EN

The Adoption of Open Access Journals for Publishing Management Research: A Review of the Literature and the Experience of the University of the West Indies

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Haven Allahar, Ron Sookram

The article reviews the literature in the field of academic journal publishing highlighting the phenomenon of the recent entry of Internet-driven open access journals into a field dominated by the traditional subscription journals.

The article has a twofold purpose of gaining an understanding of the main features and characteristics of the open access journal system through a review of the literature; and assessing the extent of adoption of open access by researchers in the management discipline through a review of the management publications by the University of the West Indies (UWI) researchers.

A sequential exploratory strategy of two phases was used. The first phase focused on the collection of secondary data on journal publishing and the second involved reviewing the publishing record of the UWI with particular reference to management research.

The main finding is that open access was not fully embraced as a publishing outlet because of academic resistance derived from questions of acceptability, and the existence of a system that assigns greater recognition to the established subscription journals.

The article concludes that open access journals have grown in respectability and quality and are a good option for publishing management research by authors located in developing regions, provided the operational characteristics of this mode of publishing are understood and caution in journal selection is exercised.

URL : https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1254820

EN

Publishing at Any Cost? The Need for the Improvement of the Quality of Scholarly Publications

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Maria José Sá, Carlos Miguel Ferreira, Ana Isabel Santos, Sandro Serpa

At a time of great dynamism among publishers of scientific publications, with the inevitability of Open Access and the ease of publishing online at low cost, it is possible to find publications with different levels of scientific respectability.

In this context, the improvement of the quality of scholarly publications emerges as a critical element for publishers, authors and academic institutions, as well as for society in general.

This opinion piece discusses Open Access journals with different levels of quality, focusing on the following quality-promoting measures: blacklists, author’s preparation, and institutional prevention.

The analysis allows concluding that the open review will be one of the key elements in the process of clarification and promotion of the level of quality and consequent scientific respectability of each of the Journals, of the thousands currently existing, a number that is likely to increase.

URL : https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1250057

EN

Investigating academic library responses to predatory publishing in the United States, Canada and Spanish-speaking Latin America

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Jairo Buitrago-Ciro, Lynne Bowker

Purpose

This is a comparative investigation of how university libraries in the United States, Canada and Spanish-speaking Latin America are responding to predatory publishing.

Design/methodology/approach

The Times Higher Education World University Rankings was used to identify the top ten universities from each of the US and Canada, as well as the top 20 Spanish-language universities in Latin America.

Each university library’s website was scrutinized to discover whether the libraries employed scholarly communication librarians, whether they offered scholarly communication workshops, or whether they shared information about scholarly communication on their websites. This information was further examined to determine if it discussed predatory publishing specifically.

Findings

Most libraries in the US/Canada sample employ scholarly communication librarians and nearly half offer workshops on predatory publishing. No library in the Latin America sample employed a scholarly communication specialist and just one offered a workshop addressing predatory publishing.

The websites of the libraries in the US and Canada addressed predatory publishing both indirectly and directly, with US libraries favoring the former approach and Canadian libraries tending towards the latter. Predatory publishing was rarely addressed directly by the libraries in the Latin America sample; however, all discussed self-archiving and/or Open Access.

Research limitations/implications

Brazilian universities were excluded owing to the researchers’ language limitations. Data were collected between September 15 and 30, 2019, so it represents a snapshot of information available at that time.

The study was limited to an analysis of library websites using a fixed set of keywords, and it did not investigate whether other campus units were involved or whether other methods of informing researchers about predatory publishing were being used.

Originality/value

The study reveals some best practices leading to recommendations to help academic libraries combat predatory publishing and improve scholarly publishing literacy among researchers.

URL : http://hdl.handle.net/10393/40733

EN

Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Jiří Kratochvíl, Lukáš Plch, Martin Sebera, Eva Koriťáková

Not all the journals included in credible indexes meet the ethical rules of COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAMEand equally there may be trustworthy journals excluded from these indexes which means they cannot be used as definitive whitelists for trustworthy journals.

Equally the many methods suggested to determine trustworthiness are not reliable due to including questionable criteria. The question arises whether valid criteria for identifying an untrustworthy journal can be determined and whether other assessment procedures are necessary.

Since 2017, the Masaryk University Campus Library has been developing a suitable evaluation method for journals. A list of 19 criteria based on those originally suggested by Beall, COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME were reduced to 10 objectively verifiable criteria following two workshops with librarians.

An evaluation of 259 biomedical journals using both the list of 19 and then 10 criteria revealed that 74 journals may have been incorrectly assessed as untrustworthy using the longer list.

The most common reason for failure to comply was in the provision of sufficient editorial information and declaration of article processing charges. However our investigation revealed that no criteria can reliably identify predatory journals.

Therefore, a complex evaluation is needed combining objectively verifiable criteria with analysis of a journal’s content and knowledge of the journal’s background.

URL : https://is.muni.cz/publication/1669782/en/Kratochvil-Plch-Sebera-Koritakova/Evaluation-of-untrustworthy-journals-Transition-from-formal-criteria-to-a-complex-view

EN

Responsible, practical genomic data sharing that accelerates research

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : James Brian Byrd, Anna C. Greene, Deepashree Venkatesh Prasad, Xiaoqian Jiang, Casey S. Greene

Data sharing anchors reproducible science, but expectations and best practices are often nebulous. Communities of funders, researchers and publishers continue to grapple with what should be required or encouraged.

To illuminate the rationales for sharing data, the technical challenges and the social and cultural challenges, we consider the stakeholders in the scientific enterprise. In biomedical research, participants are key among those stakeholders.

Ethical sharing requires considering both the value of research efforts and the privacy costs for participants. We discuss current best practices for various types of genomic data, as well as opportunities to promote ethical data sharing that accelerates science by aligning incentives.

URL : Responsible, practical genomic data sharing that accelerates research

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-020-0257-5

EN

Transparency and open science principles in reporting guidelines in sleep research and chronobiology journals

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Manuel Spitschan, Marlene H. Schmidt, Christine Blume

Background

“Open science” is an umbrella term describing various aspects of transparent and open science practices. The adoption of practices at different levels of the scientific process (e.g., individual researchers, laboratories, institutions) has been rapidly changing the scientific research landscape in the past years, but their uptake differs from discipline to discipline.

Here, we asked to what extent journals in the field of sleep research and chronobiology encourage or even require following transparent and open science principles in their author guidelines.

Methods

We scored the author guidelines of a comprehensive set of 28 sleep and chronobiology journals, including the major outlets in the field, using the standardised Transparency and Openness (TOP) Factor.

This instrument rates the extent to which journals encourage or require following various aspects of open science, including data citation, data transparency, analysis code transparency, materials transparency, design and analysis guidelines, study pre-registration, analysis plan pre-registration, replication, registered reports, and the use of open science badges.

Results

Across the 28 journals, we find low values on the TOP Factor (median [25th, 75th percentile] 2.5 [1, 3], min. 0, max. 9, out of a total possible score of 28) in sleep research and chronobiology journals.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest an opportunity for sleep research and chronobiology journals to further support the recent developments in transparent and open science by implementing transparency and openness principles in their guidelines and making adherence to them mandatory.

URL : Transparency and open science principles in reporting guidelines in sleep research and chronobiology journals

DOI : https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16111.1

EN

A Provisional System to Evaluate Journal Publishers Based on Partnership Practices and Values Shared with Academic Institutions and Libraries

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Rachel Caldwell

Background

Journals with high impact factors (IFs) are the “coin of the realm” in many review, tenure, and promotion decisions, ipso facto, IFs influence academic authors’ views of journals and publishers. However, IFs do not evaluate how publishers interact with libraries or academic institutions.

Goal

This provisional system introduces an evaluation of publishers exclusive of IF, measuring how well a publisher’s practices align with the values of libraries and public institutions of higher education (HE). Identifying publishers with similar values may help libraries and institutions make strategic decisions about resource allocation.

Methods

Democratization of knowledge, information exchange, and the sustainability of scholarship were values identified to define partnership practices and develop a scoring system evaluating publishers. Then, four publishers were evaluated. A high score indicates alignment with the values of libraries and academic institutions and a strong partnership with HE.

Results

Highest scores were earned by a learned society publishing two journals and a library publisher supporting over 80 open-access journals.

Conclusions

Publishers, especially nonprofit publishers, could use the criteria to guide practices that align with mission-driven institutions. Institutions and libraries could use the system to identify publishers acting in good faith towards public institutions of HE.

URL : A Provisional System to Evaluate Journal Publishers Based on Partnership Practices and Values Shared with Academic Institutions and Libraries

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8030039