Scholarly Publishing Literacy at the University of South Florida Libraries: From Advising to Active Involvement

Authors : Chelsea Johnston, Jason Boczar

INTRODUCTION

Successful open access (OA) publishing in libraries requires careful guidance and organization. Support and services offered vary depending on available resources as well as the robustness of a library’s publishing program.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

This article describes the connection between publishing services and scholarly publishing literacy through examples from the University of South Florida (USF) Libraries.

The USF Libraries’ OA publishing program includes journals, textbooks, conference proceedings, and more. Our program balances advocating for open access with advising for actions that serve our partners’ goals. This invites trust, sustainable relationships, and opportunities for new work.

NEXT STEPS

At the USF Libraries, more work must be done to formally assess our efforts. Our program will also explore new ways to support the ethical standards expected of libraries by pursuing stronger policies on diversity and inclusion.

Using everyday work to demonstrate best practices is a manageable way to strengthen scholarly publishing efforts. We hope to continue growing our services, empowering our partners, and exploring our roles as advisors and advocates.

URL : Scholarly Publishing Literacy at the University of South Florida Libraries: From Advising to Active Involvement

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2310

Open Practices and Resources for Collaborative Digital Pathology

Author : Raphaël Marée

In this paper, we describe open practices and open resources in the field of digital pathology with a specific focus on approaches that ease collaboration in research and education settings.

Our review includes open access journals and open peer review, open-source software (libraries, desktop tools, and web applications), and open access collections. We illustrate applications and discuss current limitations and perspectives.

URL : Open Practices and Resources for Collaborative Digital Pathology

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2019.00255

A history and development of peer-review process

Author : Jana Siladitya

The paper shows the importance of peer review process in the scholarly communication system and discusses both the closed and the newly emerging open peer review models.

It also examines the peer review system at the scholarly academies or societies in their nomination systems for prizes, rewards, etc. It also discusses the various facets of the newly developed open peer review models now prevalent in various journals.

The paper may help to understand and appreciate the role played by peer review in the scholarly communication system and the efforts being made to make it more transparent.

URI : http://hdl.handle.net/10760/39332

Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in subscription and open access journals: cross-sectional study

Authors : Iva Jerčić Martinić-Cezar, Ana Marušić

Background

Open access (OA) journals are becoming a publication standard for health research, but it is not clear how they differ from traditional subscription journals in the quality of research reporting.

We assessed the completeness of results reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in these journals.

Methods

We used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Checklist for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) to assess the completeness of reporting in abstracts of parallel-design RCTs published in subscription journals (n = 149; New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Lancet) and OA journals (n = 119; BioMedCentral series, PLoS journals) in 2016 and 2017.

Results

Abstracts in subscription journals completely reported 79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 77–81%) of 16 CONSORT-A items, compared with 65% (95% CI, 63–67%) of these items in abstracts from OA journals (P < 0.001, chi-square test). The median number of completely reported CONSORT-A items was 13 (95% CI, 12–13) in subscription journal articles and 11 (95% CI, 10–11) in OA journal articles.

Subscription journal articles had significantly more complete reporting than OA journal articles for nine CONSORT-A items and did not differ in reporting for items trial design, outcome, randomization, blinding (masking), recruitment, and conclusions. OA journals were better than subscription journals in reporting randomized study design in the title.

Conclusion

Abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in subscription medical journals have greater completeness of reporting than abstracts published in OA journals.

OA journals should take appropriate measures to ensure that published articles contain adequate detail to facilitate understanding and quality appraisal of research reports about RCTs.

URL : Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in subscription and open access journals: cross-sectional study

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3781-x

Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article

Authors : Darwin Y. Fu, Jacob J Hughey

Preprints in biology are becoming more popular, but only a small fraction of the articles published in peer-reviewed journals have previously been released as preprints.

To examine whether releasing a preprint on bioRxiv was associated with the attention and citations received by the corresponding peer-reviewed article, we assembled a dataset of 74,239 articles, 5,405 of which had a preprint, published in 39 journals.

Using log-linear regression and random-effects meta-analysis, we found that articles with a preprint had, on average, a 49% higher Altmetric Attention Score and 36% more citations than articles without a preprint.

These associations were independent of several other article- and author-level variables (such as scientific subfield and number of authors), and were unrelated to journal-level variables such as access model and Impact Factor.

This observational study can help researchers and publishers make informed decisions about how to incorporate preprints into their work.

URL : https://elifesciences.org/articles/52646

Digging into data management in public‐funded, international research in digital humanities

Authors : Alex H. Poole, Deborah A. Garwood

Path‐breaking in theory and practice alike, digital humanities (DH) not only secures a larger public audience for humanities and social sciences research, but also permits researchers to ask novel questions and to revisit familiar ones. Public‐funded, international, and collaborative research in DH furthers institutional research missions and enriches networked knowledge.

The Digging into Data 3 challenge (DID3) (2014–2016), an international and interdisciplinary grant initiative embracing big data, included 14 teams sponsored by 10 funders from four nations.

A qualitative case study that relies on purposive sampling and grounded analysis, this article centers on the information practices of DID3 participants. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 53 participants on 11 of the 14 DID3 projects.

The study explores how Data Management Plan requirements affect work practices in public‐funded DH, how scholars grapple with key data management challenges, and how they plan to reuse and share their data. It concludes with three recommendations and three directions for future research.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24213

The Open-Factor: Toward Impact-Aligned Measures of Open-Access eBook Usage

Author : E. S. Hellman

A statistical analysis of usage data for open-access ebooks from two different publishers and from a free ebook distribution platform indicates that open-access ebook usage is distributed following log-normal statistics, and meaningful analysis results after calculating the logarithm of the download counts.

To assess usage impact from raw usage data in alignment with the goals of open-access ebook publishing, future impact analyses should use logarithm-based metrics to measure an “open-factor”.

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0022.104