Archives des mots-clés : Scholarly Publishing

Scholar Librarian Collaboration in the Publication of Scholarly…

Statut

Scholar-Librarian Collaboration in the Publication of Scholarly Materials :

“Recent developments in scholarly publication and the new directions being pursued in both humanities departments and libraries in the production of digital content provide opportunity for scholars and li-braries to explore new models for working together to produce and disseminate scholarly materials. We offer as a first step toward a model for publication the case of Opuscula: Short Texts of the Middle Ages and Renaissance (OSTMAR), a hybrid form of publication that leverages the university library infrastructure to create a platform for the publication of scholarly primary materials, an area of publication formerly re-served for the commercial press. This model is dependent on close collaboration between scholar and librarian, the nuances of which are outlined in this paper.”

URL : http://collaborativelibrarianship.org/index.php/jocl/article/view/243

Open Access And Scholarly Monographs in Canada

Statut

“The unprecedented access to knowledge enabled by the internet is a critical development in the democratization of education. The Open Access (OA) movement argues that scholarly research is a common good that should be freely available. In theory, university presses concur, however, providing such access is largely unsupportable within current business model parameters.

This study presents an overview of OA in North America and Europe, focusing on the Canadian context. Given their relatively small market and current funding models, Canadian scholarly presses differ somewhat from American and European publishers vis-à-vis OA. Drawing both on information from industry stakeholders and relevant research, this paper aims to clarify how Canadian university presses might proceed with respect to OA. While the study does not make specific recommendations, possible business models are presented that might help university presses offset the cost of offering OA to the important body of scholarship that they publish.”

URL : http://www.ccsp.sfu.ca/2013/08/open-access-and-scholarly-monographs-in-canada/

The Death of Review Articles in Humanities A…

Statut

The Death of Review Articles in Humanities: A Case study on World LIS Journals :

“This study reveals the current status of articles published in Library and Information Science (LIS) journals. Using the citation site “Scopus”, the number of published articles in 32 LIS journals were extracted, illustrated, and analyzed. Approximately 50.31 documents per year have been published in noted journals during 2007-2011. About 6 percent of these documents are devoted to review articles. The findings also show Springer LIS journals has the 1st rank of publishing scholarly documents per year (mean=63.84 documents), and the 1st rank of impact factor (Mean=1.9) among studied groups. American LIS publications showed the best rank in publishing review articles (%11.34 of all published documents) and also in Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) (mean=0.63). ScienceDirect LIS journals was in 1st rank of H-Index scores (Mean=24). In addition, the number of published documents in LIS journals has a positive significant relationship with SJR (R=0.45), IF (R=0.39), and H-Index (R=0.80). In addition, there is a positive significance between SJR and H-Index (R=0.46). Finally, some suggestions have been made to improve the current status of review articles publishing.”

URL : http://eprints.rclis.org/20162/

Just Roll with It Rolling Volumes vs Discrete…

Statut

Just Roll with It? Rolling Volumes vs. Discrete Issues in Open Access Library and Information Science Journals:

“INTRODUCTION : Articles in open access (OA) journals can be published on a rolling basis, as they become ready, or in complete, discrete issues. This study examines the prevalence of and reasons for rolling volumes vs. discrete issues among scholarly OA library and information science (LIS) journals based in the United States.

METHODS : A survey was distributed to journal editors, asking them about their publication model and their reasons for and satisfaction with that model.

RESULTS : Of the 21 responding journals, 12 publish in discrete issues, eight publish in rolling volumes, and one publishes in rolling volumes with an occasional special issue. Almost all editors, regardless of model, cited ease of workflow as a justification for their chosen publication model, suggesting that there is no single best workflow for all journals. However, while all rolling-volume editors reported being satisfied with their model, satisfaction was less universal among discrete-issue editors.

DISCUSSION : The unexpectedly high number of rolling-volume journals suggests that LIS journal editors are making forward-looking choices about publication models even though the topic has not been much addressed in the library literature. Further research is warranted; possibilities include expanding the study’s geographic scope, broadening the study to other disciplines, and investigating publication model trends across the entire scholarly OA universe.

CONCLUSION : Both because satisfaction is high among editors of rolling-volume journals and because readers and authors appreciate quick publication times, the rolling-volume model will likely become even more prevalent in coming years.”

URL : http://jlsc-pub.org/jlsc/vol1/iss4/2/

Defining and characterizing open peer review a review…

Statut

Defining and characterizing open peer review: a review of the literature :

“Changes in scholarly publishing have resulted in a move toward openness. To this end, new, open models of peer review are emerging. While the scholarly literature has examined and discussed open peer review, no established definition of it exists, nor are there uniform implementations of open peer review processes. This article examines the literature discussing open peer review, identifies common open peer review definitions, and describes eight common characteristics of open peer review: signed review, disclosed review, editor-mediated review, transparent review, crowdsourced review, prepublication review, synchronous review, and post-publication review. This article further discusses benefits and challenges to the scholarly publishing community posed by open peer review, and concludes that open peer review can and should exist within the current scholarly publishing paradigm.”

URL : http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/ulib_fac/1/

Researchers and scholarly communications: an evolving interdependency

Statut

Scholarly communication is not just about communication. It is not the final stage of the publication process, solely a means of providing the ‘minutes of science’. Rather, it is a vital part of the research process itself, inspiring researchers along new avenues of discovery and enabling the creation of connections between concepts and people.

The ways in which researchers disseminate their research have changed and developed over the four centuries since the launch of the first scientific journals. But it can be argued that scholarly communication has in turn affected the way in which researchers behave.

This chapter explores some of the interaction and interdependencies between researchers and scholarly communication. It also describes how the move to online, electronic publishing might further influence the research process.

URL : http://eprints.rclis.org/19914/

Open Access—Are the Barriers to Change Receding?

Posté le par

The move from subscription only publishing of scholarly articles to open access has been much slower than previously anticipated by many Open Access (OA) advocates. Despite the many advantages that OA offers, this particular branch of E-commerce imposes several formidable barriers to change.

A framework conceptualizing these barriers that was developed over a decade ago was revisited to see if the significance of these barriers has changed. Nowadays, building the IT infrastructure, support from indexing services and finding a sustainable business model are no longer important barriers. For gold OA publishing the academic reward system is still a major obstacle, whereas more marketing and critical mass is needed for both gold OA and green OA.

Green OA self-archiving is still also strongly affected by what subscription publishers allow. In the overall balance the situation has nevertheless improved significantly.

URL : http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/1/1/5