1. What Scholarly Journals Are Researchers Importing Most?
Researchers can use RefWorks as a search interface for a number of online resources. Hundreds of databases provided by numerous data vendors are supported by RefWorks. Import filter development is ongoing and new filters are continuously being added, connecting students and scholars to an extensive body of resources for greater research results, discusses the ProQuest Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The fluctuations in the numbers are likely impacted by the school calendar. When the majority of students in science and health disciplines are on break during the summer or during the holidays, they are less likely to be working on research projects, and the number of imports for these journals dips. However, despite the lower number of journals being imported into RefWorks during these non-peak times, the top 10 journals listed above are still regularly imported by advanced researchers, including graduate students as well as faculty, alumni or clinicians in health and science fields, who continue their research through breaks in the academic year.............(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Predatory Publishing as a Rational Response to Poorly Governed Academic Incentives
Are we thinking about predatory publishing the wrong way? David Crotty, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, discusses that some researchers are deliberately choosing these journals to publish with these sorts of outlets, with a full understanding of the journals' poor practices and lack of anything resembling peer review.
The blog post says (quote): While many are quick to point the finger at open access (OA) as the root cause of predatory publishing, this seems off base. OA business models provide a mechanism for predatory publishing. It would not be possible to publish a subscription journal with no peer review and no adherence to industry practices as librarians would not subscribe to such a publication (or would cancel it immediately once such practices came to light). And while OA is an enabler of predatory practices, like so many of the woes of academia that are pinned on publishers (e.g., over-reliance on the Impact Factor), this is yet another case where the true root of the problem is the academic career and funding system, and as usual, its lack of effort put to true evaluation and oversight.............(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Should artificial intelligence be used in science publishing?
Publishers are experimenting with using artificial intelligence in the peer review process for scientific papers. In a recent op-ed for Wired, one editor described how computer programs can handle tasks like suggesting reviewers for a paper, checking an author’s conflicts of interest and sending decision letters. For many people, automated colleagues are still just office chatter, not reality, but the technology is already disrupting industries once thought to be just for humans, notes Julia Franz, in her post in the PRI Blog.
The blog post says (quote): In 2014 alone, an estimated 2.5 million scientific articles were published in about 28,000 journals (and that's just in English). Given the glut in the industry, artificial intelligence could be a valuable asset to publishers: The burgeoning technology can already provide tough checks for plagiarism and fraudulent data and address the problem of reviewer bias. But ultimately, do we want artificial intelligence evaluating what new research does - and doesn't - make the cut for publication? "Peer review is science's version of a filter for fake news. It is the way that journals try to weed out studies that might not be methodologically sound, or they might have results that could be explained by hypotheses other than what the researchers advanced.".............(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Metadata is the key to collaboration and a national bibliographic knowledgebase
The British Library recently partnered with Jisc, Research Libraries UK (RLUK) and the Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL) to create a national bibliographic knowledgebase (NBK). Neil Wilson, in his post in The Impact Blog, outlines why such an initiative is necessary, explaining the implications of a hybrid print/digital marketplace, and how the rapidly evolving digital landscape has not been matched by a parallel development in the quality of metadata available to describe it.
The blog post says (quote): Unfortunately, the rapid evolution of digital content has not been matched by a parallel development in the quality of metadata available to describe it. Some e-book publishers can even see long established standards - for example, International Standard Book Numbers (ISBNs) - as irrelevant if they sell directly via the web. The poor standard of publisher metadata is already recognised by the book trade and targeted by trade bodies such as Book Industry Communication (BIC), keen to stress the financial benefits of high quality metadata. Libraries and standards bodies are also attempting to influence publishers in this area due to the wasted effort caused by inaccurate or missing metadata.............(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. 15 Things We Can Do To Stand Up For Science!
Public trust in science and scientists is at risk. Their distrust is compounded by media coverage of what is wrong with science, rather than what is right. With scholarship under threat on both sides of the Atlantic, there are some practical tools all of us can use as we stand up for science and build trust in scholarly communications through improving transparency, rigor and peer review, discusses Alice Meadows, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): How can we (re)build trust and in scientific and scholarly communications? The good news is that there are already a number of tools, services, and initiatives out there that we can use to ensure that the scholarship being published is as rigorous as possible. Some are commercial, others are non-profit; some open, others proprietary. They have been launched - and are supported by - organizations across all sectors of scholarly communications: associations, funders, publishers, research institutions, service providers, and researchers themselves. Many encourage or enable increased transparency as a way of increasing trust. Not all of them will be appropriate for every organization, but they all represent an opportunity not just to make research more trustworthy, but also to make it work better – for everyone.............(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply