1. Guest Post — Transitioning to a new peer review system: from scary to successful
The peer review process is the foundation of many journals, upon which their reputation is built. A great deal of thought and work goes into ensuring a good experience for authors, reviewers, and editors, and the idea of ‘starting over’ with a new peer review management system can make you break out in a cold sweat. But maybe the journal has expanded beyond its home-grown solution, maybe editorial boards are clamoring for updated features or functionality, maybe you’re dissatisfied with the level of customer service/support you receive, or maybe it’s the price tag. Sometimes you need a new system, notes Karen Stanwood, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen.
The Blog post says (quote): The risks inherent in changing systems can be costly in terms of the time, energy, and effort required to accomplish a smooth transition, and unfortunately, there don’t seem to be any standards or guides on how to do so successfully. In an effort to remedy this (and perhaps head off unnecessary panic), author is offering a detailed description of our experience in the hope that it will help others considering or navigating a similar change..........(unquote).
The full entry can read: Here.
2. Academic review promotion and tenure documents promote a view of open access that is at odds with the wider academic community
A critical issue for advocates of Open Access (OA) has been the persistent lack of institutional incentives for academics to engage with Open Access publishing. Drawing on their research into Review, Promotion and Tenure documents, a team at the Scholarly Communications Lab, including Juan Pablo Alperin, Esteban Morales and Erin McKiernan, in their post in the LSE Impact Blog, argue that when these key documents for research assessment do discuss OA, they do so in a negative fashion that does not correspond to the general understanding of OA in the wider academic community.
The Blog post says (quote): The language of Open Access (OA) is littered with so many colours, metals, and precious stones, that you would be forgiven for losing track. The proliferation of these “flavours” of OA has been a useful analytical tool for those that study scholarly communication, but it has also complicated the discussion about what academics can do to realise the “unprecedented public good” of opening access to research that was at the heart of the Budapest Open Access Initiative........(unquote).
The full entry can be read: Here.
3. Kudos Pro: a competitive edge for REF 2021
Universities are facing more competition for funding and ranking in reputational tables. Small differences in performance can have a significant financial impact, which of course has further effects in terms of a university’s potential to create and share knowledge in the service of society. Measuring research quality, impact and the reputation of the institution behind these activities is notoriously difficult and not without controversy, notes Charlie Rapple in his post in the Kudos blog.
The Blog post says(quote): With so much research funding at stake, competition to demonstrate impact and optimize quality indicators (e.g. citations) is set to get tougher for REF 2021. Universities have a lot to gain (or lose) – quite literally, millions of pounds in funding for an individual university, as this summary of REF 2014 ‘winners and losers’ demonstrates. Competition is set to be especially fierce at the 3- to 4-star boundary for impact case studies, as acknowledged recently by Steven Hill from Research England. Everyone has learned, from REF14, what it takes to reach the high scores, so universities need to dig even deeper if they are to edge ahead.........(unquote).
The full entry can be read: Here.
4. Guest Post — Library Publishers Convene in Vancouver to discuss open platforms and open educational resources
Increased interest in open platforms and open tools has grown after continuing industry consolidation of hosting and authoring tools — namely, Wiley’s acquisition of the Atypon platform and the latter’s subsequent purchase of the Authoria and Manuscript tools, along with Elsevier’s shift in emphasis on the researcher workflow with acquisitions of the Mendeley Scholarly Collaboration Network, Aries’ Editorial Manager, and the institutional repository provider, Bepress. In this post in the Scholarly Kitchen bolg, Heather Staines, Head of Partnerships for the MIT Knowledge Futures Group, takes a look at the events held during the 6th annual Library Publishing Coalition Forum in Vancouver.
The Blog post says(quote): Increased interest in open platforms and open tools has grown after continuing industry consolidation of hosting and authoring tools — namely, Wiley’s acquisition of the Atypon platform and the latter’s subsequent purchase of the Authoria and Manuscript tools, along with Elsevier’s shift in emphasis on the researcher workflow with acquisitions of the Mendeley Scholarly Collaboration Network, Aries’ Editorial Manager, and the institutional repository provider, Bepress. Many posts in the Scholarly Kitchen have focused on this trend and highlighted concern of vendor lock-in, as well as smaller publisher concerns of being locked out.........(unquote).
The full entry can be read: Here.
Leave a Reply