1. How academics and NGOs can work together to influence policy: insights from the InterAction report
Questions over how academics and the third sector can collaborate to influence policy are not new. However, Duncan Green, in his post in The Impact Blog, has noted some interesting research and insights from the InterAction report published earlier this summer. Intermediaries play an increasingly crucial role, while embedded gateways can help simplify often confusing university infrastructures.
The blog post says (quote): "Two alternative ways of conceptualising interaction between academics and non-academics to influence policy have been proposed. The more conservative model relies on a boundary organisation or knowledge intermediary who sits between the two worlds of science and policy, each of which retains its integrity and stability. The more radical model involves co-production of knowledge through the merging of these two realms in ways which interfere with conventional research practices and roles of researchers, such that science goes beyond providing information and becomes involved in the process of governance itself. Neither of these alternatives is inherently better than the other, and various types of collaboration may be appropriate in different circumstances and for different partners."……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Journal tries 'results-free' peer review
A psychology journal is launching a trial during which some reviewers will not see the results, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts before deciding whether or not to accept them for publication. The journal hopes that this will encourage reviewers to judge the research on its premise and methods rather than its outcomes, discusses Holly Else, in her post in the Times Higher Education Blog.
The blog post says (quote): In academic publishing, it is well known that research results that do not support a hypothesis are less likely to be published than those that do, despite the belief that such "null" results are still important to the scientific endeavour. The trial by BMC Psychology, hopes to change this. First, a pilot phase will see the first 10 authors to opt into the scheme go through a results-free peer review process to show that it is viable. Then a randomised controlled trial will begin whereby papers are randomly assigned to either a regular or results-free peer review process……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Reviewing the review
Few resources are available to support less experienced peer reviewers of literature reviews. A recently published commentary in Research Integrity and Peer Review will help to fill this gap, notes Jennifer Byrne, in her post in the BioMed Central Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Peer review has been described as being like common sense, multi-factorial, of many parts. Attempts to unpick peer review to find out what makes it work best (or at least better), have proved frustrating. Somewhat like studying clouds, which appear so solid from a distance, peer review seems to dissolve under close scrutiny. One feature that has emerged is that younger peer reviewer age is reproducibly associated with higher-quality manuscript reviews. This is indeed good news. The peer review system badly needs more reviewers, as publication rates continue to rise, some say unsustainably.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. How and Why to Get Hooked on Library Podcasts
The author was inspired to check out some library-related podcasts after encountering a taping at ALA Annual. In her post in the EBSCOpost, Ashley Snelgrove shares her experience at the conference as a winner of the EBSCO ALA Scholarship as well as some of her favorite podcasts.
The blog post says (quote): Perfect for teacher librarians and youth services librarians alike, All the Wonders: The Children's Book Podcast (formerly known as the Let's Get Busy podcast), shares interviews of a variety of authors, illustrators and librarians. Matthew Winner, teacher librarian and creator of the original Let's Get Busy podcast, started the podcast in 2013, before many would say podcasts were a "thing." This podcast hosts interviews with your favorite children's book authors and illustrators, and introduces you to those in the industry you may not have known, but will soon love. With over 200 episodes, this podcast will provide hours of information about children's books and those who help make them happen.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Guest Post: Publons' Tom Culley - Are We Doing Enough for Editors?
In the series to celebrate Peer Review Week 2016, guest author Tom Culley of Publons, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, looks at the critical role played by editors in the peer review process and asks how we can better recognise it.
The blog post says (quote): Editors play a central role in the research community, most of which happens behind the scenes. Editors manage and moderate over five million peer reviews a year; facilitate discussion around novel research; guide improvements to research; handle complex ethical issues; identify fabricated research; deal with fake reviewers. And they factor all of this into their publication decisions. Are editors getting the recognition they deserve for their efforts? Are we doing enough to support editors and help them to improve? After all, in the current environment, they are the gatekeepers of a good chunk of the world's research. If they do a poor job, the research community suffers, not to mention the journal that is relying on their expertise and judgement.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
6. Is More Recognition the Key to Peer Review Success?
Posted by Angela Cochran in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, this post summarises some of the reviewer preferences along with ways to boost recognition for peer review activities.
The blog post says (quote): Whether an institution wants to credit people for peer review activities is sort of arbitrary from the publisher perspective at this point. The publishers are most definitely looking for ways to recognise peer reviewer contributions, and if that recognition leads to reviewers getting some sort of professional credit, that would be fantastic! Since we aren't the parties most capable of offering career advancement rewards, instead we need to ask ourselves, what can we offer that makes a difference? What do peer reviewers want most from journals? What keeps them coming back as reviewers? What kind of recognition motivates them most?.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
7. What it means to be Green: exploring publishers' changing approaches to Green open access
The number of publishers allowing some form of self-archiving has increased noticeably over the last decade or so. However, new research by Elizabeth Gadd and Denise Troll Covey, in their post in The Impact Blog, shows that this increase is outstripped by the proliferation of restrictions that accompany self-archiving policies. In an environment where publishers may in fact be discouraging preferred models of open access, it's time to redefine what it means to be Green.
The blog post says (quote): The problem is that while the number of publishers meeting the criteria for a RoMEO colour code, Green, Blue or Yellow, has increased over time, the number of restrictions on when, where and how papers might be self-archived have increased at an even faster rate. By tracing the policy journey of the original 107 publishers on the RoMEO database, the authors found that the number of publishers allowing some form of self-archiving grew by 12% in the 12 years since 2004. However, the volume of restrictions around how, where and when self-archiving may take place increased by 119%, 190% and 1,000% respectively. And the rate of growth of paid (Gold) open access offerings from publishers has grown 1,670% in the same time frame. This begs the question: are publishers paying lip service to being RoMEO Green whilst simultaneously making their policies so complex that authors are forced to pay for Gold?.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply