October 16th, 2014

            Stuart Lawson and Ben Meghreblian have published "Freedom of Information Requests Uncover the Lack of Transparency in Journal Subscription Costs" in The LSE's Daily Blog on American Politics and Policy.

            Here's an excerpt:

            Making use of the UK's Freedom of Information (FOI) law we sent FOI requests to over 100 higher education institutions via the website whatdotheyknow.com asking them to release their data. Using this website has the dual benefit of making the process simple to scale up when sending multiple requests and also ensuring that the responses are in the public domain.

            In two rounds of requests we asked for the amount of money that these institutions had paid to six of the largest academic publishers—Wiley, Springer, Taylor & Francis, Sage, Oxford University Press, and Cambridge University Press—over a period of five years. The results have been collated and over £80m of subscription expenditure has been openly released. This process was for the most part straightforward and just required a lot of persistence and a little knowledge of library processes, which allowed us to know how to phrase the request and how to respond to any queries from the institutions.

            Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

            Be Sociable, Share!

              "Exposing the Predators: Methods to Stop Predatory Journals"

              Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on October 15th, 2014

              Margot Wehrmeijer has self-archived "Exposing the Predators: Methods to Stop Predatory Journals."

              Here's an excerpt:

              This thesis looks at three possible methods to stop predatory journals: black-and white-lists, open peer review systems and new metrics. Black- and white-lists have set up rules and regulations that credible publishers and journals should follow. Open peer review systems should make it harder for predatory publishers to make false claims about their peer review process. Metrics should measure more aspects of research impact and become less liable to gaming. The question is, which of these three methods is the best candidate to stop predatory journals.

              Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

              Be Sociable, Share!

                "Wall Street Analysts Say Open Access Has Failed Due to Lack of Focus, but Their Analysis Might Help It Succeed"

                Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on October 14th, 2014

                Curt Rice has published "Wall Street Analysts Say Open Access Has Failed Due to Lack of Focus, but Their Analysis Might Help It Succeed" in The LSE's Daily Blog on American Politics and Policy.

                Here's an excerpt:

                The absence of clear leadership at the helm of the open access movement is made painfully clear in a recent report about Elsevier's value as a company, entitled Goodbye to Berlin—The Fading Threat of Open Access. Why could the authors of this report at Bernstein Research let go of their earlier concerns and now upgrade their predictions about Elsevier's stock? "The rise of OA," they write, "has inflicted little or no damage on the leading subscription publishers."

                Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

                Be Sociable, Share!

                  Page 1 of 11112345...102030...Last »

                  DigitalKoans

                  DigitalKoans

                  Digital Scholarship

                  Copyright © 2005-2014 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr.

                  Creative Commons License

                  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.