1. Challenges and Opportunities in Pre-published Research
Sharing and evaluating early stage research findings can be challenging. But, this is starting to change. However, as we gain an increased appreciation of the value of early-stage research and acknowledge how much knowledge goes missing when these findings are not shared. Sami Benchekroun and Michelle Kuepper, in their guest post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, note that we are seeing a generational shift as the world becomes increasingly fast-paced and digital, and early-career researchers are leading the charge in adopting (and expecting) a more open research approach.
The blog post says (quote): In addition to citation metrics, other types of metrics could also be used to help evaluate early stage research. Everything on the internet is trackable, and pre-published scientific findings should not be an exception. Metrics that cover the levels of engagement on a piece of research, such as the number of likes, downloads, comments, and social or email shares, as well as the amount of time spent on a piece of content, can be analysed to provide an indication of the level of interest in findings. While this approach relies on researchers being actively involved in online communities and can be vulnerable to gamification, it has the potential to help push innovative, pre-published research forward while at the same time flagging less credible findings.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Self-organising peer review for preprints – A future paradigm for scholarly publishing
Preprints - rapidly published non peer reviewed research articles - are becoming an increasingly common fixture in scholarly communication. However, without being peer reviewed they serve a limited function, as they are often not recognised as high quality research publications. In his post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Wang LingFeng discusses how the development of preprint servers as self-organising peer review platforms could be the future of scholarly publication.
The blog post says (quote): An ideal research publication paradigm should have four characteristics: fast review, fast publication, low cost and free access. First-generation preprint servers have three of these characteristics: fast publication, low cost and free access. However, the absence of peer review means that they are unlikely to gain wide recognition and acceptance within the academic community beyond their current role in registering research findings. OA journals currently have fast review processes relative to traditional journals, but they have also proven to be expensive and have spawned a range of predatory publications. If open access and open science initiatives, such as Plan S, are to succeed they need a new publication model. They believe that a "self-organising review + pre-print database" is such a model and represents an emerging paradigm for scholarly publishing.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. How the open access model hurts academics in poorer countries
Scientific research and literature should be made available to everyone, with no cost to the reader. Publication costs can eat into whatever precious grant funding researchers get, notes Brenda Wingfield & Bob Millar, in their post in the University Affairs Blog.
The blog post says (quote): One suggestion is to "flip" the current model, so there would only be open access and no subscription-only journals. This, however, may still be too expensive for many universities in the developing world who currently cannot afford journal subscriptions. Some journals are already helping authors by offering incentives and rewards to reviewers. Editors approach experts in their fields to review manuscripts, this is the basis of peer review. These reviewers receive no remuneration for their input but are essential for the peer review process. In some cases, journals offer reviewers subscription access for a year. This only benefits the individual reviewer, not the organisation which pays their salaries. This isn't an ideal approach for universities. Perhaps publishers could consider a voucher approach in which vouchers accrue to the institution that pays the reviewer's salary. These vouchers could contribute towards subscription costs or the article publication charges. More altruistic publishers could even donate vouchers to universities in the developing world.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Three-year trial shows support for recognising peer reviewers
Peer review is central to the quality and integrity of research. Peer review is also hard, time-consuming and often, it seems, thankless. Nature research journals want to offer more recognition for reviewers' valuable contributions and to introduce more transparency into the process, discusses a post in the Nature Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Not everyone supports the naming of referees on published papers. The reviewers who chose not to take part in Nature's referee-recognition trial, and a separate survey of reviewers from 2017, highlighted several concerns. Some said that it might increase the risk of the system being gamed - perhaps starting a 'you owe me' chain - or of referees softening their reports, maybe for fear of causing offence or of retaliation from someone in a senior position. Many of these researchers believe that peer review should always be wholly confidential. Because there is not universal acceptance at the moment, referee recognition remains optional on the Nature-branded journals. And clearly there is more work to be done to recognise the equally important work of people who review papers that are then rejected, and the many colleagues - often more-junior team members - who help the main referees.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Open Access Publishing: New Evidence on Faculty Attitudes and Behaviours
Ithaka S+R recently released the latest cycle of their long-standing US Faculty Survey which has tracked the changing research, teaching, and publishing practices of higher education faculty members on a triennial basis since 2000. In his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Roger C. Schonfeld discusses the latest results.
The blog post says (quote): As one of the authors has observed in The Kitchen, the read and publish/publish and read (R&P/P&R) deals are pushing towards instantiating the current crop of major publishers as the open access royalty. It is therefore noteworthy that very few respondents agree that publishers have been rendered less important to their process of communicating scholarship because of increased opportunities to share their work directly with others online. Moreover, the vast majority of respondents do not take issue with the publishers currently involved in the subscription based model. Approximately seven in ten would be happy to see the same publishers involved in an open access publication system if the traditional subscription-based model was replaced entirely.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply