1. Scientific Reports On Track To Become Largest Journal In The World
Both Scientific Reports and PLOS ONE are run by an immense, diffuse group of section editors, accept papers without novel findings, and charge the same article processing charge (APC) - $1,495. Phil Davis, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, looks at if these journals are really interchangeable? If so, what explains Scientific Reports growth at the apparent expense of PLOS ONE?
The blog post says (quote): In the last (2015) release, Scientific Reports received a score of 5.228 compared to 3.057 for PLOS ONE. In addition, Scientific Reports has maintained a score above 5 for the last three consecutive years whereas PLOS ONE's JIF has declined. While many editors and publishers eschew the indicator, scientists consider the JIF as an important factor when deciding where to submit their work, according to Nature Publishing Group's 2015 Author Insights survey as well as the recent University of California's Pay It Forward report.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators
Novel breakthroughs in research can have a dramatic impact on scientific discovery but face some distinct disadvantages in getting wider recognition. In their post in The Impact Blog, Jian Wang, Reinhilde Veugelers, Paula Stephan present an overview of their findings which suggest an inherent bias in bibliometric measures against novel research. The bias is of particular concern given the increased reliance funding agencies place on classic bibliometric indicators in making funding and evaluation decisions.
The blog post says (quote): Research underpinning scientific breakthroughs often is driven by taking a novel approach, which has a higher probability of major impact but also faces a higher risk of failure. It may also take longer for novel research to make a mark, either because of resistance from incumbent scientific paradigms or because it takes longer to incorporate novel contributions into follow-on research. The "high risk/high gain" nature of novel research makes it particularly appropriate for public support. If novel research, however, has an impact profile distinct from non-novel research, the increasing use of bibliometric indicators for evaluation may bias funding decisions against novelty……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. eLife reveals publication costs to spark debate on journal prices
A leading life sciences journal has thrown down the gauntlet to rivals by revealing for the first time in detail what it costs to publish an article. This is seen as an attempt to open up the debate about whether academics and universities are being overcharged by publishers, notes David Matthews, in his post in the Times Higher Education Blog.
The blog post says (quote): A third of eLife's publishing costs go towards paying editors; about a quarter is spent on managing article processing teams and maintaining online systems; while 14 per cent goes on marketing. Other costs include employing staff who handle submissions and produce a regular podcast. As eLife has ramped up the number of articles it publishes, costs have fallen from more than £12,000 per article in 2013, the first full year of operation, to just over £3,000 this year. Nature and Science have not released similar details on what it costs them to publish, although a Nature article in 2013 said that Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief, estimated that its costs were £20,000 to £30,000 per paper.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Increase Scholarly Visibility Using This One Weird Trick!
Posted by Scott McLemee in the Inside Higher ED post, this post reviews a scholarly article that examines how small but significant tweaks to an academic paper's title can make it more likely to win attention.
The blog post says (quote): "The positive framing of an article's findings in the title and phrasing the title in an arousing way increases how much online attention an article gets, independently of nonclickbait measures like how interesting the topic is or the length of the title. However, including a question in the title makes no difference, and having wordplay in the title actively harms an article's Altmetric score. This suggests that academic media is treated similarly to nonacademic media by the public in terms of what initially attracts people's attention."……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Crowd Funding a New Path to Publishing?
Does the future of publishing lie in readers deciding what gets published? Given how difficult it can be to sell books these days, maybe this is an approach that can work. And crowd funding might be the way it happens, notes William Kowalski, in his post in the Authorlink Blog.
The blog post says (quote): One of the biggest attractions to self-publishing is that it can be done for very little money. But I feel that authors who don't at least hire an editor are making a mistake. And I'm not just talking about asking your best friend's aunt who is a retired English teacher to skim over your pages, looking for misplaced commas. I mean a deep read by a highly-qualified substantive editor who can take a run-of-the-mill story and shape it into something special. Editors like this are artists in their own right, and they're not cheap, but they're worth their weight in literary awards……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply