1.Advancing peer review at BMC
BMC has always supported innovation in peer review and were one of the first publishers to truly open up peer review in 1999. BMC Psychology has continued that pioneering spirit by launching the first ever randomised controlled trial into whether 'results-free' peer review process can help reduce publication bias, notes Elizabeth Moylan, in her post in the BioMed Central Blog.
The blog post says (quote): In recognising the important role that patients and the public play in research, BMC announced the launch of Research Involvement and Engagement, an interdisciplinary, health and social care journal focussing on patient and wider involvement and engagement in research, at all stages. The journal is entirely co-produced by all key stakeholders, including patients, academics, policy makers and service users. Continuing the theme of collaborative research, BMC partners with PEERE a trans-disciplinary, cross-sectorial collaboration aiming to improve peer review. BMC is also supporting the MiRoR (Methods in Research on Research) consortium an innovative doctoral training programme dedicated to advancing Methods in Research on Research in the field of clinical research. Research into peer review is vital and the journal Research Integrity and Peer Review provides a forum to share information with for a wide range of researchers........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2.Open-access books are downloaded, cited, and mentioned more than non-OA books
Open-access journal articles have been found, to some extent, to be downloaded and cited more than non-OA articles. But could the same be true for books? Carrie Calder in her post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog, reports on recent research into how open access affects the usage of scholarly books, including the findings that OA books are, on average, downloaded seven times more, cited 50% more, and mentioned online ten times more.
The blog post says (quote): It's worth noting that although the report finds a positive correlation between OA books and higher downloads, it acknowledges that causation cannot conclusively be proved. Open access is a relatively new business model for books, and while we have a good dataset, at this stage there is insufficient data to give a complete overview of an OA book's life. The authors acknowledge that there are limitations to the initial study and these are discussed further in the report. So why do authors choose to publish via open access? It seems that some authors are convinced of the OA effect, but many cite ethical concerns just as highly. The authors cited "wider dissemination" as one of the most common reasons for choosing an OA model, along with "easy access to research" and "ethical motivations"........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3.Creating a Safety Net - Why Double-Dipping Is the Wrong Term and the Right Approach
Over-reliance on ad dollars in digital media is leading to a crisis. There are simply too many companies trying to attract dollars that are finite and increasingly captured by Google and Facebook. The implications of these reports are captured in a recent article, which lays out the case in convincing detail, notes Kent Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Watching the larger information space, there are lessons to be learned about relying too much on a single revenue stream - whether a funder, a set of purchasers, a single payment approach. Doing so is risky to the point of being reckless. Calling prudent revenue diversification and the normal practice of stacking smaller fees up to get to sustainable revenues "double-dipping" is casting aspersions without considering how helpful diversified revenues are - to managing prices overall, to ensuring sustainability, to making information affordable, and to smoothing out revenue variations. It's more akin to creating a safety net, so that a crisis doesn’t wipe out valuable scientific or scholarly outlets.......(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4.What is Value Data and Why Do Information Managers Need It?
Being armed with value data makes justifying R&D content spend significantly easier. In her post in the CCC Blog, Casey Pickering discusses some types of value indicators to consider.
The blog post says (quote): What is the impact of usage on the research pipeline? For example, was a publication used heavily during early research? Does the usage of a specific business unit have a significant impact on one pipeline stage? This information will allow you to understand more than just sum usage numbers, but also the value of the content in helping the company bring products to market. What are users searching for and are those searches aligned with organisational goals? If you know what users are looking for or what they will be focused on, you can make the case for content in those focus areas. It also helps to identify new content needs and gaps in coverage........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply