Archives des mots-clés : Scholarly Publishing

Lessons From the Open Library of Humanities

Posté le par

Authors : Martin Paul Eve, Paula Clemente Vega, Caroline Edwards

The Open Library of Humanities was launched almost half a decade ago with funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. In this article, we outline the problems we set out to address and the lessons we learned.

Specifically, we note that, as we hypothesized, academic libraries are not necessarily classical economic actors; that implementing consortial funding models requires much marketing labour; that there are substantial governance and administrative overheads in our model; that there are complex tax and VAT considerations for consortial arrangements; and that diverse revenue sources remain critical to our success.

URL : Lessons From the Open Library of Humanities

DOI : http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10327

Comfortably Numb? Researchers’ Satisfaction with the Publication System and a Proposal for Radical Change

Posté le par

Authors : Hans van Dijk, Marino van Zelst

In this preregistered study we evaluate current attitudes towards, and experiences with, publishing research and propose an alternative system of publishing. Our main hypothesis is that researchers tend to become institutionalized, such that they are generally discontent with the current publication system, but that this dissatisfaction fades over time as they become tenured.

A survey was distributed to the first authors of papers published in four recent issues of top-15 Work and Organizational Psychology (WOP) journals. Even among this positively biased sample, we found that the time it takes to publish a manuscript is negatively associated with whether authors perceive this time to be justifiable and worthwhile relative to the amount their manuscript has changed. Review quality and tenure buffer the negative relationship with perceived justifiability, but not for perceived worth.

The findings suggest that untenured (WOP) researchers are dissatisfied with the publishing times of academic journals, which adds to the pile of criticisms of the journal-based publication system. Since publishing times are inherent to the journal-based publication system, we suggest that incremental improvements may not sufficiently address the problems associated with publishing times.

We therefore propose the adoption of a modular publication system to improve (WOP) publishing experiences.

URL : Comfortably Numb? Researchers’ Satisfaction with the Publication System and a Proposal for Radical Change

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8010014

Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics

Posté le par

Authors : Anna Severin, Michaela Strinzel, Matthias Egger, Marc Domingo, Tiago Barros

Background

While the characteristics of scholars who publish in predatory journals are relatively well-understood, nothing is known about the scholars who review for these journals.

We aimed to answer the following questions: Can we observe patterns of reviewer characteristics for scholars who review for predatory journals and for legitimate journals? Second, how are reviews for potentially predatory journals distributed globally?

Methods

We matched random samples of 1,000 predatory journals and 1,000 legitimate journals of the Cabells Scholarly Analytics’ journal lists with the Publons database of review reports, using the Jaro-Winkler string metric.

For reviewers of matched reviews, we descriptively analysed meta-data on reviewing and publishing behaviour.

Results

We matched 183,743 unique Publons reviews that were claimed by 19,598 reviewers. 6,077 reviews were conducted for 1160 unique predatory journals (3.31% of all reviews). 177,666 were claimed for 6,403 legitimate journals (96.69% of all reviews).

The vast majority of scholars either never or only occasionally submitted reviews for predatory journals to Publons (89.96% and 7.55% of all reviewers, respectively). Smaller numbers of scholars claimed reviews predominantly or exclusively for predatory journals (0.26% and 0.35% of all reviewers, respectively).

The two latter groups of scholars are of younger academic age and have fewer publications and fewer reviews than the first two groups of scholars.Developing regions feature larger shares of reviews for predatory reviews than developed regions.

Conclusion

The characteristics of scholars who review for potentially predatory journals resemble those of authors who publish their work in these outlets. In order to combat potentially predatory journals, stakeholders will need to adopt a holistic approach that takes into account the entire research workflow.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.09.983155

Open Access publishing practice in geochemistry: overview of current state and look to the future

Posté le par

Authors : Olivier Pourret, Andrew Hursthouse, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Karen Johannesson, Haiyan Liu, Marc Poujol, Romain Tartèse, Eric D. van Hullebusch, Oliver Wiche

Open Access (OA) describes the free, unrestricted access to and re-use of research articles. Recently, a new wave of interest, debate, and practice surrounding OA publishing has emerged.

In this paper, we provide a simple overview of the trends in OA practice in the broad field of geochemistry. Characteristics of the approach such as whether or not an article processing charge (APC) exists, what embargo periods or restrictions on self-archiving’ policies are in place, and whether or not the sharing of preprints is permitted are described.

The majority of journals have self-archiving policies that allow authors to share their peer reviewed work via green OA without charge. There is no clear relationship between journal impact and APC.

The journals with the highest APC are typically those of the major commercial publishers, rather than the geochemistry community themselves. The rise in OA publishing has potential impacts on the profiles of researchers and tends to devolve costs from organizations to individuals.

Until the geochemistry community makes the decision to move away from journal-based evaluation criteria, it is likely that such high costs will continue to impose financial inequities upon research community.

However, geochemists could more widely choose legal self-archiving as an equitable and sustainable way to disseminate their research.

URL : Open Access publishing practice in geochemistry: overview of current state and look to the future

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03551

Prevalence of Potentially Predatory Publishing in Scopus on the Country Level

Posté le par

Authors : Tatiana Savina, Ivan Sterligov

We present the results of a large-scale study of potentially predatory journals (PPJ) represented in the Scopus database, which is widely used for research evaluation. Both journal metrics and country, disciplinary data have been evaluated for different groups of PPJ: those listed by Jeffrey Beall and those delisted by Scopus because of “publication concerns”.

Our results show that even after years of delisting, PPJ are still highly visible in the Scopus database with hundreds of active potentially predatory journals. PPJ papers are continuously produced by all major countries, but with different shares. All major subject areas are affected. The largest number of PPJ papers are in engineering and medicine.

On average, PPJ have much lower citation metrics than other Scopus-indexed journals. We conclude with a brief survey of the case of Kazakhstan where the share of PPJ papers at one time amounted to almost a half of all Kazakhstan papers in Scopus, and propose a link between PPJ share and national research evaluation policies (in particular, rules of awarding academic degrees).

The progress of potentially predatory journal research will be increasingly important because such evaluation methods are becoming more widespread in times of the Metric Tide.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.08283

Publications numériques scientifiques universitaires internationales : Disruption, quels acteurs,quels projets ?

Posté le par

Auteur/Author : Appoline Romanens

Les enseignants-chercheurs d’aujourd’hui se heurtent à des APC, ont besoin de logiciels de PAO, avec un DMP pour apparaître dans la base de données du DOAJ, ou espérer rentrer dans celle duWoS.

Tous ces termes nous semblent éloignés du jargon du Journal des Sçavans, première manifestation de la compilation des pensées de la recherche scientifique.

Pourtant ils sont le signe d’une évolution du médium qui porte l’article académique scientifique aujourd’hui, le web de données, dans lequel toute publication scientifique se doit d’être réticulée pour survivre au publish or perish.

Afin de comprendre ce nouveau jargon de la recherche scientifique, qui témoigne de profonds changements dans le rapport qu’entretient l’enseignant-chercheur, l’éditeur puis le lecteur par rapport au texte, ce mémoire explore la notion de disruption dans le processus de création, relecture et édition puis publication et diffusion d’un article.

Outre un développement basé sur les théories de l’économie du document et de l’article scientifique, ce mémoire apporte deux études de cas qui rendent compte du phénomène de disruption dans les publications scientifiques, et propose à partir de ce corpus une ouverture sur ses enjeux actuels et futurs.

URL : Publications numériques scientifiques universitaires internationales : Disruption, quels acteurs,quels projets ?

Original location : https://www.enssib.fr/bibliotheque-numerique/notices/69398-publications-numeriques-scientifiques-universitaires-internationales-disruption-quels-acteurs-quels-projets

Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations

Posté le par

Authors : Meredith T. Niles, Lesley A. Schimanski, Erin C. McKiernan, Juan Pablo Alperin

Using an online survey of academics at 55 randomly selected institutions across the US and Canada, we explore priorities for publishing decisions and their perceived importance within review, promotion, and tenure (RPT).

We find that respondents most value journal readership, while they believe their peers most value prestige and related metrics such as impact factor when submitting their work for publication.

Respondents indicated that total number of publications, number of publications per year, and journal name recognition were the most valued factors in RPT.

Older and tenured respondents (most likely to serve on RPT committees) were less likely to value journal prestige and metrics for publishing, while untenured respondents were more likely to value these factors.

These results suggest disconnects between what academics value versus what they think their peers value, and between the importance of journal prestige and metrics for tenured versus untenured faculty in publishing and RPT perceptions.

URL : Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228914