Libraries have a mission to educate users about copyright, and library publishing staff are often involved in that work. This article investigates a concrete point of intersection between the two areas – copyright statements on library-published journals.
Journals published by members of the Library Publishing Coalition were examined for open access status, type and placement of copyright information, copyright ownership, and open licensing.
Journals in the sample were overwhelmingly (93%) open access. 80% presented copyright information of some kind, but only 30% of those included it at both the journal and the article level.
Open licensing was present in 38% of the journals, and the most common ownership scenario was the author retaining copyright while granting a nonexclusive license to the journal or publisher. 9% of the sample journals included two or more conflicting rights statements.
76% of the journals did not consistently provide accurate, easily-accessible rights information, and numerous problems were found with the use of open licensing, including conflicting licenses, incomplete licenses, and licenses not appearing at the article level.
Recommendations include presenting full copyright and licensing information at both the journal and the article level, careful use of open licenses, and publicly-available author agreements.
Authors : Jeremy Kenyon, Nancy Sprague, Edward Flathers
The practice of publishing supplementary materials with journal articles is becoming increasingly prevalent across the sciences.
We sought to understand better the content of these materials by investigating the differences between the supplementary materials published by authors in the geosciences and plant sciences.
We conducted a random stratified sampling of four articles from each of 30 journals published in 2013. In total, we examined 297 supplementary data files for a range of different factors.
We identified many similarities between the practices of authors in the two fields, including the formats used (Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, PDFs) and the small size of the files.
There were differences identified in the content of the supplementary materials: the geology materials contained more maps and machine-readable data; the plant science materials included much more tabular data and multimedia content.
Our results suggest that the data shared through supplementary files in these fields may not lend itself to reuse. Code and related scripts are not often shared, nor is much ‘raw’ data. Instead, the files often contain summary data, modified for human reading and use.
Given these and other differences, our results suggest implications for publishers, librarians, and authors, and may require shifts in behavior if effective data sharing is to be realized.
For doctoral students, publishing in peer-reviewed journals is a task many face with anxiety and trepidation. The world of publishing, from choosing a journal, negotiating with editors and navigating reviewers’ responses is a bewildering place.
Looking in from the outside, it seems that successful and productive academic writers have knowledge that is inaccessible to novice scholars. While there is a growing literature on writing for scholarly publication, many of these publications promote writing and publishing as a straightforward activity that anyone can achieve if they follow the rules.
We argue that the specific and situated contexts in which academic writers negotiate publishing practices is more complicated and messy. In this paper, we attempt to make explicit our publishing processes to highlight the complex nature of publishing.
We use autoethnographic narratives to provide discussion points and insights into the challenges of publishing peer reviewed articles. One narrative is by a doctoral student at the beginning of her publishing career, who expresses her desires, concerns and anxieties about writing for publication.
The other narrative focuses on the publishing practices of a more experienced academic writer. Both are international scholars working in the Canadian context. The purpose of this paper is to explore academic publishing through the juxtaposition of these two narratives to make explicit some of the more implicit processes.
Four themes emerge from these narratives. To publish successfully, academic writers need: (1) to be discourse analysts; (2) to have a critical competence; (3) to have writing fluency; and (4) to be emotionally intelligent.
Cette introduction à Cide s’attache à cerner une tendance de l’évolution du document numérique depuis sa théorisation interdisciplinaire par l’auteur collectif Pédauque en 2006, en un triangle constitué par la forme, le signe, la médiation.
La première observation est que les limites internes et externes au document numérique se sont modifiées depuis une dizaine d’années.
Trois types de documents en apportent la preuve : le document publié, connecté sur la toile ; le document-processus, support d’une collaboration ; le document support d’écrilecture.
Au document connecté sont associés des collections virtuelles que les moteurs de recommandations sont capables de constituer et diverses modalités d’annotations. Dans le document processus d’une collaboration, ce sont les éléments internes au document-container qui vont constituer des instances actualisables du document.
Le document support d’écrilecture est un document qui s’inscrit dans la tradition de la lecture-commentaire héritée des pratiques érudites d’exégèse des textes. Si l’annotation sémantique est un procédé qui vise à indexer une portion de texte à un thésaurus externe et à le relier à de futurs contextes de lecture, la commentarisation vise à procurer un feedback immédiat à l’auteur investi dans un travail d’écriture ou de publication.
L’examen de l’évolution de l’outillage de lecture d’articles scientifiques en ligne, des outils d’annotation et de commentarisation prouve qu’ils s’inscrivent dans la sémantisation du web. Nous ferons le constat qu’il existe une convergence entre l’approche structurelle et l’approche communicationnelle de Pédauque dans les projets d’humanités numériques.
L’éditorialisation désigne les pratiques de publication et d’accessibilité des contenus sur le web, lesquelles posent des questions épistémologiques sur l’authenticité et la véracité de l’information.
Au-delà de ses techniques et de ses formes, l’éditorialisation interroge la fonction éditoriale et auctoriale.
Sélectionner, structurer, hiérarchiser, documenter, donner du sens : dans ce processus, les bibliothèques ont une responsabilité au même titre que les éditeurs. Au-delà de la mise à disposition de leurs ressources numériques, elles sont engagées dans la production de contenus sur le web.
Première d’entre elles, la Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) est doublement impliquée : d’une part avec des ressources accessibles et interopérables grâce à data.bnf.fr et des corpus structurés dans Gallica, d’autre part avec une médiation spécifique à destination des publics scolaires et des enseignants, « Les Essentiels de la littérature ».
Il s’agit d’une interface éditorialisée à la bibliothèque numérique qui tient compte des pratiques anthologiques actuelles pour faire découvrir notre patrimoine littéraire à travers des parcours guidés dans les collections.
Open access (OA) publishing via article processing charges (APCs) is growing as an alternative to subscription publishing.
The Pay It Forward (PIF) Project is exploring the feasibility of transitioning from paying subscriptions to funding APCs for faculty at research intensive universities.
Estimating of the cost of APCs for the journals authors at research intensive universities tend to publish is essential for the PIF project and similar initiatives. This paper presents our research into this question.
We identified APC prices for publications by authors at the 4 research intensive United States (US) and Canadian universities involved in the study.
We also obtained APC payment records from several Western European universities and funding agencies. Both data sets were merged with Web of Science (WoS) metadata. We calculated the average APCs for articles and proceedings in 13 discipline categories published by researchers at research intensive universities.
We also identified 41 journals published by traditionally subscription publishers which have recently converted to APC funded OA and recorded the APCs they charge.
We identified 7,629 payment records from the 4 European APC payment databases and 14,356 OA articles authored by PIF partner university faculty for which we had listed APC prices.
APCs for full OA journals published by PIF authors averaged 1,775 USD; full OA journal APCs paid by Western European funders averaged 1,865 USD; hybrid APCs paid by Western European funders averaged 2,887 USD.
The APC for converted journals published by major subscription publishers averaged 1,825 USD. APC funded OA is concentrated in the life and basic sciences.
APCs funded articles in the social sciences and humanities are often multidisciplinary and published in journals such as PLOS ONE that largely publish in the life sciences.
Full OA journal APCs average a little under 2,000 USD while hybrid articles average about 3,000 USD for publications by researchers at research intensive universities.
There is a lack of information on discipline differences in APCs due to the concentration of APC funded publications in a few fields and the multidisciplinary nature of research.
Authors : Vincent Larivière, Véronique Kiermer, Catriona J. MacCallum, Marcia McNutt, Mark Patterson, Bernd Pulverer, Sowmya Swaminathan, Stuart Taylor, Stephen Curry
Although the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is widely acknowledged to be a poor indicator of the quality of individual papers, it is used routinely to evaluate research and researchers. Here, we present a simple method for generating the citation distributions that underlie JIFs.
Application of this straightforward protocol reveals the full extent of the skew of distributions and variation in citations received by published papers that is characteristic of all scientific journals.
Although there are differences among journals across the spectrum of JIFs, the citation distributions overlap extensively, demonstrating that the citation performance of individual papers cannot be inferred from the JIF.
We propose that this methodology be adopted by all journals as a move to greater transparency, one that should help to refocus attention on individual pieces of work and counter the inappropriate usage of JIFs during the process of research assessment.