1. Leaving Behind the Outrage Economy
The internet has largely become an attention harvesting mechanism in order to fuel advertising business models. Because of this, anger has become its most prized commodity, the more hateful and outraged, the more valuable. This drives engagement, and most of social media is designed to encourage and amplify it. David Crotty, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, shares some thoughts about using social media in a more intentional and humane manner, and video presentation by Dan Harvey on why outrage and anger are so prevalent (and valuable) online.
The blog post says (quote): That last word, "performative" is the one that stood out for me. On the internet, we're often performing for an unseen audience, rather than actually having a meaningful conversation with the individual we're addressing. This leads to different behaviors than one would express in dealing with another human being directly. Unlike real life, the cost of expressing or inspiring outrage is exceedingly low, and social media like Twitter exist to create a self-reinforcing loop of anger............... (Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Opinion: Stop Gaming Peer Review
The decision to publish in a particular journal is driven by a number of factors, including reputation and impact. The first attraction, reputation, has been known since the dawn of scientific journals, whereas impact is of a more recent vintage. The hunt for impact by authors and editors is, however, still very much ongoing. Editors must recognize their part in perpetuating this situation. Authors, too, should examine their own practices, note Jens P. Goetze and Jens F. Rehfeld in their post in the TheScientist.
The blog post says (quote): Basically, you assess your work carefully prior to submission (or get help from a colleague to do so); you try to match your research findings to the concrete aims and scopes of journals, and if in doubt, you may ask a journal editor for preliminary advice. Editors are always on the lookout for great science, and maybe you have just that in a manuscript form. Importantly, good editors are not just looking for ways to keep you out, they are also looking for reasons to let you in. But there needs to be a professional and ethical pact between authors and editors. Collectively, we can address the problems of the journal impact factor........... (Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Why Is It So Hard to Solve Problems with Technology?
Publishers struggle to apply technology, even when they can see the benefit. As both a publisher and technology vendor, I’ve found that even when technology is a really good idea, with a clear business case and minimal or no development needed, the bandwidth to integrate it into an organization can be frustratingly elusive. It’s not for want of willingness to invest, many publishers spend an awful lot of money on platforms of various sorts. Instead, it’s a difficulty in creating the processes around the technology that are needed to make the best use of it. The problem isn’t technology, it’s process, notes Phill Jones in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Publishing obviously contains workflows as manuscripts move through submission, editorial, production, and dissemination activities. What’s less well understood, not only in publishing — and in libraries — but in many sectors, is that IT functions are also production lines. IT production lines are harder to see, they don’t have the advantage of having all the workstations laid out one after the other like they are in a car factory, and there isn’t necessarily a document that you can trace through a system as it gets transformed, but a process is definitely there.............. (Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. How will the emerging generation of scholars transform scholarly communication?
Presenting evidence from the Harbingers Study, a three-year longitudinal study of Early Career Researchers (ECRs), David Nicholas, in his post in the LSE Impact Blog, assesses the extent to which the new wave of researchers are driving changes in scholarly practices. Finding that innovative practices are often constrained by institutional structures and precarious employment, he suggests that the pace of change in these areas is always going to be slower than might be expected.
The blog post says (quote): A recurring question in our study, was how ECRs perceived research impact: How important it is that their research has an impact on peers, policymakers, industry and the general public; how best they could influence target audiences; and if they had the time to increase the impact of their research, what would they do? The majority of ECRs understood impact as gaining a high impact factor, or influencing other researchers in the field. Citations remain the key measure/proxy of impact. Because of the highly competitive world they inhabit, ECRs are increasingly target-oriented in this respect. While most ECRs are sympathetic to addressing wider audiences, they are not making big strides in this direction............. (Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Make scientific data FAIR
Scientific data are burgeoning — thousands of petabytes were collected in 2018 alone. But these data are not being used widely enough to realize their potential. Most researchers come up against obstacles when they try to get their hands on data sets. Only one-fifth of published papers typically post the supporting data in scientific repositories — as has been shown by PLoS ONE. All disciplines should follow the geosciences and demand best practice for publishing and sharing data, argue Shelley Stall and colleagues in a post in Nature.com.
The blog post says (quote): Data should be as open access as possible, but sometimes need to be restricted for legal or other reasons: exact locations of observations of endangered species, for example, are restricted, and an approval process must be followed to gain access. Any restriction on access should be spelt out in the data-availability statement of the related paper............ (Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply