Archive for the 'Publishing' Category

"Funding Open Access Journal Publishing Article Processing Charges"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Research Libraries, Scholarly Journals on May 7th, 2014

Christine Fruin and Fred Rascoe have published "Funding Open Access Journal Publishing Article Processing Charges" in College & Research Libraries News.

Here's an excerpt:

Libraries are viewed as the primary resource at academic institutions for information on scholarly publishing issues, including OA. Faculty interest in OA publishing is increasing, and when recent federal mandates for OA are implemented, the interest from those doing federally funded research will grow quickly. As such, librarians should be prepared to answer questions from faculty and researchers on how they can cover the costs that are often attendant to publishing in OA journals. While librarians should advocate and educate their constituents on the availability of green OA and the cost-free options available with many gold OA journals, they should also be cognizant of the frequency at which faculty and researchers are publishing in gold OA publications that charge a fee and the available options for covering those costs.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"Green Open Access Policies of Scholarly Journal Publishers: A Study of What, When, and Where Self-Archiving Is Allowed"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Self-Archiving on May 6th, 2014

Mikael Laakso has self-archived "Green Open Access Policies of Scholarly Journal Publishers: A Study of What, When, and Where Self-Archiving Is Allowed"

Here's an excerpt:

The degree to which scholarly journal articles published in subscription-based journals could be provided open access (OA) through publisher-permitted uploading to freely accessible web locations, so called green OA, is an underexplored area of research. This study combines article volume data originating from the Scopus bibliographic database with manually coded publisher policies of the 100 largest journal publishers measured by article output volume for the year 2010. Of the 1,1 million articles included in the analysis, 80.4% could be uploaded either as an accepted manuscript or publisher version to an institutional or subject repository after one year of publication. Publishers were found to be substantially more permissive with allowing accepted manuscripts on personal webpages (78.1% of articles) or in institutional repositories (79.9%) compared to subject repositories (32.8%). With previous studies suggesting realized green OA to be around 12% of total annual articles the results highlight the substantial unused potential for green OA.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

The Evolution of Open Access: What Might Happen Next?

Posted in Open Access, Open Science, Publishing on May 1st, 2014

The University of Maryland Libraries have released a video of a presentation by Heather Joseph, The Evolution of Open Access: What Might Happen Next? Her presentation slides are also available.

Here's an excerpt:

As Open Access becomes established as a permanent fixture in the scholarly communication area, the challenges and opportunities presented by the Open environment increase in scale and complexity. This talk will examine some of the key trends pointing towards additional opportunities for large-scale change in not only how we access and use scholarly research outputs – but also how they are disseminated, curated and evaluated. Heather Joseph serves as the Executive Director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), an international coalition of academic and research libraries working to expand the global, cost-effective digital communication of research results. As SPARC's Director since 2005, Ms. Joseph leads the strategic and operational activities of the organization, and has focused SPARC's efforts on supporting emerging publishing models, enabling digital archives, and establishing open access policies on the national and international levels.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"Data Publication Consensus and Controversies"

Posted in Data Curation, Open Data, and Research Data Management, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on April 30th, 2014

F1000Research has released an eprint of "Data Publication Consensus and Controversies."

Here's an excerpt:

As data publication venues proliferate, significant debate continues over formats, processes, and terminology. Here, we present an overview of data publication initiatives underway and the current conversation, highlighting points of consensus and issues still in contention.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"A Survey of Authors Publishing in Four Megajournals"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on April 29th, 2014

David J. Solomon has published "A Survey of Authors Publishing in Four Megajournals" in PeerJ.

Here's an excerpt:

Megajournals are drawing an international group of authors who tend to be experienced academics. They are choosing to publish in megajournals for a variety of reasons but most seem to value the quality of the journal and the speed of the review/publication process. Having a broad scope was not a key factor for most authors though being OA was important for PeerJ and SAGE Open authors. Most authors appeared pleased with the experience and indicated they are likely to submit future manuscripts to the same or similar megajournal which seems to suggest these journals will continue to grow in popularity.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"Librarian, Heal Thyself: A Scholarly Communication Analysis of LIS Journals"

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

Micah Vandegrift and Chealsye Bowley have published "Librarian, Heal Thyself: A Scholarly Communication Analysis of LIS Journals" in In the Library with the Lead Pipe.

Here's an excerpt:

This article presents an analysis of 111 Library and Information Science journals based on measurements of "openness" including copyright policies, open access self-archiving policies and open access publishing options. We propose a new metric to rank journals, the J.O.I. Factor (Journal Openness Index), based on measures of openness rather than perceived rank or citation impact. Finally, the article calls for librarians and researchers in LIS to examine our scholarly literature and hold it to the principles and standards that we are asking of other disciplines.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"Statement Regarding the Suspension of Springer’s Membership in OASPA"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on April 11th, 2014

The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association has released a "Statement Regarding the Suspension of Springer's Membership in OASPA."

Here's an excerpt:

In February, it was reported by Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763) that around 120 fake articles had been published in apparently peer-reviewed conference proceedings.

Springer, one of the affected publishers, which published 16 of these articles, is a member of OASPA. Given that the publication of these articles is evidence of a systematic problem with editorial processes, we have placed Springer's membership of OASPA 'under review', pending a thorough response and description of the steps that are being taken to strengthen the necessary processes. Springer has already indicated that the fake articles are being retracted (http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/statements?SGWID=0-1760813-6-1458253-0).

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"’The Returned’: on the Future of Monographic Books"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Books on April 10th, 2014

Mercedes Bunz has published "'The Returned': on the Future of Monographic Books" in Insights: The UKSG journal.

Here's an excerpt:

This article evaluates the current state of academic book publishing based on the findings of the Hybrid Publishing Lab's business model research. With students relying more and more on Google and Wikipedia, the role of books within today's university studies is a difficult one. From the perspective of publishers, open access (OA) embracing the digital is seen as one potential way to bridge this gap between online search engines and traditional monographs. To illustrate this further, the article delivers an overview of its findings, which highlight changes in academic publishing: publishers have switched their emphasis from delivering a product to creating a service, whereby the author rather than the reader becomes their most focused-on customer. Research frameworks, funding and conventions about academic careers, however, often still need to adjust to this new development. If these frameworks acknowledge and foster OA publishing, and new experiments with collaborative book productions flourish, the monograph will have a future.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"Open Access Monograph Business Models"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Books on April 10th, 2014

Eelco Ferwerda has published "Open Access Monograph Business Models" in Insights: The UKSG journal.

Here's an excerpt:

In recent years, a number of business models have been developed for open access (OA) monographs in the humanities and social sciences (HSS). While each model has been created in response to specific circumstances and needs, some commonalities can be observed. This article outlines some of the main types of model to support the costs of publishing OA books and provides examples of these models across the world.

It is followed by three short sketches providing more depth on: firstly, a traditional publisher's OA monograph offer; secondly, a licensing-based model which draws from existing library budgets; and finally, an experiment with delayed open access for books in philosophy: http://dx.doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.118.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"How Well Developed Are Altmetrics? A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of the Presence of ‘Alternative Metrics’ in Scientific Publications"

Posted in Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Scholarly Metrics on April 8th, 2014

Zohreh Zahedi, Rodrigo Costas, and Paul Wouters have self-archived "How Well Developed Are Altmetrics? A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of the Presence of 'Alternative Metrics' in Scientific Publications."

Here's an excerpt:

In this paper an analysis of the presence and possibilities of altmetrics for bibliometric and performance analysis is carried out. Using the web based tool Impact Story, we collected metrics for 20,000 random publications from the Web of Science. We studied both the presence and distribution of altmetrics in the set of publications, across fields, document types and over publication years, as well as the extent to which altmetrics correlate with citation indicators. The main result of the study is that the altmetrics source that provides the most metrics is Mendeley, with metrics on readerships for 62.6% of all the publications studied, other sources only provide marginal information. In terms of relation with citations, a moderate spearman correlation (r=0.49) has been found between Mendeley readership counts and citation indicators.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"Internet Publicity of Data Problems in the Bioscience Literature Correlates with Enhanced Corrective Action"

Posted in Publishing, Scholarly Communication, Scholarly Journals, Social Media/Web 2.0 on April 7th, 2014

Paul S. Brookes has published "Internet Publicity of Data Problems in the Bioscience Literature Correlates with Enhanced Corrective Action" in PeerJ.

Here's an excerpt:

Several online forums exist to facilitate open and/or anonymous discussion of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Data integrity is a common discussion topic, and it is widely assumed that publicity surrounding such matters will accelerate correction of the scientific record. This study aimed to test this assumption by examining a collection of 497 papers for which data integrity had been questioned either in public or in private. As such, the papers were divided into two sub-sets: a public set of 274 papers discussed online, and the remainder a private set of 223 papers not publicized. The sources of alleged data problems, as well as criteria for defining problem data, and communication of problems to journals and appropriate institutions, were similar between the sets. The number of laboratory groups represented in each set was also similar (75 in public, 62 in private), as was the number of problem papers per laboratory group (3.65 in public, 3.54 in private). Over a study period of 18 months, public papers were retracted 6.5-fold more, and corrected 7.7-fold more, than those in the private set. Parsing the results by laboratory group, 28 laboratory groups in the public set had papers which received corrective action, versus 6 laboratory groups in the private set. For those laboratory groups in the public set with corrected/retracted papers, the fraction of their papers acted on was 62% of those initially flagged, whereas in the private set this fraction was 27%. Such clustering of actions suggests a pattern in which correction/retraction of one paper from a group correlates with more corrections/retractions from the same group, with this pattern being stronger in the public set. It is therefore concluded that online discussion enhances levels of corrective action in the scientific literature. Nevertheless, anecdotal discussion reveals substantial room for improvement in handling of such matters.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"Ethics and Access 2: The So-Called Sting"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on April 3rd, 2014

Walt Crawford has published "Ethics and Access 2: The So-Called Sting" in Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

John Bohannon wrote a news article in Science that either shows that many open access journals with APC charges have sloppy (or no) peer review…or shows almost nothing at all. This story discusses the article itself, offers a number of responses to it—and then adds something I don't believe you'll find anywhere else: A journal-by-journal test of whether the journals involved would pass a naive three-minute sniff test as to whether they were plausible targets for article submissions without lots of additional checking. Is this really a problem involving a majority of hundreds of journals—or maybe one involving 27% (that is, 17) of 62 journals? Read the story; make up your own mind.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap


Page 30 of 98« First...1020...2829303132...405060...Last »

DigitalKoans

DigitalKoans

Digital Scholarship

Copyright © 2005-2017 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license.