1. Decline and Fall of the Editor
Many of the finest scholarly publications can boast of exemplary editorial programs. But, the advent of Gold Open Access, especially when mandated by funding agencies, may make this kind of editorial activity a thing of the past, notes Joseph Esposito, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Putting Gold OA into the hands of funding bodies has the practical effect, whatever the intentions of the agencies, of making more robust editorial operations seem terribly overpriced. This why there are no new plans to create such editorial shops and why we may someday live in a world without them. Theoretically, there is a way out of this. Post-publication peer review, by whatever name, could take the place of the editorial work that in the traditional model occurs prior to publication. And it makes a certain sense: let’s have the community at large evaluate publications. The problem is that there is to date no strong economic model for this, though organisations such as the Faculty of 1000 and Publons are trying to change that………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. A New Browser Plug-In Lets You Access Millions of Scientific Papers for Free
Unpaywall is a web browser plug-in that brings free information to those who seek facts. Dom Galeon, in his post in the Futurism Blog, looks at the open-source service that is disrupting traditional publishing by giving users access to peer-reviewed journal articles for free, and it's all totally legal .
The blog post says (quote): Unlike similar services that rely on means like automated web scraping, Unpaywall’s method of getting full-text access to scientific journals is totally legal. It scans a database of more than 90 million digital object identifiers (DOIs) for copies of papers that the researchers themselves have uploaded, whether on some pre-press servers or university websites. Unpaywall is also completely secure, as it does not ask for any personal information. To use the service, user just need to install the plug-in on the Chrome or Firefox desktop browser. A little lock symbol will appear every time the user visits a journal article’s landing page. If the lock is green, the user has access to a full-text copy of the article. A gold lock means an article already has open license access from the publisher………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. The Journals That Prey on Academic Research
Researchers face a different kind of challenge when trying to put their work in the field. Academics seeking to publish their work must now determine the difference between legitimate and predatory journals. Keri Heath, in her post in the Retraction Watch Blog, explores the murky world of Predatory Journals.
The blog post says (quote): Not all research published in predatory journals is bad. Some of the papers in these journals are well researched and accurate. However, McGovern pointed out that if these papers are in journals without the peer review and editorial process, it’s difficult to know for sure. It’s the academic equivalent of fake news. But that’s not to say that everything published in that predatory journal or all predatory journals is bogus. Dawson noted that this can be dangerous for the careers of young academics. While one paper may not end someone’s career, multiple could be harmful………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. The NGO-Academia interface: obstacles to collaboration, lessons from systems thinking and suggested ways forward
Collaboration between non-governmental organisations and academia ought to be easy, yet remains difficult in practice. In his post in The Impact Blog, Duncan Green outlines the present obstacles to collaboration, from competing incentives to differing degrees of urgency, explains what might be learnt from less linear, systems thinking approaches, before setting out a series of recommendations for academics, NGOs and funders.
The blog post says (quote): While funding incentives push academics towards collaboration with INGOs and other actors able to deliver the elusive “impact”, other disciplinary and career pressures appear to push in the opposite direction. The rather closed nature of academia’s epistemic communities, buttressed by shared and often exclusive language and common assumptions, deters would-be collaborators, while the pressure to publish in peer-reviewed journals and acquire a reputation within a given discipline shift incentives away from collaboration with “outsiders”……………… (unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Should We Stop with the Commenting Already?
No matter what we call it, commenting on scholarly publications has a spotty record of success. Despite the mediocre results, journals, databases, and third party sites keep trying to get authors and readers to engage in this way. In her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Angela Cochran explores different models and the challenges online commenting faces.
The blog post says (quote): Traditionally, journals have included a way for scholars to address or discuss published papers. This is, after all, a core mission of the journals. Letters to the Editor or Discussions and Closures are one way to respond but there is usually a fairly short time for submitting comments and there can be a long lag time to see these commentaries in the journal. On the plus side, these commentaries are usually reviewed and therefore should contain new, valuable information. Online journals provided a new way to get the discussion going in real time. Some journals tried online comments and declared it a failure for many reasons (low engagement, low quality of comments, moderation required, etc.). Despite mediocre results, journals and third-party databases and platforms continue to try and engage readers in rich commenting online………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
6. Why Isn't There More Scientific Literature?
Access to scientific literature is now severely limited because most academic publishers charge exorbitant fees to read the work of scientists. In his post in the Paste Magazine Blog, Joel Rindelaub notes that the charges not only restrict the general public from seeking available knowledge, but they also hinder the scientists that rely on such information to conduct research.
The blog post says (quote): By compiling the largest open access database of scientific articles in the world, one that outpaces every university and government library in existence, Sci-Hub has allowed everyone on the planet an equal opportunity to pursue knowledge. However, since publishers hold the rights to these works, Sci-Hub has drawn comparisons to other sites that host pirated content. Clearly there is a strong case for copyright infringement against Sci-Hub, but it is important to note that illegally downloading scientific research papers has very key differences than pirating other media. As opposed to the artists that create cinema and music, scientists don’t get paid for article downloads. On top of that, the editors and experts that review article submissions also don’t see a paycheck, as this work is seen as a service to the scientific community………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply