1. Scientific publishing needs to change
The goal of scientific publication was to tear down silos. While the existing scientific publication system has limited value in this world, the scholarly peer review process is more important than ever, notes Jonathan Thon, in his post in the University Affairs Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Selected "review committees," because they are intended to be subject matter experts, should always be different and should be financially compensated for their work. Publications should appear in a regular "periodical" that is collectively supported by national/international granting agencies since reports will be useful (and should be used) in directing future grants. Public funding of reports means that access should be freely accessible for all persons and institutions supporting granting agencies through tax dollars. Contributor participation should count toward academic promotion because it requires significant and detailed research of the topic space and directly serves the academic community. Periodicals must be written in layman's terms for broad societal accessibility.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Guest Post - The Library is the Brand
Libraries provide vital digital services to their host institutions. If these services carry clear library identity branding, it strengthens the library's position in the university and enables it to secure the budget and political capital necessary to do its work, notes Robert Cartolano, in his guest post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Vendor-based web services are part of overall "Libraries web presence" that consists of locally managed and external web platforms, services and applications. They are systematically reviewing and revising all of their patron-facing web presence to include prominent, top-level library branding that meets Library and University requirements. In doing so, they are ensuring that their patrons understand and value the Libraries as the service provider for a vast and ever-expanding set of services delivered to desktops and mobile devices. They will continue to emphasise to vendors that they are providing services to the patrons on their behalf, and work to revise the licensing agreements to include branding requirements and eliminate advertising on their licensed services.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. "If you use social media then you are not working" - How do social scientists perceive altmetrics and online forms of scholarly communication?
Altmetrics, web-based measures of research usage, have existed for a decade. However, a significant proportion of social science research fails to register any online attention at all. In their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Steffen Lemke, Isabella Peters and Athanasios Mazarakis explore the attitudes of social scientists towards engaging in the online communication of their research, finding a research culture that often closes down opportunities for social researchers to engage in online fora.
The blog post says (quote): The concern regarding social media usage most commonly reported by the respondents across all platforms might seem trivial at first - it simply costs too much time. However, behind this concern were more complex issues that were voiced in the free text responses and interviews. For example, the difficulty of quickly distinguishing valuable postings on social media and the associated feeling of information overload. Some respondents were also determined to keep private and professional matters clearly separated on social media platforms, which was seen as being too bothersome or time-consuming to be put into practice. Platforms that were already in use for private matters were in these instances simply not considered as tools for professional communication. Apart from these inconveniences associated with using social media for work, another concern revealed was related to how peers and supervisors perceived the use of social media.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Are We Measuring Research Success Wrong?
Academic researchers are, for the most part, competitive. Universities tout how much they spend, but it's no virtue if that spending is inefficient, notes Joshua M. Pearce, in his post in the Scientific American Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Even with all of the limitations of this short inquiry taken into account, it is clear that the use of research expenditures as a metric for determining the quality of research is flawed. It is an input, and what is of value and what should be measured carefully for each university, discipline and researcher is the output from these expenditures. Thus, it is clear that it is time to move research expenditures to the denominator in university metrics. In general, researchers are frugal with their hard-earned research funds, but if one of the primary metrics of success is spending, then investments that stretch research funding are discouraged. Unfortunately, using research expenditures as a proxy for academic output is simplistic in the best cases and has become counterproductive to the scientific enterprise.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Strategic and Non-strategic Society Publishing
Many society publishers, concerned about the disruptive implications, of Plan S, are nervously considering selling off their publishing assets. Such transactions are exceedingly rare, but the atmosphere of uncertainty in scholarly communications is making some societies consider getting out now before it's too late, notes Joseph Esposito, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The important question is not whether one can sell a society's publications outright - if it's a good set of properties, they will find a buyer; the real question is whether a reasonable forecast puts a higher or lower value on the publications in the future. Plan S is causing panic for the simple and obvious reason that its terms, whether intentionally or unintentionally, are pointed right at the heart of professional society publishing. If all articles everywhere were subject to Plan S compliance, most society publications would be shut down by the end of the year. But is panic the right response? Is panic ever the right response? A good place to start assessing Plan S and its many variants is to inquire whether all articles everywhere indeed are subject to compliance - or ever will be.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply