共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Alison Baverstock 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(1):65-68
Key points
- Although ‘peer review’ has quasi‐sacred status, times are changing, and peer review is not necessarily a single and uniformly reliable gold standard.
- For publishers, peer review is a process not an outcome.
- Academics understand peer review, but are often ignorant about the quality checking mechanisms within wider publishing.
- Self‐publishing has led to the much wider availability of publishing services – these now being used by all stakeholders in publishing.
- How should universities evaluate comment and ideas that were first disseminated within a non‐academic market?
- Rather than an upper house, is peer review today more of a galley kitchen?
2.
- Innovative business models to complement or replace traditional models of funding academic publishing are currently proliferating.
- Not relying solely on one source of funding is a key factor in sustainability.
- Pay what you can afford (PWYCA) is a new model for article processing charges (APCs) providing both a revenue stream and an opportunity to raise awareness of the cost of publishing amongst authors.
- Treating a journal as part of an overall enterprise rather than as a stand‐alone business contributes significantly to its sustainability.
3.
Francis Dodds 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(2):163-168
Key points
- Concerns about a crisis in monograph publishing date back to at least the 1990s, and for traditional journal publishing at least a decade.
- Two key trends behind concerns over book and journal models are pressures on funding and the emergence of open access.
- Despite predictions of a revolution, the academic publishing sector has proved remarkably resilient in adapting to market changes.
- Whilst showing some support for ‘open science’, even early career researchers remain committed to traditional publishing models.
- The growth in scholarly collaboration networks and in sharing across traditional boundaries is the more likely disrupter of traditional publishing.
4.
Haseeb Md. Irfanullah 《Learned Publishing》2021,34(1):57-63
- Resilience in the publishing industry can be viewed through a framework of assessing five capitals or assets: human, social, physical, financial, and natural capital.
- A resilient system requires four properties: robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity, and scholarly publishing can be seen to have some element of each.
- The ability to thrive in adversity and bounce back is not found in all parts of the publishing system, with those in the Global South disproportionately disadvantaged.
- The positive changes introduced in the past year need to be retained and elements of inequality and exclusion removed to ensure future resilience and sustainability.
5.
Key points
- Accessibility is often misunderstood as a concept that is niche or of secondary importance.
- Reframing accessibility as improving the overall user experience instantly changes the perspective; accessibility becomes a critical requirement worthy of investment and resources.
- The single most prevalent complaint amongst librarians is the time it takes to get hold of accessible content.
- An accessibility roadmap provides structure and transparency for digital accessibility projects within the organization.
- Publishers' non‐compliance with accessibility standards will increase their risk of sales declines and legal complications over time.
- The SAGE A.C.C.E.S.S.I.B.L.E mnemonic offers suggestions on how to devise a successful accessible publishing programme.
6.
7.
Adeline Rosenberg Joanne Walker Sarah Griffiths Rachel Jenkins 《Learned Publishing》2023,36(1):109-118
- Plain language summaries (PLS) are accessible, short, peer-reviewed summaries of scholarly journal articles written in non-technical language.
- The aim of PLS is to enable a broader audience of experts and non-experts to understand the original article.
- Here, we outline the evidence base for the value and impact of PLS and how they can enable diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in scholarly publishing.
- PLS can diversify readership and authorship, address information inequity, include typically under-represented stakeholders and provide an accessible route into scholarly literature.
8.
Sneha Kulkarni 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(3):211-213
Key points
- Peer review, the cornerstone of academic publishing, has come under a lot of criticism for its flaws and has been manipulated by both authors and editors.
- Lack of review transparency is a contributing factor to peer review problems.
- Pressure to publish – among authors and journals – is adding to peer review problems.
- Technology can help maintain review integrity, although editorial vigilance remains key.
9.
Key points
- The term ‘predatory journal’ hides a wide range of scholarly publishing misconduct.
- The term ‘predatory journal’ unhelpfully bundles misconduct with poor quality.
- The term ‘predatory journal’ blinds us to important possibilities, needs, and questions arising in the developing scholarly landscape.
- The current scholarly publishing environment cannot rely on such a simplified classification of journals into predatory or not.
10.
Anne‐Katharina Weilenmann 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(3):219-221
Key points
- Publishing is fixated on the format of the scholarly article, and this is stifling innovation.
- Content should be presented in a way that adapts dynamically to the reader's needs.
- A lot of interdisciplinary research is needed to transform reading, writing, and publishing processes.
11.
Making materials accessible to students in higher education institutes: Institutional obligations,methods of compliance,and recommendations for future action 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Jamie Axelrod 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(1):39-44
Key points
- Current publishing restrictions cause duplicated – and wasted – effort to delivery of accessible information to students.
- Universities have a legal obligation to provide access, but this is not required from publishers.
- Initiatives to support access are helpful, but do not completely resolve the accessibility problems.
12.
Sarina Schrager Sumi Sexton Marjorie Bowman Caroline Richardson 《Learned Publishing》2023,36(1):68-72
- Editors of 10 North American Family Medicine journals simultaneously published a Joint Call for Action to address systemic racism and encourage diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility/antiracism (DEIA) initiatives in medicine and medical publishing in January 2021.
- The efforts of the journals since publication of the joint editorial are summarized and include working to diversify editorial teams, editorial boards and authors; enhanced content about DEIA topics; mentoring of authors who are underrepresented in medicine (URM); and presenting content related to DEIA in Family Medicine publishing at national meetings.
- Editors had a follow up meeting in November 2022 to continue working toward a common goal of reducing racism and increasing DEIA initiatives in Family Medicine publications.
