1. MECA - A New Manuscript Exchange initiative
A new initiative has been launched to define best practices for simplifying transfer of submitted manuscripts across publishers and systems. Charlie Rapple, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, highlights the new manuscript exchange initiative, MECA.
The blog post says (quote): This is not the first experiment with review transfer across publishers; the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium was launched in 2008 as a framework for sharing of reviews between publishers, and the progress / fate of portable peer review initiatives such as Axios, Rubriq and Peerage of Science have been widely covered here in the Kitchen. These experiments haven't always met with success - uptake is limited, perhaps because authors don't necessarily want a journal to know it was not their first choice. And it's interesting that the MECA initiative is primarily being led by systems suppliers rather than publishers; how would (say) a small publisher feel about putting time and effort into the peer review process for a paper, and then passing the results of that process to (say) a bigger competitor? It's hard to model who has most to gain from manuscript exchange, and it may be another scenario in which small publishers end up losing ground to bigger ones..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. The missing piece: using Altmetric to complete the puzzle
An idea first developed in 2010, altmetrics have now been widely adopted by publishers, and are increasingly used by institutions and funders to track and report on the immediate engagement and potential broader impacts of the research that they support. Without altmetrics, you risk missing an important part of that picture – even if the story to be told is that there has not yet been much engagement or reach beyond the immediate scholarly community, notes Cat Williams, in her post in the Altmetric Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Some work is almost always going to be more popular with a broader audience - particularly topics that people can relate to or that have a more direct potential impact on their day-to-day lives. What's most important is to figure out which people your publication is relevant to, and then figure out whether they are already seeing it. If so, great! If not, altmetrics can be used to see where other publications on the same topic are getting attention to help inform engagement activities you might want to undertake. Altmetrics alone do not tell a complete story about a published piece of research – they contribute to a much bigger picture that includes other quantitative and qualitative insights. Without altmetrics, and whatever the attention score for your research output, you're missing part of that picture. Gathering these insights and informing decisions about what to read, where to share, and understanding who is or isn't engaging is crucial to ensuring you and your research are best positioned in the present research climate..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Scholarly communications shouldn't just be open, but non-profit too
Much of the rhetoric around the future of scholarly communication hinges on the "open" label. In light of Elsevier's recent acquisition of bepress and the announcement that, owing to high fees, an established mathematics journal's editorial team will split from its publisher to start an open access alternative, Jefferson Pooley, in his post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, argues that the scholarly communication ecosystem should aim not only to be open but non-profit too.
The blog post says (quote): Scholarly communication is up for grabs. The bound journal volume is already gone, and the paper-codex monograph, for all its armchair tenacity, is likely to give way too. There are lots of exciting models for what published research might look like, even in the near future. What's unclear – what's really up for grabs – is whether the new ecology will be non-profit or venture-funded. There's a contest underway, pitting non-profit platforms and initiatives, supported by foundations like Andrew W. Mellon and Alfred P. Sloan, against projects underwritten by the legacy publishing industry and Silicon Valley venture-capital firms. The contest isn't really about feature sets or new formats: the basic values of the academic enterprise are at stake..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. What should journals do when peer reviewers do not disclose potential conflicts?
Peer reviewers, like authors, are supposed to declare any potential conflicts of interest. A post in the Retraction Watch Blog, discusses what happens when they not.
The blog post says (quote): A peer reviewer who has as an expert been working for a particular industry on a specific issue should at least disclose to the journal his ties to the industry whose interests can be affected by the publication of a paper on that topic. And journal editors should exclude such peer reviewers from reviewing a paper on that or a related topic, or at least ensure that there are several other more independent reviews of the paper. If for one reason or another they think it is important to get a review by an expert with such a conflict of interest, they should assess that review much more critically. They should then also provide an opportunity to the authors to respond to the peer-review before making a publication decision. But the more cautious approach would be to exclude reviewers with such a clear COI..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Trust Falls - Are We In a New Phase of Corporate Research?
Conflicts of interest and corporate-funded research have expanded, with journals increasingly used by mega-corporations to advance their initiatives. Kent Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, discusses that the pollution of the scholarly literature by corporate influence could lead to decreased trust in the results published in peer-reviewed journals and other outlets.
The blog post says (quote): Journals have become tools in corporate battles as chip-maker Qualcomm Inc. funded papers supporting its side of a fight against Google over patents. Telecommunication giants Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. have funded various papers against Google. Research bleeds into advocacy, and advocacy bleeds into research. The boundary becomes difficult to identify. In some cases, the boundary is purposely smudged, disappearing like the batter's box in a baseball game as the innings progress. Monsanto has been caught recently meddling in and managing scientific outputs to achieve corporate ends. This includes supporting a supposedly independent supplement in a toxicology journal, one apparently designed to provide evidence to dispute or refute claims that Monsanto's Roundup may be a carcinogen, something the WHO has determined..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply