1. Subscribe To Open: Annual Reviews’ Take on Open Access
Annual Reviews is keen to pursue open access (OA), believing its content to be of wide general interest, but does not consider APCs to be a viable route. Ann Michael, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, explores how the organisation plans to leverage subscription payments for gated access journals to convert and sustain the journals as OA with the Subscribe to Open program.
The blog post says (quote): Subscribe to Open will succeed if all of the current customers continue to subscribe, and they are offering a 5 percent discount as a financial incentive. If they don't get full participation, the project will not succeed, in which case institutions that wish to receive the content will need to have a traditional, gated access subscription at the list (undiscounted) price. There is no opportunity for subscribers to free-ride. In future years, non-subscribing institutions that regularly access the open access titles will be invited to become subscribers. Because Subscribe to Open is contingent upon the participation of all subscribers, it is effectively a subscription. It cannot be interpreted as a voluntary donation and should not, therefore, violate state procurement policies. This allows libraries to utilise their existing subscription spends to support an OA program without the need for new OA funds.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Preprints - a new way to publish our results
Preprints constitute one potential solution to share preliminary, confirmatory or contradictory studies easier and faster with the scientific community. Preprints allow researchers to make their manuscripts publicly available on servers when they consider them ready for dissemination, without a formal editorial or peer-review process. Krisztian Magori, in his post in the BMC BugBitten Blog, highlights the benefits of publishing preprints in biology through a recent review and his personal experience.
The blog post says (quote): While the acceptance and evaluation of preprints as trustworthy indicators of research productivity has recently increased, there are still remaining doubts of the value of preprints, especially in the medical sciences. In a recent publication, Sarabipour and her coauthors summarised the benefits of publishing preprints for early career researchers and made an attempt to dispel these lingering doubts. Benefits of preprints include accelerating scientific communication; facilitating career progression; increasing visibility; facilitating networking; optimizing research design and quality; allow publishing at low cost; boosting productivity; developing reviewer skills; and facilitate corrections via revisions. As a concrete example, funding agencies, such as the US National Institutes of Health and the Medical Research Council in the UK accept preprints as valid references to preliminary studies, which helps early career researchers apply for grants even before they had a chance to get their results published in peer-reviewed journals.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Could blockchain technology play a role in the publishing industry?
A number of blockchain projects are now aiming to use decentralisation to help small publishers and self-published authors compete with industry giants. From introducing blockchain-powered content distribution platforms to implementing rights distribution on the network, blockchain in publishing could change the marketplace for good, notes Christina Comben, in her post in the Coin Rivet Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The limited number of vendors who control prices and distribution makes it difficult for authors to manage their publishing businesses. Blockchain in publishing could allow for content distribution platforms that place more weight on end users and their needs. It would allow readers to decide how they want to consume content and pay for it. This would make it easier for publishers to charge for individual pieces of content. Readers wouldn’t have to pay the monthly (or yearly) subscription to read a limited number of articles. At the same time, blockchain in publishing could give users easy access to more books and magazines and more freedom to choose where their money goes and which authors to award for their work.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Negative Impact - Is it possible to manage potentially harmful research findings?
What can one do with research that produces potentially harmful results? In his post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Andrew Crane explores how research can produce negative as well as positive impacts on society and discusses how his own research group has approached dealing with the complex issue of 'negative impact'.
The blog post says (quote): While they feel the focus on research impact has been a positive development, the experience of carrying out this project suggests that there is a clear need for greater awareness on the part of researchers of the potential for negative research impact and how to handle it. Academics cannot control all the impacts that derive from their research, but they can be better prepared and supported in recognising where the wrong kinds of impact can emerge and what safeguards need to be put in place to minimise their effects. Better training for academics on managing impact would likely help. Extolling the benefits of impact is one thing, but preparing researchers for the realities of different kinds of intended and unintended impacts, especially as they play out on those most vulnerable, is a necessary step in helping ensure that their research makes a positive rather than a negative difference in the world.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Guest Post - Low Cost Textbook Alternatives: Worth the Effort?
College textbooks are expensive. In most industries, a more expensive product is also a higher quality one. However, in college textbook publishing this may not be true. In her guest post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Liz Gabbitas reports on a collaborative effort between the library and a faculty member to create an affordable alternative to a high-cost Arabic textbook.
The blog post says (quote): Students are given the opportunity to provide feedback on their courses and their instructors at the end of each semester. Since this same instructor taught Arabic 1010 in the Fall 2016 semester using the beginning Arabic textbook with the largest share of the market, they can analyse student responses between the two semesters to directly compare the materials. One question on the standard survey asks about the overall course content with the statement "The course content was well organised." Students using the new workbook in the 2017 class were 55 percent in strong agreement, compared to the previous year's 20 percent. This could support the argument that a custom-made course material better fits the instructor's specific needs. Furthermore, the survey asks specifically about course materials. Of respondents using the new workbook, 82 percent agreed or strongly agreed that "The course materials were helpful in meeting course objectives," an increase from users of the previous textbook at 60 percent. This supports the argument that the new $9 textbook was of equal or higher quality than the standard marketplace option. In this case, cost and quality of the material do not correlate.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply