Archive for the 'Publishing' Category

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!

              "Journals and ‘Journals': Taking a Deeper Look"

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

              Walt Crawford has published "Journals and 'Journals': Taking a Deeper Look" in Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large.

              Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

              This essay builds on the July 2014 Cites & Insights investigation by including full article counts for the thousands of OA journals in Beall's lists (that is, those that actually publish articles!) and those published by OASPA members, extending the article counts back to 2011, and modifying the groups of journals to be more meaningful.

              It also introduces the rough numbers for the new set of Gold OA journals that will form the heart of Part 2 of this two-part essay (the December 2014 C&I), namely more than three thousand journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals as of May 7, 2014 that aren't in one of the other two sets, that do have enough English in the interface for me to analyze them and that are not on biology-related or human medicine-related topics.

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

              Be Sociable, Share!

                "Codifying Collegiality: Recent Developments in Data Sharing Policy in the Life Sciences "

                Posted in Data Curation, Open Data, and Research Data Management, Legislation and Government Regulation, Publishing on September 30th, 2014

                Genevieve Pham-Kanter et al. have published "Codifying Collegiality: Recent Developments in Data Sharing Policy in the Life Sciences " in PLOS ONE.

                Over the last decade, there have been significant changes in data sharing policies and in the data sharing environment faced by life science researchers. Using data from a 2013 survey of over 1600 life science researchers, we analyze the effects of sharing policies of funding agencies and journals. We also examine the effects of new sharing infrastructure and tools (i.e., third party repositories and online supplements). We find that recently enacted data sharing policies and new sharing infrastructure and tools have had a sizable effect on encouraging data sharing. In particular, third party repositories and online supplements as well as data sharing requirements of funding agencies, particularly the NIH and the National Human Genome Research Institute, were perceived by scientists to have had a large effect on facilitating data sharing. In addition, we found a high degree of compliance with these new policies, although noncompliance resulted in few formal or informal sanctions. Despite the overall effectiveness of data sharing policies, some significant gaps remain: about one third of grant reviewers placed no weight on data sharing plans in their reviews, and a similar percentage ignored the requirements of material transfer agreements. These patterns suggest that although most of these new policies have been effective, there is still room for policy improvement.

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

                Be Sociable, Share!

                  Page 4 of 114« First...23456...102030...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.