Archive for the 'Publishing' Category

"Teaching an Old University Press Publisher New Tricks: Living in the Present and Preparing for the Future of Scholarly Communications"

Posted in Publishing, Scholarly Books, Scholarly Metrics, University Presses on May 28th, 2014

Patrick H. Alexander has published "Teaching an Old University Press Publisher New Tricks: Living in the Present and Preparing for the Future of Scholarly Communications" in the Journal of Electronic Publishing.

Here's an excerpt:

University presses currently exist in the dual worlds of print and digital publishing. Current staffing needs require that they hire personnel with skills and experience that mirror that present duality. Training and maintaining a skilled workforce requires a commitment to flexibility and an openness to the ever-changing nature of scholarly communication. As the scholarly publishing ecosystem continues to evolve, university presses will need to look to a future workforce that has additional training, knowledge, and experience beyond the traditional skills associated with academic publishing, one that fully embraces the realities of a digital world, the habits of new generations of researchers, and the increasing role of technology in scholarly communication. This article looks at what the future might look like, what skills might be required, and how one might prepare for that future.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Be Sociable, Share!

    Learned Society Attitudes towards Open Access: Report on Survey Results

    Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on May 28th, 2014

    EDP Open has released Learned Society Attitudes towards Open Access: Report on Survey Results.

    Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

    Key findings include:

    • Learned societies overwhelmingly agree that Open Access will inevitably place some learned societies' journals into financial jeopardy.
    • Competing with large Open Access specialist publishers was also considered a significant challenge for learned societies.
    • Gold Open Access is the Open Access method that is least offered by learned society journals, however nearly two-thirds of learned societies indicated that they would like to be offering this option.
    • More than ever before, with so many journals being published Open Access of dubious origin, learned societies should look to endorse content with a stamp of quality and authority.
    • Collaboration between learned societies could help in the transition to Open Access, by pooling resources and sharing complex tasks.
    • Two-thirds of all learned societies are also looking for support on best approach to OA, and compliance with funder mandates.

    Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Open Access: Markup of Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology Act Reduces Embargo Period

      Posted in Legislation and Government Regulation, Open Access, Publishing on May 26th, 2014

      The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has marked up the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology Act (FIRST Act), significantly reducing the embargo period for making works open access.

      Here's an excerpt from "FIRST Act Amended to Make Open Access Provision Actually Pretty Good":

      Calling this [Section 303 in the prior version of the bill] a "public access" section is a charitable reading: it extended embargo periods to up to three years, it allowed for simple linking to articles rather than the creation of an archive, and it delayed implementation unnecessarily long. (We've ranted about this bill time and again.)

      But a glimmer of hope appeared at yesterday's markup. Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner and Zoe Lofgren, introduced an amendment that radically changed Section 303. The new amendment [pdf] maps closely onto Sensenbrenner's Public Access to Public Science Act (H.R. 3157). It sets the embargo period at 12 months (like the NIH's current policy), though it allows stakeholders to extend this by 6 months if they can show a "substantial and unique harm." The amendment was also designed to facilitate long-term preservation, broad analysis of works, and closer investigation of broad copyright licenses. The current version is not perfect, but it is much improved—huge kudos to Sensenbrenner and Lofgren for standing up for open access.

      Read more about it at "Revised FIRST Bill Would Give Science Agencies 1 Year to Make Papers Free."

      Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

      Be Sociable, Share!

        Canadian Researchers’ Publishing Attitudes and Behaviours

        Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Reports and White Papers on May 16th, 2014

        Canadian Science Publishing has released Canadian Researchers' Publishing Attitudes and Behaviours.

        Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

        Some key findings described in the report:

        • Researchers agree with principle, not cost, of open access (OA)
        • Almost half of the researchers reported publishing more than half of their research in open access format in past 2 years, yet availability of open access was 8 times less important than impact factor and 13 times less important than journal reputation when selecting a journal
        • For those who have published OA, institutions and tri-agency funding typically cover cost, yet many researchers indicated they did not know whether Canada's major funding bodies support OA
        • Peer review, reach, and discoverability are considered most important journal features
        • Use of repositories differs widely across disciplines
        • Laboratory/institutional blogs or websites and social media are increasingly being used for research dissemination

        Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

        Be Sociable, Share!

