Authors : Joseph D. Olivarez, Stephen Bales, Laura Sare, Wyoma vanDuinkerken
Jeffrey Beall’s blog listing of potential predatory journals and publishers, as well as his Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access (OA) Publishers are often looked at as tools to help researchers avoid publishing in predatory journals.
While these Criteria has brought a greater awareness of OA predatory journals, these tools alone should not be used as the only source in determining the quality of a scholarly journal.
Employing a three-person independent judgment making panel, this study demonstrates the subjective nature of Beall’s Criteria by applying his Criteria to both OA and non-OA Library and Information Science journals (LIS), to demonstrate that traditional peer-reviewed journals could be considered predatory. Many of these LIS journals are considered as top-tier publications in the field and used when evaluating researcher’s publication history for promotion and tenure.
URL: Format Aside: Applying Beall’s Criteria to Assess the Predatory Nature of both OA and Non-OA Library and Information Science Journals
DOI : https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.1.52
Auteurs/Authors : Valentyna Dymytrova, Valérie Larroche, Françoise Paquienséguy, Marie-France Peyrelong
L’article rend compte des questionnements et analyses info-communicationnels en cours dans le cadre d’une ANR OpenSensingCity, regroupant outre les chercheurs en sciences de l’information et de la communication (équipe ELICO), des chercheurs en informatique (Armines de l’Ecole des Mines de Saint Etienne) et des entreprises (Antidot et Hikob).
Nous nous intéressons particulièrement aux stratégies des acteurs constituant l’écosystème de l’Open data en lien avec les smart cities. Dans cet écosystème, l’attention se porte plus spécifiquement sur deux types d’acteurs : les collectivités territoriales et les réutilisateurs professionnels.
Les portails de l’Open data des collectivités territoriales sont étudiés par une approche sémio-pragmatique permettant d’analyser les stratégies éditoriales et la place de la Métropole dans l’écosystème.
Quant aux réutilisateurs, leurs usages et les pratiques professionnels sont saisis à travers les entretiens semi-discursifs. Enfin, ces deux thématiques de smart cities et de l’Open data nous amènent à reconsidérer la question des communs.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01543355
Author : Emily Ford
Peer-review practices in scholarly publishing are changing. Digital publishing mechanisms allow for open peer review, a peer review process that discloses author and reviewer identities to one another.
This model of peer review is increasingly implemented in scholarly publishing. In science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines, open peer review is implemented in journal publishing processes, and, in the humanities and social sciences, it is often coupled with new scholarship practices, such as the digital humanities.
This article reports findings from an exploratory study on peer-review and publishing practices in Library and Information Science (LIS), focusing on LIS’s relationships with open peer review.
Editors of LIS journals were surveyed regarding journal peer review and publishing practices.
This article reports the general “pulse” of attitudes and conversations regarding open peer review and discusses its challenges in LIS. Results show an ideological split between traditionally-published journals and open access and association-affiliated journals. Open access and association-affiliated journal editors are more likely to consider investigating open peer review.
The LIS community of journal editors, authors, reviewers, and readers need to discuss open peer review as well as experiment with it. Experiments with open peer review in scholarly LIS publishing will inform our praxis as librarians.
URL : Opening Review in LIS Journals: A Status Report
DOI : http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2148
This research paper reviews published library science literature from 2008 through 2012 using a purposive sample of 13 Library and Information Science (LIS) journals. The texts of 1,778 LIS articles were analyzed and classified as research versus non-research. Of these articles, 769 (43.1%) determined as research were examined in order to collect data on numerous variables including authorship, topic, type of research, data collection, and data analysis techniques.
The selected LIS journals draw a representative sample of practitioner research with 438 (57%) research articles solely written by practitioners, 110 (14.3%) research articles written collaboratively by at least one practitioner and one academic. The overall authorship pattern was widely multi-authored with 64.5% of the research articles written by two or more authors. It is hoped that the results of this investigation will provide insight for more extensive collaborative librarianship research in the future.
URL : Published Librarian Research, 2008 through 2012: Analyses and Perspectives
Alternative location : http://collaborativelibrarianship.org/index.php/jocl/article/view/320
The term human is a core concept of information science literature. However, information science authors have hardly discussed the term. Consequently, what is and is not human remains unclear. The purpose of this paper is to bring consideration of human conditions to the centre stage of information science research.
To ascertain the place of humans in the body of work pertaining to information science, the paper undertakes a content analysis of over 800 articles published between 2011 and 2012 in five major journals of information science, and outlines some research consequences.
Six current humanist research themes were identified from the content analysis.
The paper suggests a new direction for information science authors, which will enable information science to go past the functionality of systems and the optimization of information seeking to engage with the fuller actualization of humans. The goal is to drill deeper in the structures of oppression and vulnerability to allow the worst-off individuals to be well-off. We cannot help our readers as a human species by shunning the concept human.
URL : http://www.informationr.net/ir/20-3/paper686.html
Librarians have embraced the open access movement. They work to raise awareness of issues surrounding scholarly communication, to educate faculty about authors’ rights, and to help implement and maintain institutional repositories (IRs). But for all of the research and commentary from librarians about the importance of IRs and of making research freely available, there still exists the glaring contradiction that few librarians and Library and Information Science (LIS) authors provide free access to their own research publications.
In this study, we will look at the open access availability of articles from the top 20 closed access LIS journals and discuss some factors that may explain the discrepancies between LIS authors’ attitudes towards open access and their own self-archiving practices.
URL : http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1245/
« As a follow-up to the highly-cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyze the top-1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category « Information Science & Library Science. » 798 authors contributed to 305 top-1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking, if fractional counting is used.
Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly-cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing four or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of co-authorship relations among the 798 highly-cited scientists shows that co-authorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (1) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices, (2) the use of internet in public communication and commerce, and (3) scientometrics. »
URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.02576