1. Countering the Über-Brands: The Case for the Megajournal
Many column inches have been expended on the megajournal and its successes and (perhaps more often), failures. Alison Mudditt, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, discusses how might megajournals support the very real need for action to improve the transparency, reproducibility and efficiency of scientific research.
The blog post says (quote): For the past decade, new megajournals have continued to launch – some more and some less successfully. Yet they have clearly had relatively small impact on the grip of elite journals and at worst, are derided as dumping grounds for mediocre research. Does this mean that we have hit "peak megajournal" and that the era of the megajournal will be short-lived? First and foremost, the data contradicts this. The number of megajournals continues to grow (with at least 20 now publishing), and their output continues to grow at a rapid rate, even if we just add together the publications of PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports as the most recently available data shows.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. This is why we publish the World University Rankings
Rankings bring great insights into the strengths and shifting fortunes of individual research-led universities. In his post in the Times Higher Education Blog, Phil Baty sets out why the World University Rankings are here to stay - and why that's a good thing.
The blog post says (quote): There is no such thing as a perfect university ranking. There is no "correct" outcome as there is no single model of excellence in higher education, and every ranking is based on the available, comparable data, and is built on the subjective judgement (over indicators and weightings) of its compilers. THE developed its current methodology based on more than a decade of experience in rankings, after more than a year of open consultation and with the detailed expert input of more than 50 leading figures across the world, and we will continue to refine and improve the ranking. But while some in the sector continue to get excited about the latest supposed revelations about the limitations of global rankings, Times Higher Education is quietly getting on with a hugely ambitious project to build an extraordinary and truly unique global resource...........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. A New Citation Database Launches Today: Digital Science’s Dimensions
Digital Science is launching a new citation index that includes a research analytics suite a modern article discovery and access experience. This new product, Dimensions, will offer stiff new competition for Elsevier and Clarivate, notes Roger C. Schonfeld, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Citation databases are built around the relationships between publication units, such as journal articles, and including patents. Dimensions also includes relationships with grant funding and clinical trials, with extensive normalisation for fields/disciplines and institutions. It is clear that Digital Science has built a powerful underlying platform that collapses the product categories of citation database and analytics suite into a single new product category. Digital Science will therefore market the same product to university libraries and university research offices, as well as to provosts and other academic channels...........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. The scholarly commons must be developed on public standards
Access to scholarship is becoming ever more dependent on one's (or one's institution's) financial means. In their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog, Björn Brembs and Guy Geltner argue that one solution to these growing problems is for scholarship to have open, public standards; both for its Web 1.0 tasks, like reading, writing, and citing, but also, crucially, for its Web 2.0 functionalities too. ScholarlyHub aims to make this vision a reality.
The blog post says (quote): ScholarlyHub plans to provide scholars with the social media and other capabilities they urgently need to realise the potential of the internet to democratise knowledge and thus serve the core purpose of science. These capabilities will be developed on top of open standards that allow for a thriving plurality of server and client-side solutions to meet all scholars' needs. As a platform it will enable, rather than direct, such interactions, by creating a meeting place for scholars of different stripes and allow them to define quality in their fields, as is their wont. Only, in contrast to existing commercial services, it won't allow that type of mentorship, critical engagement, and creativity to be leveraged as "traffic" for private gain that - as we increasingly realise – is undermining the viability of scholarship and of the free and open exchange of ideas. As such, ScholarlyHub is designed as the anti-version of the many "Facebooks for scientists" to have been created and failed over the last decade............ (Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Three Steps to Creating a Balanced Collection Development Strategy
There are many resources and methods that librarians can utilise to find and acquire print books and e-books for their libraries, and every library approaches collection development differently. To meet the library's collection development goals, it is vital to have a balanced strategy. A post in the EBSCOpost Blog discusses three steps to creating a balanced collection development strategy.
The blog post says (quote): The panel at the 2017 Charleston Conference discussed the importance of understanding all of the collection development methods and models that are available for both print books and e-books to determine what mix works for their respective libraries. Both librarians identified decreasing book budgets as well as staff limitations/changes as challenges they face in developing their collection development strategies. To overcome these, and to make sure she gets the right balance of ownership and access for library users at U. of Houston – Clear Lake, Burke uses a combination (in order of use) of print firm orders, DDA, e-book firm orders, approval plans and e-book packages. Wedig manages these various models by working closely with faculty and graduate students to understand their research needs, gauging trends that other research libraries are following, and understanding that with limited resources they must be careful that what they purchase is going to be used.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply