1. Breaking the traditional mould of peer review: Why we need a more transparent process of research evaluation.
Posted by Jon Tennant in The Impact Blog, this post takes a look at the transformations underway aimed at tackling the widespread dissatisfaction with the system of peer review. He provides further background on the platform ScienceOpen, which seeks to enable a process of transparent, self-regulating, peer review, where knowledge sharing is encouraged, valued, and rewarded. By adopting a more transparent process of research evaluation, we move one step closer towards a fairer and democratic research process.
The blog post says (quote): In the days of the global ‘open research’ movement, peer review is undergoing a phase of transformation. There is mounting evidence, and an increasingly common perspective, that peer review is less about evaluating research and more about stifling creativity while maintaining the status quo of established networks. There have been numerous opinion pieces and analyses regarding the different aspects of peer review published over the last decade, but one comment that perhaps emphasises the current evolutionary trend is that peer review is a "model that simply may have run its course given societal and technological change.".......(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Revisiting: When Is a Feature a Product, and a Product a Business?
Revisiting Joe Esposito's post on distinguishing between features, products, and businesses. Not all features can become full-fledged businesses. Sometimes the best business case for a feature is to link it to an established business, where it adds value to assets that are already in place, notes Joseph Esposito, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): It takes but a moment’s reflection to see why publishers everywhere are so product-focused. A feature may not add any revenue, but a new product always does. Indeed, a new feature may simply increase costs, which makes publishers resistant to adding them unless the competition in the marketplace requires it. Want responsive design and the ability to display content on mobile devices? A feature without additional revenue. COUNTER compliance? A new feature, a new cost. Open access? A feature with no incremental revenue associated with it (hence the reason publishers might try for "double-dipping" with hybrid journals). Librarians always ask for more features (users rarely do), which drives up costs and the only recourse a publisher has is to raise prices because no new market is being addressed. A genuinely new product, on the other hand, adds to revenue and helps to offset a publisher's fixed overhead.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Open Peer Review: What Is It and What Are the Benefits?
Open peer review (OPR) is a relatively new way of reviewing work before publication, but what exactly does it entail? Traditionally, the process of reviewing academic work has involved a paper being sent out to experts who provide comments for the author to consider. These reviewers may or may not know who the author is, but the reviewer remains anonymous to the author, notes The Charlesworth Group.
The blog post says (quote): Thus an open system of peer review has emerged in recent years, and is being adopted by a number of journals (particularly in the open access model), which allows the identity of the reviewer to become known to the author, enabling in some cases an open dialogue between the two. Such journals argue that this in turn can create a professional partnership with the ultimate aim of creating a thoroughly researched, and responsibly reviewed, publication. One of the main benefits to the author is that they are more directly involved in the review process, rather than sending their paper to an unknown reviewer and receiving it back with marks and crossings out which they can’t directly counter other than via the feedback channels with the journal office or editor.......(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Royal Historical Society Moves into Open Access Monographs
Any Open Access (OA) publication plan must contend with three basic issues: costs, licensing, and scalability. There are plenty of other issues to consider of course, such as the way such a publication program would fit within or require an entirely new ecosystem of financing and scholarly career progression, but these first three are the most challenging and the most fraught. They may also be the most directly comparable. A new OA monograph series announced last week by the Royal Historical Society offers a very different approach to initiatives such as Knowledge Unlatched, Luminos, or Lever, notes Karin Wulf, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): This is an important moment for OA publishing. A movement pushed in large measure to address the aggressive pricing of STEM journals, OA has had a much rockier relationship with the humanities. The RHS series preserves some of the most valued aspects of historical scholarship, particularly intensive substantive and manuscript editing. Newman emphasized that "The RHS has played a leading role in the debates over OA, firstly with regard to journal publishing, and now with regard to monographs. As governmental decisions are implemented, the RHS seeks to raise knowledge and awareness within our subject community, and to provide examples of how OA can work in ways that are beneficial to historians and which meet their standards and expectations.".........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Notes from Researcher to Reader – Should We Separate Dissemination from Accreditation?
Earlier this week, the first Researcher to Reader conference rose from the ashes of the Association of Subscription Agents (ASA). During its final few years, the ASA conference was a forum to discuss a broader range of topics than the business of subscription agents and it was good to see that trend continue. In his post in the Perspectives Blog, Phill Jones discusses some events from the Researcher to Reader conference.
The blog post says (quote): Tracz talk raised an interesting question that was revisited several times during the conference, that of the potential to separate the two roles of scholarly publishing, those of dissemination and accreditation. With today’s Internet infrastructure, discrete journals aren’t needed in order to perform the former. The rise of the mega journal and particularly the success of PLOS ONE is proof that through search and appropriate meta-tagging it really is possible to create a big bucket of content and allow readers to explore and discover the content they need.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply