1. Tautology, antithesis, rallying cry, or business model? "Open science" is open to interpretation
The term "open science" is often deployed in the scholarly discourse without much thought about its meaning and use. In their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Benedikt Fecher and Tony Ross-Hellauer unpack the term and find it to be understood in a variety of ways; as a new framework for what has always been expected of science, as a political slogan to motivate change, as a business model to market scientific output in the digital era, and as a rhetorical contrast of ideas.
The blog post says (quote): "Open" and "science" can be understood as a rhetorical contrast of ideas. In the daily practice of researchers, openness is a selective strategy: the modus operandi of scientists is not to share, unless it is beneficial. For example, few researchers would mind if their article in a high-impact journal was available open-access as this increases citations. On the other hand, almost no researcher shares data openly, because they are afraid of losing a competitive advantage when publishing articles. This example is interesting for another reason: as explained earlier, open science can be understood as a modern phrase for a book-old scientific idea. The example of data vs. articles, however, demonstrates that it is an "old" product (the article) that is favoured over a "new", more digital-savvy product (data). This shows that as long as the private incentives are not better aligned with societal interests, most researchers will regard open science only as one of many strategies........ (unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Not Every Publisher Can Support A Cascade Journal
Journal growth seems more vertical these days. Instead of building horizontally through specialisation, many publishers have been focusing on their cascade - a term used to describe a portfolio of related journals ordered vertically by measured (and perceived) importance, notes Phil Davis, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Often a publisher and its editorial board are supportive of the idea of publishing more papers in theory, only they want these papers to go somewhere else, lest they dilute the exclusivity of the journal and its brand. Editors are also hesitant to be associated with a "journal of rejects." While there are excellent arguments for increasing transparency in the peer review and publication process, keeping rejection and transfer information private and confidential provides a poignant counter-argument. Before working on the myriad details involved in starting any new journal, a publisher considering a cascade journal built initially from its source of rejected papers should consider its manuscript flow. If current submissions cannot support a new journal, then it should reconsider the prospect before devoting itself (its staff and its money) to a new title.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. The Four Stages of a Successful Library/Vendor Relationship
A successful library/vendor relationship requires effort from both sides. A post in the EBSCOpost Blog discusses the factors that impact this partnership.
The blog post says (quote): After the partnership is established, the next stage is to care for the relationship. At this stage, librarians and vendors are actively working together, and there are a number of things required to make sure the partnership stays on track. To keep communication productive and moving forward, make sure the right people are working together. Sometimes a project can slow down or hit a snag simply because the right people from both sides aren't in contact, or have to go through too many people to work together. Communication is vital at this stage, and continuous observation to explore whether the relationship is going as expected or any issues arise, will help keep the partnership on track.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Identity Is Everything
Publishers are understandably concerned about piracy, but the STM/NISO initiative RA21 "to align and simplify pathways to subscribed content across participating scientific platforms" has scoped its problem the wrong way. Simply put: It's not about security. It's about identity. Every individual should be in control of their own identity, says Roger C. Schonfeld, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): RA21 is not pursuing broader solutions. It is not centered around individuals and their own control of their identity and data. Users are essentially pawns. Instead, RA21 is scoped narrowly, which just happens to avoid disrupting providers or interfering with the dominance of leading players. It gives major advantages to those market incumbents that already have access to large amounts of usage and user data. Solutions that would create a level playing field around user data are certainly not in the interests of market incumbents. It is unsurprising that RA21 seems to be taking a set of approaches that reifies the interests of the companies that led its initial development. While there are efforts being made to add a "library perspective" to the RA21 table today, it is around policy considerations such as privacy rather than fundamental architecture...........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply