Category: Publishing

Mind the Gap: A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms

John W Maxwell et al. have published Mind the Gap: A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms

.

Here's an excerpt:

In 2018 the MIT Press secured a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon foundation to conduct a landscape analysis of open source publishing systems, suggest sustainability models that can be adopted to ensure that these systems fully support research communication and provide durable alternatives to complex and costly proprietary services. John Maxwell at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver conducted the environmental scan and compiled this report.

Research Data Curation Bibliography, Version 10 | Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem: "Cornell Joins TOME Open Monograph Initiative as 15th University Member"

ARL has released "Cornell Joins TOME Open Monograph Initiative as 15th University Member."

Here's an excerpt:

The Association of American Universities (AAU), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and the Association of University Presses (AUPresses) welcome Cornell University to the Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem initiative. This pilot effort aims to support the digital publication of peer-reviewed scholarly books by participating university presses, allowing the free publication of these works online and broadly improving access to these works by scholars and the public.

Research Data Curation Bibliography, Version 10 | Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Academic Review Promotion and Tenure Documents Promote a View of Open Access That Is at Odds with the Wider Academic Community"

Juan Pablo Alperin, Esteban Morales and Erin McKiernan have published "Academic Review Promotion and Tenure Documents Promote a View of Open Access That Is at Odds with the Wider Academic Community" in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog.

Here's an excerpt:

In a recent study, analysing documents related to the review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) process at a representative set of 129 universities from the United States and Canada, only 5% of institutions mentioned Open Access. Just as fascinating as this lack of interest and support for making research OA, however, were the misconceptions we found surrounding the term itself. For example one document cautioned faculty against "publishing in journals that are widely considered to be predatory open access journals". Others equated OA with materials that are "self-published, inadequately refereed, open-access writing."

Given that the documents that govern the RPT process embed these misconceptions and false associations, we wanted to know how faculty themselves thought about OA. Do faculty commonly associate OA with low-quality, non-refereed, predatory content?

Research Data Curation Bibliography, Version 10 | Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Bringing Transparent Peer Review to the Physical Sciences and Beyond"

Clarivate Analytics has released "Bringing Transparent Peer Review to the Physical Sciences and Beyond."

Here's an excerpt:

Publons and ScholarOne, both part of the Web of Science Group (a Clarivate Analytics company), have entered into a new partnership with IOP Publishing to introduce the industry's first cross-publisher, scalable transparent peer review workflows across some of their leading journals in the physical sciences and beyond. . . .

The new workflows ensure that, alongside the published article, readers can access a comprehensive peer review history, including reviewer reports, editor decision letters and authors' responses. Each of these elements is assigned its own digital object identifier (DOI), which helps readers easily reference and cite the peer review content. Transparency may increase the quality of the peer review process, and can also aid teaching of best practice in peer review.

Research Data Curation Bibliography, Version 10 | Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Peer Review: Further Results from a Trial at eLife"

eLife has released "Peer Review: Further Results from a Trial at eLife."

Here's an excerpt:

In January, we described some initial results (see Peer review: First results from a trial at eLife). Of the 313 submissions, 70 (22.4%) were encouraged for in-depth peer review. We noted that this "encouragement rate" was higher for late-career researchers compared to their early- and mid-career colleagues. We also observed that encouragement rates were similar for male and female last authors in the trial process.

We will now summarise some re-analysis of the initial decision step, and the results of the peer-review process itself for the 70 trial papers sent for in-depth review and for 162 papers that went through the regular review process during the same period. We are planning to present the final outcomes of the trial at a later date.

Research Data Curation Bibliography, Version 10 | Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap