Archive for the 'Publishing' Category

"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

Be Sociable, Share!

    "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

    Be Sociable, Share!

      "’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

      Be Sociable, Share!

        "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

        Be Sociable, Share!

          "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

          Be Sociable, Share!

            "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

            Be Sociable, Share!

              "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

              Be Sociable, Share!

                "Measuring the Value of Research Data: A Citation Analysis of Oceanographic Data Sets"

                Posted in Data Curation, Open Data, and Research Data Management, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on April 2nd, 2014

                Christopher W. Belter has published "Measuring the Value of Research Data: A Citation Analysis of Oceanographic Data Sets" in PLOS ONE.

                Here's an excerpt:

                Evaluation of scientific research is becoming increasingly reliant on publication-based bibliometric indicators, which may result in the devaluation of other scientific activities—such as data curation—that do not necessarily result in the production of scientific publications. This issue may undermine the movement to openly share and cite data sets in scientific publications because researchers are unlikely to devote the effort necessary to curate their research data if they are unlikely to receive credit for doing so. This analysis attempts to demonstrate the bibliometric impact of properly curated and openly accessible data sets by attempting to generate citation counts for three data sets archived at the National Oceanographic Data Center. My findings suggest that all three data sets are highly cited, with estimated citation counts in most cases higher than 99% of all the journal articles published in Oceanography during the same years. I also find that methods of citing and referring to these data sets in scientific publications are highly inconsistent, despite the fact that a formal citation format is suggested for each data set. These findings have important implications for developing a data citation format, encouraging researchers to properly curate their research data, and evaluating the bibliometric impact of individuals and institutions.

                Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

                Be Sociable, Share!

                  Page 6 of 108« First...45678...203040...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.