We apply a novel mistake index to assess trends in the proportion of corrections published between 1993 and 2014 in Nature, Science and PNAS. The index revealed a progressive increase in the proportion of corrections published in these three high-quality journals.
The index appears to be independent of the journal impact factor or the number of items published, as suggested by a comparative analyses among 16 top scientific journals of different impact factors and disciplines. A more detailed analysis suggests that the trend in the time-to-correction increased significantly over time and also differed among journals (Nature 233 days; Science 136 days; PNAS 232 days).
A detailed review of 1,428 errors showed that 60% of corrections were related to figures, authors, references or results. According to the three categories established, 34.7% of the corrections were considered mild, 47.7% moderate and 17.6% severe, also differing among journals. Errors occurring during the printing process were responsible for 5% of corrections in Nature, 3% in Science and 18% in PNAS.
The measurement of the temporal trends in the quality of scientific manuscripts can assist editors and reviewers in identifying the most common mistakes, increasing the rigor of peer-review and improving the quality of published scientific manuscripts.
URL : Improving the peer-review process and editorial quality: key errors escaping the review and editorial process in top scientific journals
DOI : https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1670
I present the core principles of the “Self-Journal of Science” (SJS), an open repository as well as a new paradigm of scientific publication. Rooted in Science ethics, a full and consistent solution is proposed to address the many flaws in current systems. SJS implements an optimal peer review, which itself becomes a measurable process, and builds an objective and unfalsifiable evaluation system.
In addition, it can operate at very low costs. One of the essential features of SJS is to allow every scientist to play his full role as a member of the scientific community and to be credited for all contributions – whether as author, referee, or editor. The output is the responsibility of each scientist, and no subgroup can dictate scientific policy to all.
By fully opening up the process of publication, peer pressure becomes the force that drives output towards the highest quality in a virtuous self-regulating circle. SJS also provides a self-organizing and scalable solution to handle an ever-increasing number of articles.
URL : Principles of the Self Journal of Science: bringing ethics and freedom to scientific publishing
Alternative location : http://www.sjscience.org/article?id=46
A megajournal is an open-access journal that publishes any manuscript that presents scientifically trustworthy empirical results, without asking about the potential scientific contribution prior to publication. Megajournals have rapidly increased their output and are currently publishing around 50,000 articles per year. We report on a small pilot study in which we looked at the citation distributions for articles in megajournals compared with journals with traditional peer review, which also evaluate articles for contribution and novelty. We found that elite journals with very low acceptance rates have far fewer articles with no or few citations, but that the long tail of articles with two citations or less was actually bigger in a sample of selective traditional journals in comparison with megajournals. This indicates the need for more systematic studies, because the results raise many questions as to how efficiently the current peer review system in reality fulfils its filtering function.
URL : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1007/abstract
This investigation explores scholarly communication business models in American Library Association (ALA) division peer-reviewed academic journals. Previous studies reveal the numerous issues organizations and publishers face in the academic publishing environment. Through an analysis of documented procedures, policies, and finances of five ALA division journals, we compare business and access models.
We conclude that some ALA divisions prioritize the costs associated with changing business models, including hard-to-estimate costs such as the labor of volunteers. For other divisions, the financial aspects are less important than maintaining core values, such as those defined in ALA’s Core Values in Librarianship.
URL : http://m.crl.acrl.org/content/early/2015/12/14/crl15-841.abstract
This report, prepared for SPARC Europe, sketches the landscape of university-‐based not-‐for-‐ profit publishing in Europe with a primary focus on open access publishing of journals. It provides a view of the different types of initiatives in terms of their size, operational and business models, technologies used, stakeholder involvement, concentration of scientific fields, growth, as well as regional characteristics and recommendations for SPARC Europe and DOAJ.
The report attests to a rich and continuously evolving ecology of open access publishing initiatives in universities in Europe and elsewhere. Beyond the commercial publishing models, it appears that university libraries are largely the foci of intense activity in journal publishing and books (primarily where a university press exists), while national governments are moving towards building national collections, national portals and services paid for by public funds to make research published within the country more relevant and accessible internationally.
This ecology is primarily populated by small publishers who are largely invisible, and much smaller numbers of large and medium-‐ sized university-‐based activities. At the same time, a growing number of innovative initiatives in the University and outside, mostly initiated by scholars and University Presses, eager to experiment in developing a fair and sustainable scholarly communications system, attests to a vibrant and swiftly-‐evolving landscape.
URL : University-based open access publishing
Alternative location : http://sparceurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/SE_UPublishing_Report_0315.pdf