13.
Francis Dodds 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(3):270-275
Key points
- This article marks the publication of the Tenth edition Clark's Publishing Agreements: A book of precedents.
- The growing complexity of traditional assignment agreements is accompanied by researchers’ misunderstanding about their rights.
- There is a shifting balance between assignment and licensing of rights in an author's work.
- Academics continue to agree standard assignment contracts even where they disagree with the principles.
- Publishers are loosening control over copyright in response to demands from funders and a growing minority of researchers.
- There is a complex range of researchers’ attitudes to copyright issues.
14.
Peter ASHMAN 《Learned Publishing》2009,22(3):209-219
Societies, whose publishing programmes are primarily mission‐driven, play a unique role in funding and disseminating research. But by their nature – often small and with limited resources – they are particularly prone to the turbulence currently affecting scholarly publishing. BMJ Journals is itself a society publisher but also publishes under contract for other societies. During 2008, we carried out research to assess societies' evolving needs from their publishing partnerships. The changing expectations and behaviours of the next generation of researchers are considered to be as much of a threat as declining revenues. Societies are planning to expand professional development activities and to maximise their use of emerging technologies to help maintain and grow membership. Although surplus is a low priority for societies and, accordingly, for their publishing programmes, a high financial return is nonetheless a key criterion when choosing publishing partners – as are reputation, technological innovation, and individual title development. 相似文献
15.
Key points
- With increased pressure on longstanding society business models, society journal publishers must pursue more aggressive growth strategies to remain competitive.
- A practitioner‐focused book portfolio that translates research into practice offers an opportunity to establish an alternative revenue stream and an additional path for society member engagement.
- Societies are in a unique position to capitalize on their existing connections to industry via their membership base.
- Brief, easy‐to‐consume content and interactive tools are of the greatest appeal to the practitioner audience.
- Focusing on shorter, template‐driven formats and more frequent updates allows society publishers to develop content more rapidly and at lower cost.
- Challenges include incentivizing society members to author and review the content, identifying individuals who are capable of doing so, and obtaining adequate internal resources.
16.
Richard Dodenhoff 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(1):69-70
Key points
- The job of society publishers is to carry out the directives and achieve the goals set by the organization's elected and volunteer leaders.
- Society journals form an integral part of the work and outreach of the society and its mission.
- Scholarly societies help develop new findings and individual careers, and a publications outlet supports both of these activities.
17.
Sustainable open access for scholarly journals in 6 years – the incubator model at Utrecht University Library Open Access Journals 下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Key points
- Humanities and the social science journals need flexible funding models.
- Pragmatism and collaboration are key to transforming traditional publishing initiatives.
- The Uopen Journals model sets a 6‐year development target for developing sustainable journals.
- Actively involved editors are key to a journal's success.
18.
Joanne Gard Marshall Julia Sollenberger Sharon Easterby-Gannett Lynn Kasner Morgan Mary Lou Klem Susan K. Cavanaugh Kathleen Burr Oliver Cheryl A. Thompson Neil Romanosky Sue Hunter 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2013,101(1):38-46
Objective:
The research conducted a large-scale, multisite study on the value and impact of library and information services on patient care.Methods:
The study used: (1) 2 initial focus groups of librarians; (2) a web-based survey of physicians, residents, and nurses at 56 library sites serving 118 hospitals; and (3) 24 follow-up telephone interviews. Survey respondents were asked to base their responses on a recent incident in which they had sought information for patient care.Results:
Of the 16,122 survey respondents, 3/4 said that they had definitely or probably handled aspects of the patient care situation differently as a result of the information. Among the reported changes were advice given to the patient (48%), diagnosis (25%), and choice of drugs (33%), other treatment (31%), and tests (23%). Almost all of the respondents (95%) said the information resulted in a better informed clinical decision. Respondents reported that the information allowed them to avoid the following adverse events: patient misunderstanding of the disease (23%), additional tests (19%), misdiagnosis (13%), adverse drug reactions (13%), medication errors (12%), and patient mortality (6%).Conclusions:
Library and information resources were perceived as valuable, and the information obtained was seen as having an impact on patient care.Highlights
- Library and information resources were perceived as valuable, and the information obtained was seen as having an impact on patient care.
- Electronic access to information resources from multiple locations has increased the ability of health professionals to use these resources for improved patient care.
- The roles of librarians are diversifying to include management of electronic resources, user instruction and support, specialized research and clinical information search services, and involvement in institution-level quality improvement.
- It is possible to conduct a large-scale, multisite study on the value and impact of library services on patient care.
Implications
- Ongoing studies of the value and impact of library and information resources will be important for advocacy and quality improvement.
- Community-Based Participative Research methods hold promise as a way of ensuring the relevance of future research.
19.
Key points
- A clear set of rules regarding authorship responsibilities in academic publications is much needed.
- The leading research integrity guidelines on scientific authorship, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations, are unclear about authorship responsibilities in case of misconduct.
- The source of the problem is the fourth authorship criterion – it should be revised.
20.
The effect of publishing a highly cited paper on a journal's impact factor: A case study of the Review of Particle Physics 下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Key points
- A more general and continuous form of ‘A short history of SHELX’ phenomenon has been found.
- The Review of Particle Physics (RPP) series, which is called the bible in the particle physics field, is highly cited by other research papers.
- The RPP phenomenon is found in different journals and is affected by the host journal's impact factor and publication size.
- The RPP phenomenon provides a big or small, but temporary, boost to its host journal's impact factor.