1. What We Can Learn from Fake News
Fake News is making headlines as questions about how dubious stories may have influenced the US election. In her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Angela Cochran explores the damage done to reputable news organisations and what scholarly publishers could learn from the whole thing.
The blog post says (quote): For one, scholarly publishers did not choose to give digital content away when journals started going online. It was heavily discounted from print, but there was a cost. Even OA journals, many of which charge an article processing charge (APC), are functioning on an income model. Payment for content supports the idea that "that which has value, costs money" and offers an alternative to the "you get what you pay for" attitude that comes with free content. Another advantage for scholarly publishing is that the core users of content (researchers) do make value judgments based on the source. The first hallmark of quality will be the author names and if unfamiliar to a reader, the second will be the journal title. The third would be the research institutions affiliated with the authors. If all of those are unknown, a reader is wise to be skeptical..……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Improved integration of communications and scholarly roles can help academics become successful digital influencers
It has become increasingly incumbent upon higher education institutions to improve the visibility of their academic research. In her post in The Impact Blog, Heather Crookes has examined the role of university departments in transitioning academic researchers into digital influencers able to engage with non-academic publics. Although the value and opportunities presented by this are clear, some obstacles remain. It is improved integration of communications and scholarly roles that will lead to increased digital scholarship.
The blog post says (quote): Being visible to non-academic publics provided one of my interviewees with endless opportunities for public and cultural engagement. While this has provided excellent exposure for the research, it is unlikely to contribute to his academic career. This unveils a fundamental issue at institutional level: digital influence is rarely considered in the promotions round. A recent report makes recommendations around integrating 'public communication' into procedures. This isn't a new dialogue - there have previously been calls to move away from judging success on being published in highly-ranked academic journals and towards assessment criteria that value research with more tangible impact on policy and contribution to public debate..……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Publishing innovations aim to highlight hidden research efforts
Open publishing platforms that bring grey literature out of the dark promise to save money, reduce duplication and speed communication, says Holly Else, in her post in the Times Higher Education Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The platform publishes work that researchers are writing but not necessarily submitting to traditional journals and would otherwise be lost. This so-called grey literature can include datasets from research that an academic decides not to take any further, null or negative findings, and pieces describing software or methods. The Winnower also publishes student essays, blogs, citizen science projects and discussions from the social media site reddit. The platform gives each document a digital object identifier, a sequence of characters that is used to uniquely identify electronic documents. It has grown steadily and has recently been acquired by another online platform, Authorea, where Dr Nicholson is now the chief research officer and is working to bring the two products together..……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. How's That "Abundance" Thing Working Out For You?
The age of information abundance may have fundamental flaws - barriers to entry that create false equivalence; dissemination tools that conflate fake information with responsible sources; self-reinforcing loops of conspiracy and paranoia; and social fragmentation that makes societal disruption more likely. What can be done? In his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Kent Anderson discusses few ideas.
The blog post says (quote): Scientific and scholarly journals are suffering from similar woes, with articles published without context or even relevance to any audience, more journals with a lack of editorial or review content, and a pace of publication that is simply impossible to sort through and consume thoughtfully. Not only is this a problem for working scientists and medical practitioners, it is creating a black eye for science in the public sphere, as our inability to drink from the firehose becomes more and more obvious with stories of retractions, conflicts of interest, fabricated studies, and conflicting scientific information. It leaves the credibility of science up for grabs, a new vulnerability that is being exploited. According to Smith, the entire concept of "an expert" has lost traction in the age when the barrier to appearing to be an expert via the media is so low..……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Academics Worry That Predatory, Pay-to-Publish Journals Hurt Science
When we read about a fascinating new study published in a scientific journal, we're usually confident that the information is reliable. It's published in a scientific journal, right? But some academics say we shouldn't necessarily jump to that conclusion - depending on the source publishing the study, notes Patrick J. Kiger, in the How Stuff Works Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Pay-to-publish journals may be taking advantage of younger academics and scientists under pressure to be published. This summer the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a warning about what it called "predatory" journal publishing. It also filed a lawsuit in federal court in Nevada against the publisher OMICS Group Inc. and other defendants, alleging that the India-based company hadn't adequately disclosed to authors the fees - in the hundreds to thousands of dollars - that it would charge them to publish, and that it had misrepresented the amount of peer review and editing that it provided..……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply