1. Accounting for Impact? How the Impact Factor is shaping research and what this means for knowledge production.
Why does the impact factor continue to play such a consequential role in academia? In their post in The Impact Blog, Alex Rushforth and Sarah de Rijcke look at how considerations of the metric enter in from early stages of research planning to the later stages of publication. Even with initiatives against the use of impact factors, scientists themselves will likely err on the side of caution and continue to provide their scores on applications for funding and promotion.
The blog post says (quote): A number of criticisms have emerged in recent times decrying the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and the perverse effects this indicator is having on biomedical research. One notable feature of these disgruntled statements is they have often emerged from within the medical research communities themselves. For instance it is now commonplace to read denunciations of metric cultures in the editorial statements of eminent medical journals, or bottom-up movements by professional scientists to protest and reform the governance of science..………..(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Is piracy of journals wrong?
Leaving aside the high seas-type piracy that still threatens those navigating some of the planet's more lawless waters, these days we tend to think of it as being a matter of copyright rather than cutlasses. There's no doubt that the digital age has presented many new opportunities to get all kinds of stuff without paying for it - music, movies, novels, you name it. Piracy is rife. In his post in the LaboratoryNews Blog, Russ Swan gets into the moral maze of copyrighting scientific knowledge.
The blog post says (quote): So far, so simple, but Sci-Hub is more than just a gateway to a repository of pirated content. If it finds that a paper is absent from LibGen, it goes straight to the source at a mainstream publisher. Using a number of access keys provided by sympathetic academics with subscriptions, it raids the vaults at Elsevier, Sage, JStor, Springer, or wherever, and delivers the paper direct to the requester. It then lodges a copy at LibGen for good measure. In many ways, this is simply automating an informal process of swapping papers that has been going on ever since emails could deliver attachments. It also seems transparently illegal and indefensible. Is there really any moral difference between ripping off a copy of the Arctic Monkeys' latest album and stealing a copy of the latest issue of the Journal of Chromatography (annual sub a snip at a little over €20,000)?.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Publish ideas from scholarly articles early, event told
Academics should be encouraged to openly publish all their research funding proposals, successful or otherwise, a conference has heard. Jisc’s Digifest was told that free and early dissemination at every stage of the research cycle, including project ideas and experiment designs, would reduce duplication of work and enable scholars to find potential collaborators more easily, notes Chris Havergal, in his post in the Times Higher Education Blog.
The blog post says (quote): “Ninety per cent of research proposals never get to see the light of day: they just get rejected,” Dr Mounce said. “Even the research proposals that do get funded, we barely see any of this. We might just see a small abstract about it. So as a researcher wanting to find out what other people are researching right now or are going to do in the next six months or two years, I have no idea. “This creates a lot of unnecessary repetition of work and loss of potential collaboration.” .........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Faced with rejection? Sleep on it!
After all the work involved in completing a piece of research, combined with the preparation and effort in submitting a coherent manuscript for peer review, no one wants an email bearing the news: “your manuscript has been declined for publication”. In her post in the BioMed Central Blog, Elizabeth Moylan gives a personal perspective on the next possible steps, as part of the 'How to get published’ series.
The blog post says (quote): Perhaps the most frequent reason for pre-review rejection is perceived lack of interest or poor fit to the journal’s scope. If the Editor seems to have misunderstood something you can go back and clarify the advance or match to the journal’s remit as you see it. What if the reason for rejection isn’t based on ‘interest grounds’ or ‘fit’? Is there an option for a rational appeal? There may well be! Editors and reviewers are only human after all, and if they overlooked something, or had a valid concern that you can address, then it’s definitely worth contacting the Editor and stating your case..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply