Blogs selected for Week December 16 to December 22, 2019 -



1. Guest Post: Interesting Versus True? Measuring Transparency and Reproducibility of Biomedical Articles

Much time has been spent thinking about honing the results published in scientific papers toward the interesting. Studies with short titles get more newspapers interested; studies about coffee or wine are the superstars of Twitter. But in reality, most science is not so flashy. Studies frequently take years to complete and represent careful work by scientists, which, when well considered, provides us with very important insights about the world we live in, as well as solutions to global problems from climate change to disease. This guest post, by Anita Bandrowski and Martijn Roelandse, in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, highlights some of the challenges – and opportunities – of evaluating the quality of research rather than its impact.

The Blog post says (quote): We also looked at whether there is any correlation between a journal’s Impact Factor and the research quality of the articles it publishes based on its SciScore. SciScore scoring ranges from 1 to 10, where a score of 5 means that authors addressed 50% of the expected rigor criteria. Based on a comparison of the 2018 JIF with the average SciScore from the same journals over the same time, as shown below, we were surprised to find that the two measures are completely uncorrelated........... (Unquote)

The full entry can be read: Here.

2. From hermits to celebrities – How social media is reshaping academic hierarchies and what we can do about it.

By adopting social media in increasing numbers, academics have also bought into the dynamics of social media celebrity. In this post in the LSE Impact Blog, Mark Carrigan, reflects on the impact of the attention economy on academia and how attention is often unfairly concentrated on a small number of individuals. Taking this into account, he argues that well edited multi-author outlets can play an important role in distributing online attention in a more equitable fashion.

The Blog post says (quote): Publishing projects creating platforms for academics to have access to established audiences have a crucial role to play here. There are examples which cross disciplines such as The Conversation and the group of LSE blogs. But perhaps the most interesting examples have a smaller audience and/or a narrower focus than this. Examples from my own discipline include The Sociological Review, Discover Society, Everyday Sociology and The Society Pages. I read blogs like The Disorder of Things and Critical Legal Thinking from adjacent disciplines. There will be examples from your own disciplines which I am unfamiliar with. These multi-author spaces have different intentions and different audiences, reaching out beyond a narrowly academic readership to varying degrees. But they are examples of a proliferation of outlets which enable academics to publish online and ensure a readership........... (Unquote)

The full entry can be read: Here.

3. Can an open research statement drive best practice?

The University of Reading published an institutional Statement on Open Research in January 2019. It was expected that this initiative would encourage best practice and help to establish a flourishing open research (OR) culture. Robert Darby and Karen Rowlett, in their post in the jisc Blog, discuss this initiative, which began with a consensus that open research was more than just open access (OA) and data sharing; that it was a matter of growing importance for a publicly funded research organisation.

The Blog post says (quote): Developing our statement in consultation with the research community, we were navigating in uncharted waters. We did not know of any other universities that had issued a substantive OR statement. However, we were aware that Cambridge University was working on an open research position statement, which led to some productive dialogue with Danny Kingsley, at the time deputy director of scholarly communication and research at Cambridge University. We were also inspired by the paper ‘Open science and its role in universities: a roadmap for cultural change’, published by the League of European Research Universities (LERU) in May 2018........... (Unquote)

The full entry can be read: Here.

4. Will the Hybrid Journal Be Transformed by Plan S?

In the “Guidance on the Implementation of Plan S”, cOAlition S committed to “consider developing a potential framework for ‘transformative journals’ where the share of open access content is gradually increased, where subscription costs are offset by income from payments for publishing services (to avoid double payments), and where the journal has a clear commitment to transition to full open access in an agreed timeframe.” In late November, cOAlition S released a draft framework for transformative journals and began a consultation (open for comment until 9:00 CET on January 6, 2020). In this post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, takes a look at how are publishers responding.

The Blog post says (quote): The draft framework for transformative journals reflects this tension. While on the one hand it expands the category of transformative arrangements beyond the transformative agreements option originally outlined to create the transparent journal arrangement, the draft criteria for transformative journals are tightly scoped. Though no formal analysis has been conducted, personally she cannot think of a single journal that would meet these criteria that is not already compliant for authors under another route. Nonetheless, when the transformative journal framework is finalized, it would create an option to aspire to for publishers who wish to offer a transformative route instead of, or in addition to, transformative agreements........... (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