1. How can academia kick its addiction to the impact factor?
The impact factor is academia’s worst nightmare. So much has been written about its flaws, both in calculation and application, that there is little point in reiterating the same tired points here, says Jon Tennant, in his post in the ScienceOpen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The problem is cyclical if you think about it: publishers use the impact factor to appeal to researchers, researchers use the impact factor to justify their publishing decisions, and funders sit at the top of the triangle facilitating the whole thing. One ‘chef’ of the Kitchen piped in by saying that publishers recognise the problems, but still have to use it because it’s what researchers want. This sort of passive facilitation of a broken system helps no one, and is a simple way of failing to take partial responsibility for fundamental mis-use with a problematic metric, while acknowledging that it is a problem. The same is similar for academics........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Peer review appears to be a poor predictor of impact
Posted by David Kent in the University Affairs Blog, this post breaks down an eLife article that suggests peer review scores cannot distinguish very good grants from excellent grants. In fact, at a certain point in the process, it is pretty much a random lottery.
The blog post says (quote): Again, Fang and colleagues have some worthwhile suggestions for how to take this information forward. They suggest that reviewer scores are used to identify the top 20 percent of grants and then the funding is distributed either randomly or based on strategic priorities of the NIH. An extension of their data would suggest that the top three percent might be given funding without entering into such a “lottery” and the rest (the three percent to 20 percent grants) would be decided in such a manner. An interesting further layer that will probably remain buried in the depths of panel filing cabinets is an assessment of the more subjective role of a panel........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Medical journal's critics say it should share more data
One of the most storied medical journal is facing criticism for failing to share enough data and for the way it handles errors. Those raising questions say the New England Journal of Medicine’s editorial policies make it less dependable than in the past, notes Dan Gorenstein, in his post in the Market Place Blog.
The blog post says (quote): “When I read a study, I want to know - at the very least - the data are available for someone who is qualified to check that work,” said Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, which monitors scientific research. Some want the Journal to be more like the BMJ - formerly the British Medical Journal. Starting last year, BMJ made authors share relevant data for clinical trials. The New England Journal’s Editor-in-Chief Dr. Jeffrey Drazen says he’s working to improve data sharing and believes the Journal meets 21st century demands for speed, access and transparency.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Linked data: What is it, and why should you care?
Linked data. You may have been hearing these buzzwords floating around library land in the last year or so, or attended a conference session where it was thrown out with a mix of technical jargon as something very promising and exciting for libraries. In her post in the NoveList Blog, Cassi Hall discusses what is linked data exactly, and why should you be paying attention?
The blog post says (quote): When you’re thinking about linked data, just imagine this simple task you probably do every day: you open a new tab in your browser, and you google something. Maybe a friend told you about a book she loved and you want to find out more. Outside of the library world (like it or not) most people’s first instinct when looking up information about a book is not to go to their local library’s website – it’s to go to their preferred search engine. Linked data makes it possible for someone in your community who googles “Harry Potter books” to see links to records and other info from your library in their search results……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Impact and Engagement: Thinking Beyond Assessment
Australia is currently embarking on a process to define a methodology for assessing the impact and engagement of its research. This process features two research and engagement working groups, a performance and incentives working group and a technical working group, of which Jonathan Adams, Digital Science’s Chief Scientist, is in fact a member, notes Simon Porter, in his post in the Digital Science Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Although the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) approach to measuring impact and engagement is yet to be defined and refined, it is not inconceivable that at least part of the evidenced-based information that it requires will involve some new information that needs to be collected. Following the template that publications reporting has established then, we should also ask what additional value does this information add to an institution? In what other ways could this information be incorporated into the institution? Without pre-empting what may or may not be included in the ARC’s new assessment process for impact and engagement, we can get some feel for these questions by considering the additional uses that information collected in Symplectic’s new Impact Module can provide, as well as look at the opportunities systematic reporting on altmetrics (as one measure of engagement) can provide..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
6. The New Era of Digital Publishing
What does Digital Publishing mean to you? Not long ago, it was defined as simply moving the publishing industry from offline to online. Now, the term has more complex connotations and is one that involves more industries and professions than ever before, notes Michael Kozlowski, in his post in the Good eReader Blog.
The blog post says (quote): To improve monetisation in the long-term, it is important to have a focus on your audience – both current and new. As the digital landscape becomes more saturated, there’s a belief that more eyeballs means more money. However, it’s counterproductive to greet the audience in a format designed to attract visitors, i.e., clickbait. Audience retention is built through meaningful interaction, through building an authentic relationship and offering good content. With all of this in mind, it is important not to lose focus, as a publisher, of what matters and what brought you here in the first place. Content has to be original, it has to appeal and offer something to the reader; it is more important than ever to ensure that your content offering is rich and fulfilling to your end users..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
7. The Future Of Open Access: Why Has Academia Not Embraced The Internet Revolution?
More than any other technology, the web has revolutionized access to the world’s information, putting everything from recipes to encyclopedias to books to news at the fingertips of anyone with an internet connection anywhere on the planet. The web’s role in democratizing access to global information has made it a poster child for the power of technology to advance society, notes Kalev Leetaru, in his post in the Forbes Blog.
The blog post says (quote): More and more journals offer open access publishing models, but most transfer the cost of publishing to the author. In the traditional journal world, publishing a paper in most journals was free, with the costs of publication paid for by journal subscribers. In the open access world, journal articles are free to read, so authors must instead pay to publish their work, traditionally costing hundreds or even thousands of dollars per article. Publishing in PLOS journals ranges from $1,495 an article to $2,900 an article, while the average open access fee for Elsevier journals according to their current journal pricing list is $2,200 an article with at least 23 journals charging $5,000 per article..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
8. Will IDPF and W3C merger merge e-books and the web?
It’s not often you see two seemingly-unrelated digital technology consortiums come together like chocolate and peanut butter in a Reese’s cup, but that seems to be what’s in store for the IDPF-the organisation responsible for the EPUB standard-and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), notes Chris Meadows, in his post in TeleRead.
The blog post says (quote): In some ways, it seems like a natural fit for the groups to combine. EPUB is largely based on HTML, after all, and having the development of both standards under one roof could lead to a synergy that’s better for both. We’ve already seen the W3C’s CEO suggest, at an IDPF conference in 2013, that e-books and the open web would probably merge sooner or later. It makes sense that the two groups should themselves merge to make that possible.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply