Blogs selected for Week Dec 12 to Dec 18, 2016 -

1. Making research more accessible with Figshare

Springer Nature wants to enable all of the authors and editors to publish the best research and promote wider access to research data, and other materials that support publications. To help achieve this, the company has introduced enhanced display and discovery of supplementary materials (additional files) in BioMed Central and SpringerOpen journals, in partnership with Figshare, notes Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, in his post in the BioMed Central Blog.

The blog post says (quote): Springer Nature and BioMed Central are innovators in research data sharing and publishing, enabling researchers to make their data discoverable and reusable with industry-leading work on data policies, data journals, data licensing and support for data citation. Springer Nature is also one the largest research publishers and so I'm thrilled that so many researchers will benefit from better discoverability and reuse of their research data by the introduction of figshare technology, starting with BioMed Central and SpringerOpen journals……………(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

2. STM Week 2016 - Stray Thoughts on Security, Open Access, and Data

What has become known as "STM Week" represents a series of meetings in London which expanded this year to include London Information International as a competing/complementary event in another part of the city. Kent Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, offers a few take-aways from STM Week, including London Information International - why publishers have to take security seriously, why OA may need to itself be disrupted, and why we might want to rethink the "content business" positioning we have.

The blog post says (quote): Does OA need to be disrupted? - This thought arose after multiple discussions, listening to a few talks, and watching the world at large. It's been 18 years since E-Biomed was brought forth as a cure-all for the woes of information inequality. Over that span of time, information inequality seems to have grown. Rather than more scientific literacy, we seem to have less. Rather than a more enlightened populace, we seem less able to agree on how the world works. At the same time, the flaw in the business model of Gold OA - an over-reliance on producers who are unwilling to bear the full costs - has become clearer. So, the major premises - more enlightened populace, better scientific literacy, a superior business model - all seem to be failing. Perhaps this is just the darkness before the dawn, but if so, the question remains: After nearly 20 years now, does OA itself need to be disrupted?……………(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

3. Manipulating the peer review process: why it happens and how it might be prevented

Peer review continues to be upheld as the best way to evaluate academic research ahead of publication. Yet the peer review process has been consistently targeted and manipulated by authors, reviewers and even editors. In her post in The Impact Blog, Sneha Kulkarni reveals how this is happening and what might be done to prevent it, considering the merits of different peer review models but also the target-driven culture of academia that leads some to engage in misconduct.

The blog post says (quote): Peer review is regarded as the gold standard for research evaluation. However, it has been consistently targeted and manipulated by researchers, and, at times, even editors. Peer review is the stepping stone to publication; once a paper receives positive recommendation from peer reviewers, the chances of its publication skyrocket. Therefore, desperate researchers sometimes resort to rigging the system to ensure publication. The foremost reason underlying this problem is the extreme competition in academia that forces researchers to rapidly increase the volume of their publication output to secure promotions, grants, and even salary hikes……………(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

4. CiteScore–Flawed But Still A Game Changer

Elsevier recently announced CiteScore metrics, a free citation reporting service for the academic community. The primary metric promoted by this service is also aptly named CiteScore and is similar, in many ways, to the Impact Factor. The real innovation of CiteScore is not another performance metric, but a new marketing model focused on editors, says Phil Davis, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.

The blog post says (quote): The Impact Factor metric is reported in Clarivate's (formerly Thomson Reuters) annual Journal Citation Reports (JCR), a product that is sold to subscribing publishers and institutions. While the calculations that go into generating the JCR each year are enormous and time-consuming, the information contained in the report disseminates almost instantaneously upon publication. Each June, within hours of its release, publishers and editors extract the numbers they need. Impact Factors get refreshed on journal web pages and shared widely with non-subscribers. Some web hosts even use JCR data as clickbait to sell ads……………(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

sponsor links

For banner ads click here