1. Nuts and Bolts: The Super Long List of Things to Do When Starting a New Journal
Launching a new journal is a lot of work. In her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Angela Cochran looks at the basic "to do" list of logistical details that need to be done to successfully launch a new journal.
The blog post says (quote): The idea of launching a new journal may seem easy with today's technology. Some may argue that all you need is a website with a content management system. This may work for some communities but for a journal that wants to meet the expectations of the typical journal user and/or subscriber, there are many, many things that need to be done. Angela has launched three journals in the last four years, none of which are open access (OA) journals. She will try to differentiate between a subscription journal and an OA journal where necessary but she thinks the process is pretty much the same, regardless of the business model……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. For Scholarly Communications, Double-dipping is Double the Fun
The much-maligned practice of "double-dipping," in which a publisher received revenue from both subscriptions and APCs, is likely to remain with us for some time, as publishers learn to turn APCs into larger and more varied revenue streams, even as they create the impression that the APCs offset subscription costs, notes Joseph Esposito, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Criticising double-dipping displays moral outrage unmitigated by economic understanding. To be clear, approving of something is not a necessary consequence of understanding it, but understanding something before you condemn it is not a bad idea. Double-dipping is not a dark blemish on one's character but an emergent property of current open access (OA) practices. It is, in other words, astructural aspect of OA. It will not be swept away and in fact, like so many things connected to OA, it will actually increase costs. As I have had occasion to remark on the Kitchen many times before, whatever the benefits of OA, reduced costs are not among them……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Academic opinion in 60 seconds? #LSEBrexitVote videos prove to be a powerful tool in a visual, time-poor world.
Is it possible to air serious academic opinion in less than 60 seconds and find a captive audience? Given the results of the #LSEBrexitVote video series project, Candy Gibson, in her post in The Impact Blog, finds the answer is an unqualified 'yes'. The widespread engagement with the videos reflects what many social media practitioners are saying: that videos are a powerful tool in a visual, time-poor world. On average, viewers watched 80 per cent of each video – double the benchmark time suggested by multimedia analysts.
The blog post says (quote): The #LSEBrexitVote video series was launched in mid-April, 10 weeks out from the EU referendum on 23 June. The concept was simple – a series of short video clips (under 60 seconds in length) with relevant LSE academics providing concise opinions to key issues surrounding Brexit. The media relations office worked in conjunction with LSE's European Institute, Film and Audio and a handful of academics from other departments to produce the videos. Fifteen LSE staff were interviewed for the Brexit series – predominantly academics but also several students. The edited interviews resulted in 77 individual clips in total, allowing for a different video to be aired across the School's social media platforms every day for 10 weeks……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Open Access – the democratisation of Knowledge. Really?
Open Access has transformed academic publishing. A majority of the world’s academic publishers follow a hybrid model for at least some journals; around 43% of academic content published in the UK is Open Access. The rising tide of OA content brings its own challenges, none more significant than how the broadest possible audience can find quality, peer reviewed open research, discusses Byron Russell, in his post in the Ingenta Blog.
The blog post says (quote): To the growing volume of OA content is added another, less appetising aspect – somewhat hit-or-miss quality assurance. Rather like buying a doctorate from an unknown "university", it is easy enough for any author to pay to get content published somewhere. Whether it has been through a judicious, structured peer review process is another matter. Predatory or "vanity" publishing is all part of this disruptive OA mix. So how do you ensure that you can find appropriate content and be assured that it has been through rigorous editorial and peer review processes? One way of course is to visit indexers which adopt approvals screening such as the DOAJ, or renowned mega-journal sites such as PLOS, with 80,000+ reviewers and 6,000+ editorial board members across seven journals……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. The future for science post-Brexit
On 24th June 2016, the result of the UK referendum was formally announced; the United Kingdom (UK) was to leave the European Union (EU). Whether you voted to leave or remain, there will be implications - both positive and negative - to science, says Miranda Wilson-Wood, in her post in the BioMed Central Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Leaving the EU could provide the UK with more money to support UK projects, since we put vast amounts of money into the EU (most recently the figure was around €17 billion) which could be directed towards our own research efforts. Brexit may also allow the UK to have more flexibility and freedom in creating our own research policies. For example, genetic modification and clinical trial research has often been restricted by the EU. The loss of the strong UK political voice, however, could be detrimental to the EU and European research. The UK has been a key contributor to positive discussions around stem cell research funding, and without our involvement EU regulations could change, since countries such as Austria, Germany and Italy have previously been opposed to EU funding for research on human embryonic stem cells……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply