Advancing Scientific Knowledge: Ethical Issues in the Journal Publication Process

Author : Richard H. McCuen

The goal of this paper is to assess the journal publication process from value and ethical perspectives.

The specific objectives are: (1) To define fundamental values relevant to scientific journal publication; (2) To identify stakeholders involved in professional journals and their value rights and responsibilities; (3) To discuss the steps of the journal publication process where ethical dilemmas arise and the potential influences of such dilemmas on the advancement of knowledge; and (4) To summarize actions that can minimize unethical practices throughout the steps of the publication process.

Values such as honesty, efficiency, accountability, and fairness will be discussed. Issues related to the various stakeholders such as self-citation, plagiarism, dual publication, a lack of timeliness, and issues related to authorship will be a primary focus.

URL : Advancing Scientific Knowledge: Ethical Issues in the Journal Publication Process

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/publications6010001

Monitoring the transition to open access: December 2017

The studies on which this report is based were undertaken by a team led by Michael Jubb and comprising Andrew Plume, Stephanie Oeben and Lydia Brammer, Elsevier; Rob Johnson and Cihan Bütün, Research Consulting; Stephen Pinfield, University of Sheffield.

Following the Finch Report in 2012, Universities UK established an Open Access Coordination Group to support the transition to open access (OA)  for articles in scholarly journals. The Group  commissioned an initial report published in 2015 to gather evidence on key features of that transition.

This second report aims to build on those findings, and to examine trends  over the period since the major funders of research in the UK established new policies to promote OA.

URL : Monitoring the transition to open access: December 2017

“It’s Not the Way We Use English”—Can We Resist the Native Speaker Stranglehold on Academic Publications?

Author : Pat Strauss

English dominates the academic publishing world, and this dominance can, and often does, lead to the marginalisation of researchers who are not first-language speakers of English.

There are different schools of thought regarding this linguistic domination; one approach is pragmatic. Proponents believe that the best way to empower these researchers in their bid to publish is to assist them to gain mastery of the variety of English most acceptable to prestigious journals.

Another perspective, however, is that traditional academic English is not necessarily the best medium for the dissemination of research, and that linguistic compromises need to be made.

They contend that the stranglehold that English holds in the publishing world should be resisted.

This article explores these different perspectives, and suggests ways in which those of us who do not wield a great deal of influence may yet make a small contribution to the levelling of the linguistic playing field, and pave the way for an English lingua franca that better serves the needs of twenty-first century academics.

URL : “It’s Not the Way We Use English”—Can We Resist the Native Speaker Stranglehold on Academic Publications?

Alternative location : http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/4/27

Analyser l’autorité dans les publications scientifiques

Auteur/Author : Evelyne Broudoux

Les usages de l’autorité dans les écrits scientifiques sont peu analysés en sciences de l’information et de la communication, la littérature se concentrant sur l’analyse de citations d’articles pour mesurer statistiquement leur influence.

A partir de définitions reconnues dans différentes disciplines, nous proposons de modéliser l’autorité selon ses modes d’expression. Le premier concerne les entités sociales nommées qui se décomposent en autorité énonciative et autorité institutionnelle.

Les autorités épistémique et cognitive concernent les connaissances ; la médiatisation des écrits se déroule sous l’autorité du support-logiciel et l’autorité du public visé.

Une première mise en pratique de la grille d’analyse ainsi constituée indique que ses trois modes d’autorité peuvent se superposer sans s’exclure selon les objectifs poursuivis par les auteurs.

URL : https://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_01646799

Potentiel scientifique et technique d’un laboratoire : Favoriser l’innovation, protéger les savoirs : un équilibre délicat

Auteur/Author : Jean-Pierre Damiano

Le potentiel scientifique et technique d’un laboratoire de recherche confère un caractère stratégique à la protection de son système d’information. Les atteintes peuvent tout aussi bien toucher ses données scientifiques ou technologiques que ses outils ou ses moyens scientifiques, techniques ou humains.

Le laboratoire vit souvent dans un environnement complexe par la diversité de ses tutelles et la diversification de ses ressources, tout en étant confronté à une compétition scientifique croissante. Face aux risques encourus, il convient d’identifier ce qui doit être protégé, de quantifier l’enjeu correspondant, de formuler des objectifs de sécurité et de mettre en œuvre les parades adaptées au niveau de sécurité retenu.

Un tel plan d’actions conduit à des règles. Pour qu’elles soient acceptées, elles ne doivent pas entraver la recherche, la compétitivité, les échanges et les coopérations nationales et internationales, la diffusion à travers les brevets, les publications et les congrès, etc. C’est un équilibre délicat à trouver et à maintenir.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01633310

Examining publishing practices: moving beyond the idea of predatory open access

Author : Kevin L. Smith

The word ‘predatory’ has become an obstacle to a serious discussion of publishing practices. Its use has been both overinclusive, encompassing practices that, while undesirable, are not malicious, and underinclusive, missing many exploitative practices outside the open access sphere.

The article examines different business models for scholarly publishing and considers the potential for abuse with each model. After looking at the problems of both blacklists and so-called ‘whitelists’, the author suggests that the best path forward would be to create tools to capture the real experience of individual authors as they navigate the publishing process with different publishers.

URL : Examining publishing practices: moving beyond the idea of predatory open access

DOI : http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.388

The role of the library in scholarly publishing: The University of Manchester experience

Author : Simon Bains

The emergence of networked digital methods of scholarly dissemination has transformed the role of the academic library in the context of the research life cycle. It now plays an important role in the dissemination of research outputs (e.g. through repository management and gold open access publication processing) as well as more traditional acquisition and collection management.

The University of Manchester Library and Manchester University Press have developed a strategic relationship to consider how they can work in partnership to support new approaches to scholarly publishing. They have delivered two projects to understand researcher and student needs and to develop tools and services to meet these needs.

This work has found that the creation of new journal titles is costly and provides significant resourcing challenges and that support for student journals in particular is mixed amongst senior academic administrators.

Research has suggested that there is more value to the University in the provision of training in scholarly publishing than in the creation of new in-house journal titles. Where such titles are created, careful consideration of sustainable business models is vital.

URL : The role of the library in scholarly publishing: The University of Manchester experience

DOI : http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.380