1. Crossref: How Stakeholders Across the Publishing Industry Collaborate
Since its founding in 2000, Crossref has been a shining example of how publishers - and other stakeholders across the publishing industry - can come together to collaborate around metadata. This post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog by Robert Harington is based on a conversation with Ed Pentz, Executive Director of Crossref, exploring the past, present and future of Crossref, a fabulous example of how for-profit and non-profit organisations alike may collaborate when needs meet.
The blog post says (quote): Crossref is synonymous with the DOI, and indeed was the originator of its deployment, but now that DOI use has spread - even into the entertainment industry and way beyond Crossref's original remit - it is time to develop new paths for Crossref and to generate a more overt understanding of where Crossref sits in the publishing and scholarly researcher workflow. A recent initiative, which captures Crossref's new approach quite succinctly, is the launch of an organisational identifier program, which is being launched within Crossref, not as part of ORCID: rather than proliferating new organisations, they are instead consolidating new and existing services………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. 'Decolonizing' a Journal
The typically tame world of academic publishing got heated last year, as several journals took flak for editorial decisions about content regarding historically marginalised groups. Now one of those journals has a plan to transform. After a major editorial flap, history's premier journal announces a series of changes aimed at diversifying viewpoints and contributors, notes Colleen Flaherty, in her post in the Inside Higher Ed Blog.
The blog post says (quote): AHR was not the only journal to weather controversy from within this year. In philosophy, division over calls for the journal Hypatia to retract a paper comparing transgenderism to transracialism led to the resignations of top editors and the suspension of the associate editorial board. And Third World Quarterly was widely criticised for publishing an opinion-style piece called "The Case for Colonialism." Vijay Prashad, now director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, was one of a large of editorial board members to resign from Third World Quarterly last year after that flap. Among his concerns was that the board was not consulted before the publication of so controversial a piece………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Open science: Sharing is caring, but is privacy theft? by David Mehler and Kevin Weiner
Open Science (OS) is a movement toward increased sharing among scientists of their data, their materials, their computer code, their papers, and their peer reviews. The ultimate goal of this movement is to boost collaborative progress and bring greater transparency, notes Emilie Reas, in her post in the PLOS Blog.
The blog post says (quote): In the wake of the replication crisis in science and medicine, OS practices are widely seen as a path toward greater robustness and reliability of science. With full availability of materials, data, and code, researchers could easily reproduce results reported by others. They could just download the data and code and rerun the analyses. They could then make adjustments to the analyses or replicate the experiment to find out how reliable, robust, and generalisable the results are. Additional benefits that can result from OS practices include establishing more efficient work pipelines and increased exchange and collaboration with the scientific community. For example, in the field of human brain mapping, developments such as OpenfMRI, NeuroVault, and the Human Connectome Project are prominent examples of successful large-scale open data collaborations. Another element of OS practices is "preregistration" of studies. Researchers publicly declare the hypothesis and analysis plans before collecting the data. This can help prevent researchers from trying many different analyses, a widespread practice which can inflate the rate of false-positive findings………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. All journals should have a policy defining authorship – here's what to include
Scientific research papers with large numbers of authors have become more commonplace, increasing the likelihood of authorship disputes. In their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Danielle Padula, Theresa Somerville and Ben Mudrak emphasise the importance of journals clearly defining and communicating authorship criteria to researchers.
The blog post says (quote): The best safeguard against authorship disputes is ensuring that authors are aware of journal authorship criteria and agree to their place in the author list order before their paper is accepted and published. If an authorship dispute should arise, it's important that journals do not attempt to serve as an arbiter or intermediary. In cases where authors are unable to reach a consensus, journals should refer them to their institution(s). It is not the journal's role to be the judge of who is correct. Whether working on a manuscript with two or 20 authors, trying to communicate with multiple authors at once can be challenging for editors. For this reason, it’s best for the editor and authors involved to establish one "corresponding author". Journals should require the corresponding author to verify the author list with all other authors and to serve as the primary contact for all other ethical assessments………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply