Étiquette : Scholarly Publishing

Publié le

Transformative agreements: Do they pave the way to open access?

Authors : Ángel Borrego, Lluís Anglada, Ernest Abadal

Transformative agreements, also known as ‘offsetting’, ‘read and publish’, or ‘publish and read’ agreements, have shifted the focus of scholarly journal licensing from cost containment towards open access publication.

An analysis of 36 full‐text transformative agreements recorded in the ESAC registry shows that ‘transformative agreement’ is an umbrella term that encompasses different kinds of contracts. We differentiate between pre‐transformative, partially transformative, and fully transformative agreements.

Pre‐transformative agreements are traditional subscription licences that grant article processing charge (APC) discounts or vouchers for open access publication of a limited number of articles. Partially transformative agreements differentiate between a read fee and a publish fee to cover the processing charges of a certain number of articles.

Fully transformative agreements allow unlimited open access publication of the scholarly output of the subscribing institution. In all three categories, some agreements restrict open access publication to hybrid journals, whereas others allow publication in both hybrid and gold journals.

Transformative agreements are more transparent than traditional journal licences, allow authors to retain copyright, and make provisions to facilitate the management of open access workflows.

It is hard to assess whether these agreements are just a temporary phase in the transition towards open access or will perpetuate the current structure of the scholarly communication system and its associated high costs.

URL : Transformative agreements: Do they pave the way to open access?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1347

Publié le

How is open access publishing going down with early career researchers? An international, multi-disciplinary study

Authors : David Nicholas, Hamid R. Jamali, Eti Herman, Jie Xu, Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Anthony Watkinson, Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo, Abdullah Abrizah, Marzena Świgoń, Tatiana Polezhaeva

This study explores early career researchers’ (ECRs) appreciation and utilisation of open access (OA) publishing. The evidence reported here results from a questionnaire-based international survey with 1600 participants, which forms the second leg and final year of a four year long, mixed methods, longitudinal study that sought to discover whether ECRs will be the harbingers of change when it comes to scholarly communications.

Proceeding from the notion that today’s neophyte researchers, believed to hold millennial values of openness to change, transparency and sharing, may be best placed to power the take-up of OA publishing, the study sought to discover: the extent to which ECRs publish OA papers; the main reasons for their doing or not doing so; and what were thought to be the broader advantages and disadvanta-ges of OA publishing.

The survey data is presented against a backdrop of the literature-based evidence on the subject, with the interview stage data providing contextualisation and qualitative depth. The findings show that the majority of ECRs published in OA journals and this varied by discipline and country.

Most importantly, there were more advantages and fewer disadvantages to OA publishing, which may be indicative of problems to do with cost and availability, rather than reputational factors.

Among the many reasons cited for publishing OA the most important one is societal, although OA is seen as especially benefiting ECRs in career progression. Cost is plainly considered the main downside.

URL : How is open access publishing going down with early career researchers? An international, multi-disciplinary study

Alternative location : http://www.elprofesionaldelainformacion.com/contenidos/2020/nov/nicholas-herman-jamali-xu-boukacem-watkinson-rodriguez-abrizah-swigon-polezhaeva.pdf

Publié le

How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing

Authors : Franciszek Krawczyk, Emanuel Kulczycki

The aim of this paper is to investigate how predatory journals are characterized by authors who write about such journals. We emphasize the ways in which predatory journals have been conflated with—or distinguished from—open access journals.

We created a list of relevant publications on predatory publishing using four databases: Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, and Microsoft Academic.

We included 280 English-language publications in the review according to their contributions to the discussions on predatory publishing. Then, we coded and qualitatively analyzed these publications.

The findings show the profound influence of Jeffrey Beall, who composed and maintained himself lists of predatory publishers and journals, on the whole discussion on predatory publishing.

The major themes by which Beall has characterized predatory journals are widely present in non-Beall publications. Moreover, 122 papers we reviewed combined predatory publishing with open access using similar strategies as Beall.

The overgeneralization of the flaws of some open access journals to the entire open access movement has led to unjustified prejudices among the academic community toward open access.

This is the first large-scale study that systematically examines how predatory publishing is defined in the literature.

URL : How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271

Publié le

Authorship in top-ranked mathematical and physical journals: Role of gender on self-perceptions and bibliographic evidence

Authors : Helena Mihaljevi, Lucía Santamaría

Despite increasing rates of women researching in math-intensive fields, publications by female authors remain underrepresented. By analyzing millions of records from the dedicated bibliographic databases zbMATH, arXiv, and ADS, we unveil the chronological evolution of authorships by women in mathematics, physics, and astronomy.

We observe a pronounced shortage of female authors in top-ranked journals, with quasi-stagnant figures in various distinguished periodicals in the first two disciplines and a significantly more equitable situation in the latter.

Additionally, we provide an interactive open-access web interface to further examine the data. To address whether female scholars submit fewer articles for publication to relevant journals or whether they are consciously or unconsciously disadvantaged by the peer review system, we also study authors’ perceptions of their submission practices and analyze around 10,000 responses, collected as part of a recent global survey of scientists.

Our analysis indicates that men and women perceive their submission practices to be similar, with no evidence that a significantly lower number of submissions by women is responsible for their underrepresentation in top-ranked journals.

According to the self-reported responses, a larger number of articles submitted to prestigious venues correlates rather with aspects associated with pronounced research activity, a well-established network, and academic seniority.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00090

Publié le

De la revue au collectif : la conversation comme dispositif d’éditorialisation des communautés savantes en lettres et sciences humaines

Auteur/Author : Nicolas Sauret

Si l’on s’accorde à dire que les outils numériques ont modifié en profondeur nos pratiques d’écriture et de lecture, l’influence que ces nouvelles pratiques exercent sur les contenus d’une part, et sur la structuration de notre pensée d’autre part, reste encore à déterminer.

C’est dans ce champ d’investigation que s’inscrit cette thèse, qui questionne la production des connaissances à l’époque numérique : le savoir scientifique aurait-il changé en même temps que ses modalités de production et de diffusion ?

Je traiterai ce sujet à travers le prisme de la revue savante en lettres et sciences humaines, dont le modèle épistémologique, encore attaché au support papier, se voit profondément questionné par le numérique dans sa dimension technique aussi bien que culturelle.

Je fais l’hypothèse que les modalités d’écriture en environnement numérique sont une opportunité pour renouer avec les idéaux de conversation scientifique qui présidaient l’invention des revues au 17eme siècle. La thèse propose une réflexion en trois temps, articulée autour de trois conceptions de la revue : la revue comme format, comme espace et, tel que je le propose et le conceptualise, comme collectif.

La revue comme format, d’abord, émerge directement de la forme épistolaire au 17eme, favorisant alors la conversation au sein d’une communauté savante dispersée. Mais les limites conceptuelles du format nous invite à considérer la revue davantage comme un media. Pour penser alors sa remédiation, je montrerai que cette conversation trouve son incarnation contemporaine dans le concept d’éditorialisation.

La revue comme espace, ensuite, où s’incarnait jusque-là l’autorité scientifique, fait émerger de nouvelles possibilités conversationnelles, en raison des glissements de la fonction éditoriale des revues et de leurs éditeurs dans l’espace numérique. Enfin, la revue comme collectif émerge d’une écriture processuelle, en mouvement, propre à l’environnement numérique.

Un des enjeux de cette thèse réside dans la mise en évidence des dynamiques collectives d’appropriation et de légitimation. En ce sens, la finalité de la revue est peut-être moins la production de documents que l’éditorialisation d’une conversation faisant advenir le collectif.

Au plan méthodologique, cette thèse a la particularité de s’appuyer sur une recherche-action ancrée dans une série de cas d’étude et d’expérimentations éditoriales que j’ai pu mener en tant que chercheur d’une part, et éditeur-praticien d’autre part.

La présentation des résultats de cette recherche-action, ainsi que leur analyse critique, fournissent la matière des concepts travaillés dans la thèse.

URL : https://these.nicolassauret.net/index.html

Publié le

Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey

Authors : Nicolas Lombard, A. Gasmi, L. Sulpice, K. Boudjema, Damien Bergeat

Objective

To describe surgical journals’ position statements on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe key features of their research transparency promotion.

Methods

Only “SURGICAL” journals with an impact factor higher than 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were included, if there were explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the official instructions for authors (OIA) or if they had published randomised controlled trial (RCT) between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018.

The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy included in the instructions for authors. Data-sharing policies were grouped into 3 categories, inclusion of data-sharing policy mandatory, optional, or not available.

Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement policy”, a conflict of interests (COIs) disclosure requirement, and a specific reference to reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT for RCT.

Results

Among the 87 surgical journals identified, 82 were included in the study: 67 (82%) had explicit instructions for RCT and the remaining 15 (18%) had published at least one RCT. The median impact factor was 2.98 [IQR = 2.48–3.77], and in 2016 and 2017, the journals published a median of 11.5 RCT [IQR = 5–20.75].

The OIA of four journals (5%) stated that the inclusion of a data-sharing statement was mandatory, optional in 45% (n = 37), and not included in 50% (n = 41).

No association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (mandatory or optional). A “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” was associated with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) allusion or affiliation and higher impact factors.

Journals with specific RCT instructions in their OIA and journals referenced on the ICMJE website more frequently mandated the use of CONSORT guidelines.

Conclusion

Research transparency promotion is still limited in surgical journals. Standardisation of journal requirements according to ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.

URL : Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04756-7

Publié le

Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions

Authors : Anna Severin, Joanna Chataway

Stakeholders might have diverging or conflicting expectations about the functions that peer review should fulfil. We aimed to explore how stakeholder groups perceive peer review and what they expect from it. We conducted qualitative focus group workshops with early‐, mid‐, and senior career scholars, editors, and publishers.

We recruited participants following a purposive maximum variation sampling approach. To identify purposes of peer review, we conducted a thematic analysis. Stakeholders expected peer review (1) to assess the contributions of a manuscript, (2) to conduct quality control, (3) to improve manuscripts, (4) to assess the suitability of manuscripts for a journal, (5) to provide a decision‐making tool for editors, (6) to provide feedback by peers, (7) to curate a community, and (8) to provide a seal of accreditation for published articles.

Stakeholders with different roles and tasks in the peer review process differed in the value they attached to the functions of peer review. Early‐ and mid‐career researchers valued social and feedback functions of peer review, while senior career researchers and editors expected it to instead perform a technical assessment of manuscripts and serve as a decision‐making tool.

Publishers expected peer review to assess the suitability of manuscripts for their journals and to provide a seal of accreditation. This revealed a potential tension between functions of peer review. Stakeholder expectations are shaped by how stakeholders perceive their own roles both in relation to the peer review process and within their scientific community.

URL : Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1336