Archive for the 'Scholarly Journals' Category

"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

"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

"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

HEFCE and Three Other UK Funding Bodies Enact Open Access Mandate

Posted in Legislation and Government Regulation, Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on April 1st, 2014

The Higher Education Funding Council for England and three other UK funding bodies (the Scottish Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Department for Employment and Learning) have enacted an open access mandate.

Here's an excerpt:

5. The core of this policy is as follows: to be eligible for submission to the post-2014 REF, outputs must have been deposited in an institutional or subject repository on acceptance for publication, and made open-access within a specified time period. This requirement applies to journal articles and conference proceedings only; monographs and other long-form publications, research data and creative and practice-based research outputs are out of scope. Only articles and proceedings accepted for publication after 1 April 2016 will need to fulfil these requirements, but we would strongly urge institutions to implement the policy now. The policy gives a further list of cases where outputs will not need to fulfil the requirements.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"Response to Elsevier’s Text and Data Mining Policy: A LIBER Discussion Paper"

Posted in Data Curation, Open Data, and Research Data Management, Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on March 31st, 2014

LIBER has released "Response to Elsevier's Text and Data Mining Policy: A LIBER Discussion Paper."

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

LIBER believes that the right to read is the right to mine and that licensing will never bridge the gap in the current copyright framework as it is unscalable and resource intensive. Furthermore, as this discussion paper highlights, licensing has the potential to limit the innovative potential of digital research methods by:

  1. restricting the tools that researchers can use
  2. limiting the way in which research results can be made available
  3. impacting on the transparency and reproducibility of research results.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"Unwrapping the Bundle: An Examination of Research Libraries and the ‘Big Deal’"

Posted in Electronic Resources, Licenses, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on March 17th, 2014

Karla L. Strieb and Julia C. Blixrud have self-archived "Unwrapping the Bundle: An Examination of Research Libraries and the 'Big Deal'."

Here's an excerpt:

This study presents and analyzes the findings of a 2012 survey of member libraries belonging to the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) on publishers' large journal bundles and compares the results to earlier surveys. The data illuminate five research questions: market penetration, journal bundle construction, collection format shifts, pricing models, and license terms. The structure of the product is still immature, particularly in defining content and developing sustainable pricing models. The typical "bundle" is something less than the full publishers list. Neither market studies nor market forces have produced a sustainable new strategy for pricing and selling e-journals. Finally, a complex history of managing license terms is revealed in the data.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Reports and White Papers, Scholarly Journals on March 13th, 2014

The Wellcome Trust has released Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

In their report, published in March 2014, Björk and Solomon set out a series of scenarios for how funders might develop their approaches for supporting APCs. These cover both full open access journals (which operate exclusively by this model) and so-called hybrid journals (which offer this service for individual articles, while continuing to operate via the subscription model). The authors appraised three combined scenarios, which they conclude to be the most promising for further consideration.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

PLOS Clarifies Open Data Policy

Posted in Data Curation, Open Data, and Research Data Management, Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on March 10th, 2014

PLOS has clarified its open data policy.

Here's an excerpt:

In the previous post, and also on our site for PLOS ONE Academic Editors, an attempt to simplify our policy did not represent the policy correctly and we sincerely apologize for that and for the confusion it has caused. We are today correcting that post and hoping it provides the clarity many have been seeking. . . .

Two key things to summarize about the policy are:

  1. The policy does not aim to say anything new about what data types, forms and amounts should be shared.
  2. The policy does aim to make transparent where the data can be found, and says that it shouldn't be just on the authors' own hard drive.

Correction

We have struck out the paragraph in the original PLOS ONE blog post headed "What do we mean by data", as we think it led to much of the confusion. Instead we offer this guidance to authors planning to submit to a PLOS journal.

What data do I need to make available?

We ask you to make available the data underlying the findings in the paper, which would be needed by someone wishing to understand, validate or replicate the work. Our policy has not changed in this regard. What has changed is that we now ask you to say where the data can be found.

As the PLOS data policy applies to all fields in which we publish, we recognize that we'll need to work closely with authors in some subject areas to ensure adherence to the new policy. Some fields have very well established standards and practices around data, while others are still evolving, and we would like to work with any field that is developing data standards. We are aiming to ensure transparency about data availability.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap


Page 20 of 50« First...10...1819202122...304050...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.