共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
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.
2.
George Kerscher 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(1):83-85
Key points
- Accessibility of publications in academia is a non‐negotiable legal requirement.
- The accessibility of your journal or other scholarly publication is the most important design consideration in your workflow.
- EPUB Accessibility 1.0 and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 provide a clear publishing pathway.
- Consider the readability chain: Any link can result in accessibility failure but an unbroken chain will benefit all readers.
3.
David Brown 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(3):237-243
Key points
- Trends point to increased democratization within STEM, driven by open access, Internet delivery, and digital natives.
- The current journal publishing system does not meet the needs of researchers who want timely access to the latest results.
- Demographic and sociological changes are likely to undermine the inherent conservatism of STEM.
- Traditional STEM systems ignore the latent market of knowledge workers, but new information services do not.
- Radical approaches to STEM are required if we are to respond to the ‘perfect storm’ of changing needs and expectations.
4.
John G. Dove 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(1):81-86
Key points
- Our collective authorship and publishing practices do not always end up ensuring that scholarly content is discoverable by readers.
- Readers of all kinds rely on a variety of ‘discovery pathways’, such as search engines, library systems, and various electronic links, some of which are blind to the content they desire.
- Efforts over the years to improve content discoverability have made great progress, but an increasing amount of freely available content brings up new issues.
- The National Information Standards Organization (NISO)’s Discovery to Delivery (D2D) Topic Committee has developed a grid comparing various ways in which content is shared with various ways in which users discover such content.
- This article brings to light a few of the current obstacles and opportunities for innovation by publishers, aggregators, search engines, and library systems, and invites Learned Publishing readers to step up and identify others.
5.
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.
6.
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?
7.
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.
8.
Tom Hill 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(4):421-422
Key points
- Digital Science's paper is one of the first looking at the application of blockchain technology in scholarly publishing.
- Wholesale use of blockchain technologies is suggested as a possible replacement for scholarly publishers.
- There remain questions around the adoption of blockchain technologies, including privacy, researcher support, and fraudulent use.
- Blockchain technologies may provide a new means of understanding problems and customers' evolving expectations, but careful consideration is required of whether blockchain is the best solution.
9.
Ana G Ugaz 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2011,99(2):145-152
Objective:
The paper analyzes the journal evaluation criteria used to create the third edition of a core list of veterinary serials to determine the impact of each criterion on the final composition of the list in order to assess the value of using multiple criteria in creating a core list.Methods:
Three additional lists were generated from criteria that were previously combined to prepare the third edition of the “Basic List of Veterinary Medical Serials”: a list based on journal recommendations from veterinary specialty organizations, another list based on journals selected by veterinary librarians, and a list based on both indexing coverage and scholarly rank. The top fifteen journals in each of the three lists were then compared to reveal potential biases. Subject representation on the full lists generated by each of these methods was also compared.Results:
The list based on journal recommendations from veterinary specialty organizations exhibited a focus on clinically relevant titles. The list based on veterinary librarian recommendations resulted in the broadest subject coverage. The list based on indexing and scholarly rank, while emphasizing research titles, produced the largest number of unique titles.Conclusion:
A combination approach that includes objective evaluation measures and practical input, whether from librarians or discipline experts, can improve coverage and can result in a list that balances research-based with clinical practice journals.Highlights
- Analysis of criteria used to create the “Basic List of Veterinary Medical Serials” reveals biases inherent in different quality measures that result in different journal emphases.
- Use of indexing or scholarly rank is often thought of as a limiting factor, but in this study, the journals that were scored solely on these two criteria resulted in the inclusion of the greatest number of unique titles.
- Librarian input produced the broadest subject coverage of any list.
Implications
- An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies reveals clear evidence for using both objective and subjective criteria in developing a core list. Collection development decisions would equally benefit from this approach.
- Comparison of the top titles on core lists underscores the value of input from practitioners or discipline experts in collection decisions.
- Bias toward clinical content revealed in the input from the veterinary specialty organizations indicates the importance of understanding the purpose and compilation methods used in creating recommended lists before using them in collection development.
10.
David Nicholas Anthony Watkinson Abdullah Abrizah Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Jie Xu Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Marzena Świgoń Eti Herman 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(3):249-253
Key points
- Early career researchers (ECRs) consider journals the central form of communication – but are concerned about pressure to publish.
