“Library-led publishing is one of the new approaches to journal publishing and open access that has grown tremendously in the last few years. A 2010 MLIS-funded survey found that 55% of respondents—from U.S. academic libraries of all different types and sizes—were already implementing or developing a publishing program. Library-led publishing has garnered such momentum because, by offering low- or no-cost publishing to university scholars, it addresses needs that traditional publishing has not been able to meet. This article presents a series of small case studies to illustrate different journals that have benefited from the library-publishing model: a journal that struggled to find an affordable publisher in its emerging field; a small society journal that could no longer afford to support itself in print; society publications that go beyond the traditional journal format; a student journal with a revolving editorial board.”
Peer review: still king in the digital age
“The article presents one of the main findings of an international study of 4,000 academic researchers that examined how trustworthiness is determined in the digital environment when it comes to scholarly reading, citing, and publishing. The study shows that peer review is still the most trustworthy characteristic of all. There is, though, a common perception that open access journals are not peer reviewed or do not have proper peer-review systems. Researchers appear to have moved inexorably from a print-based system to a digital system, but it has not significantly changed the way they decide what to trust. They do not trust social media. Only a minority – although significantly mostly young and early career researchers – thought that social media are anything other than more appropriate to personal interactions and peripheral to their professional/academic lives. There are other significant differences, according to the age of the researcher. Thus, in regard to choosing an outlet for publication of their work, young researchers are much less concerned with the fact that it is peer reviewed.”
URL : http://ciber-research.eu/download/20140120-Peer_review-Learned_Publishing_2015.pdf
How scholars implement trust in their reading, citing and publishing activities: Geographical differences
“In an increasingly digital environment, many factors influence how academic researchers decide what to read, what to cite, where to publish their work, and how they assign trust when making these decisions. This study focuses on how this differs according to the geographical location of the researcher, specifically in terms of the country’s level of development. Data were collected by a questionnaire survey of 3650 authors who had published articles in international journals. The human development index (HDI) was used to compare authors’ scholarly behavior. The findings show that researchers from less developed countries such as India and China (medium HDI) compared to those in developed countries, such as the USA and UK (very high HDI) are more reliant on external factors and those criteria that are related to authority, brand and reputation, such as authors’ names, affiliation, country and journal name. Even when deciding where to publish, the publisher of the journal is more important for developing countries than it is for researchers from the US and UK. Scholars from high HDI countries also differ in these aspects: a) they are less discriminatory than authors from developing countries in their citation practices; b) for them the fact that a source is peer reviewed is the most important factor when deciding where to publish; c) they are more negative towards the use of repositories and social media for publishing and more skeptical about their potential for increasing usage or reaching a wider audience.”
URL : http://ciber-research.eu/download/20141207-LISR_Trust.pdf
The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open-access environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions
“As open-access (OA) publishing funded by article-processing charges (APCs) becomes more widely accepted, academic institutions need to be aware of the “total cost of publication” (TCP), comprising subscription costs plus APCs and additional administration costs. This study analyzes data from 23 UK institutions covering the period 2007–2014 modeling the TCP. It shows a clear rise in centrally managed APC payments from 2012 onward, with payments projected to increase further. As well as evidencing the growing availability and acceptance of OA publishing, these trends reflect particular UK policy developments and funding arrangements intended to accelerate the move toward OA publishing (“Gold” OA). Although the mean value of APCs has been relatively stable, there was considerable variation in APC prices paid by institutions since 2007. In particular, “hybrid” subscription/OA journals were consistently more expensive than fully OA journals. Most APCs were paid to large “traditional” commercial publishers who also received considerable subscription income. New administrative costs reported by institutions varied considerably. The total cost of publication modeling shows that APCs are now a significant part of the TCP for academic institutions, in 2013 already constituting an average of 10% of the TCP (excluding administrative costs).”
URL : The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open-access environment
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23446
The Value of Open Access Publishing to Health and Social Care Professionals in Ireland
“This article will focus on how open access publishing may add value to a number of health and social care professionals and their work in the health services. The results of two recent surveys are explored in relation to the research activity, barriers and awareness about open access publishing by health and social care professionals (HSCPs) working in the Irish health system.”
How Digital Are the Digital Humanities? An Analysis of Two Scholarly Blogging Platforms
“In this paper we compare two academic networking platforms, HASTAC and Hypotheses, to show the distinct ways in which they serve specific communities in the Digital Humanities (DH) in different national and disciplinary contexts. After providing background information on both platforms, we apply co-word analysis and topic modeling to show thematic similarities and differences between the two sites, focusing particularly on how they frame DH as a new paradigm in humanities research. We encounter a much higher ratio of posts using humanities-related terms compared to their digital counterparts, suggesting a one-way dependency of digital humanities-related terms on the corresponding unprefixed labels. The results also show that the terms digital archive, digital literacy, and digital pedagogy are relatively independent from the respective unprefixed terms, and that digital publishing, digital libraries, and digital media show considerable cross-pollination between the specialization and the general noun. The topic modeling reproduces these findings and reveals further differences between the two platforms. Our findings also indicate local differences in how the emerging field of DH is conceptualized and show dynamic topical shifts inside these respective contexts.”
URL : https://microblogging.infodocs.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/journal.pone.0115035.pdf
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115035
What makes us a community: structure, correlations, and success in scientific world
“We explore the statistical structure of scientific community based on multivariate analysis of publication (or other identifiable metrics) distribution in the author space. Here, we define community based on keywords, i.e. projecting semantic content of the documents on predefined meanings; however, more complex approaches based on semantic clustering of publications are possible. Remarkably, this simple statistical analysis of publication metadata allows understanding of internal interactions with community in general agreement with experience acquired over decades of social interaction within it. We further discuss potential applications of this approach for ranking within the community, reviewer selection, and optimization of community output.”