          "The Embargoes Don’t Work: The British Academy Provides the Best Evidence Yet"

          Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Self-Archiving on May 15th, 2014

          Cameron Neylon has "The Embargoes Don't Work: The British Academy Provides the Best Evidence Yet" in PLOS Opens.

          Here's an excerpt:

          Embargoes are an artificial monopoly created to make the competition a bit less fierce. But truly, if a publisher believes that they add value and wants to be competitive then why should they fear a Word doc sitting on the web? Indeed if they do it suggests a lack of confidence in the additional value that they offer in the version of record. The best way to give yourself that confidence is to be tough on yourself and take a good look at how and where you add value. And the best way to do that is to compete successfully with "free."

          Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

          Be Sociable, Share!

            "Peer Review of Datasets: When, Why, and How"

            Posted in Data Curation, Open Data, and Research Data Management, Publishing on May 14th, 2014

            Matthew S. Mayernik et al. have published "Peer Review of Datasets: When, Why, and How" in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

            Here's an excerpt:

            This paper discusses issues related to data peer review, in particular the peer review processes, needs, and challenges related to the following scenarios: 1) Data analyzed in traditional scientific articles, 2) Data articles published in traditional scientific journals, 3) Data submitted to open access data repositories, and 4) Datasets published via articles in data journals.

            Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

            Be Sociable, Share!

              "The Number of Scholarly Documents on the Public Web"

              Posted in Google and Other Search Engines, Publishing, Scholarly Communication on May 12th, 2014

              Madian Khabsa and C. Lee Giles mail have published "The Number of Scholarly Documents on the Public Web" in PLOS ONE.

              Here's an excerpt:

              The number of scholarly documents available on the web is estimated using capture/recapture methods by studying the coverage of two major academic search engines: Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search. Our estimates show that at least 114 million English-language scholarly documents are accessible on the web, of which Google Scholar has nearly 100 million. Of these, we estimate that at least 27 million (24%) are freely available since they do not require a subscription or payment of any kind. In addition, at a finer scale, we also estimate the number of scholarly documents on the web for fifteen fields: Agricultural Science, Arts and Humanities, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Economics and Business, Engineering, Environmental Sciences, Geosciences, Material Science, Mathematics, Medicine, Physics, Social Sciences, and Multidisciplinary, as defined by Microsoft Academic Search. In addition, we show that among these fields the percentage of documents defined as freely available varies significantly, i.e., from 12 to 50%.

              Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

              Be Sociable, Share!

                "Inter-Rater Reliability and Convergent Validity of F1000Prime Peer Review"

                Posted in Publishing, Scholarly Journals on May 8th, 2014

                Lutz Bornmann has self-archived "Inter-Rater Reliability and Convergent Validity of F1000Prime Peer Review."

                Here's an excerpt:

                Peer review is the backbone of modern science. F1000Prime is a post-publication peer review system of the biomedical literature (papers from medical and biological journals). This study is concerned with the inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of the peer recommendations formulated in the F1000Prime peer review system. The study is based on around 100,000 papers with recommendations from Faculty members. Even if intersubjectivity plays a fundamental role in science, the analyses of the reliability of the F1000Prime peer review system show a rather low level of agreement between Faculty members. This result is in agreement with most other studies which have been published on the journal peer review system. Logistic regression models are used to investigate the convergent validity of the F1000Prime peer review system. As the results show, the proportion of highly cited papers among those selected by the Faculty members is significantly higher than expected. In addition, better recommendation scores are also connected with better performance of the papers.

                Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

                Be Sociable, Share!

                  Page 10 of 114« First...89101112...203040...Last »

                  DigitalKoans

                  DigitalKoans

                  Digital Scholarship

                  Copyright © 2005-2015 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr.

                  Creative Commons License

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