- ECRs want to share but currently accept the closed publishing system because of the need to build a traditional reputation.
- ECRs know – and appear to care – little about publishers but trust them as publishing and reviewing facilitators.
- Editors are criticized for not managing peer review with better selection of reviewers.
- Megajournals are not seen as the future journal form and criticized for lack of selectivity.
- ECRs want open access/science in principle but are circumspect about their contribution to it.
- ResearchGate is a key force for change as ECRs consider it a mainstay communication and reputation platform.
11.
‘Finding’ and ‘discovering’: How understanding researchers’ search and discovery behaviour informed the building of Cambridge Core 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Nisha Doshi 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(1):39-44
Key points
- Researchers most often visit publisher platforms to ‘find’ a specific article or chapter after ‘discovering’ available resources elsewhere.
- Keywords in the title and author names are the two most important criteria for identifying relevant material.
- Students consider access to be an important criterion for item selection.
- For both humanities and social sciences (HSS) and science, technology, and medicine (STM), user behaviour when identifying relevant content is remarkably similar.
- Students and researchers tend to gather content for later use rather than read it in detail as soon as they find it.
12.
We've failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach 下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Toby Green 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(4):325-329
Key points
- Sci‐Hub has made nearly all articles freely available using a black open access model, leaving green and gold models in its dust.
- Why, after 20 years of effort, have green and gold open access not achieved more? Do we need ‘tae think again’?
- If human nature is to postpone change for as long as possible, are green and gold open access fundamentally flawed?
- Open and closed publishing models depend on bundle pricing paid by one stakeholder, the others getting a free ride. Is unbundling a fairer model?
- If publishers changed course and unbundled their product, would this open a legal, fairer route to 100% open access and see off the pirates?
13.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2022,48(1):102481
The issue of ‘predatory publishing’, and indeed unscholarly publishing practices, affects all academics and librarians around the globe. However, there are some flaws in arguments and analyses made in several papers published on this topic, in particular those that have relied heavily on the blacklists that were established by Jeffrey Beall. While Beall advanced the discussion on ‘predatory publishing’, relying entirely on his blacklists to assess a journal for publishing a paper is problematic. This is because several of the criteria underlying those blacklists were insufficiently specific, excessively broad, arbitrary with no scientific validation, or incorrect identifiers of predatory behavior. The validity of those criteria has been deconstructed in more detail in this paper. From a total of 55 criteria in Beall's last/latest 2015 set of criteria, we suggest maintaining nine, eliminating 24, and correcting the remaining 22. While recognizing that this exercise involves a measure of subjectivity, it needs to advance in order to arrive – in a future exercise – at a more sensitive set of criteria. Fortified criteria alone, or the use of blacklists and whitelists, cannot combat ‘predatory publishing’, and an overhaul of rewards-based academic publishing is needed, supported by a set of reliable criteria-based guidance system. 相似文献
14.
David PAYNE 《Learned Publishing》2015,28(4):304-308
- The current BMJ is a far cry from the 1995 ‘brochureware’ site.
- Journals need to be flexible in their delivery mechanisms to meet user needs.
- Online publishing provides an opportunity to extend the target readership.
- Responding to user demands to be balanced against proactive development.
- Not everything works, but it is better to be innovating than overly cautious.
15.
Quan‐Hoang Vuong 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(1):64-68
Key points
- Societies face increasing pressure to contain costs and retain revenues, which are threatened by open access mandates.
- Funders and other science publishing campaigns need to recognize the value of learned societies and work with them to sustain the production of quality knowledge.
- Self‐publishing via preprint servers may threaten the quality of academic research.
- Societies can reinforce their value proposition through a model of academic entrepreneurship, including research activities, media engagement, and consultancy.
16.
Brad Turner 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(1):25-29
Key points
- Bookshare is the world's largest library of accessible titles provided to members and through special agreements.
- Dyslexia is often forgotten as an impediment to access but must be accounted for within accessible publications.
- Certification of accessibility provides confidence for purchasers and a marketing tool for publishers.
- Accessibility requires multiple routes to access, on different platforms and in different formats.
- Accessible artworks need particular attention, and this is often lacking in ‘accessible’ publications.
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.
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.
19.
20.
Serhat Kurt 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(2):141-147
This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK. Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency. Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals. 相似文献