1. Study Reports Open Peer Review Attracts Fewer Reviews, Quality Suffers
Open online review has the potential to attract many more eyes to a new piece of research than conventional peer review. In reality, it may do far worse in attracting the eyes you want, notes Phil Davis, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The researchers noted several limitations to their approach, most importantly, that the study lacked randomisation and a proper control group. Under a randomised controlled design to test reviewer anonymity, the editors of The BMJ reported no difference in the quality of reviews, although it did significantly increase the likelihood of reviewers declining an invitation to review. Other properly randomised studies also report no differences in review quality. One study reported that open peer review resulted in higher quality, more courteous reviews. Whereas opinions on the best way to conduct peer review are many, rigorous scientific studies are rather few………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. The Trance of Dysfunction - Why Trolls Have Come to Dominate Discourse
Posted by Todd Reitzel in his guest post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, this post explores toll-free linking as a way for publishers to enable authors to share works published in subscription journals. Toll-free links work by giving full-text access to a given article to anyone who clicks on it.
The blog post says (quote): A toll-free link serves an author's interests because it provides immediate access to her or his content to anyone in the community. Because the access is to the version of record, it reminds the community that the article has been validated through peer review. A toll-free link also serves a publisher’s interests because it brings the community to an article's version of record, where the publisher logs the online usage. Healthy online usage is one key indicator for demonstrating content value, and for most publishers it is a top priority. Content usage through toll-free links may not get included in librarians' usage reports that help them decide whether subscribing to a given journal is a good purchase………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. The new configuration of metrics, rules, and guidelines creates a disturbing ambiguity in academia
Much of academia has become increasingly influenced by metrics and a set of metrical practices. However, few have totally understood the massive wave of conflicting rules and guidelines that are necessary in order to stabilise these metrical practices. In his post in The Impact Blog, Peter Dahler-Larsen explains how these multiple, cross-cutting rules have created a disturbing ambiguity in academia.
The blog post says (quote): In compliance with this rule, however, it would be necessary to declare that a text has been published in Danish if it is subsequently published in English. Some editors would probably not like to publicly state that they publish unoriginal material, and so the researcher would lose valuable international bibliometric points. In other words, there would be a strong incentive to publish in English first. And if the text is later published in Danish, it would be necessary to explain that it is a translated English text. (And there would be no bibliometric points from the Danish text, of course). The rules in practice restrict publications in Danish. And why should you have to wait until the English publication is out if there is an ongoing Danish debate which makes the text very relevant here and now?………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Academic publishing at a crossroads
The shift towards open access is an opportunity to reform academic publishing to better serve the public interest. A more open and dynamic system would improve the culture of academe and considerably reduce the costs associated with academic publishing, which have become prohibitive, notes Marc Couture, in his post in the University Affairs Blog.
The blog post says (quote): It is difficult to predict the outcome of this shift, but one thing is certain: in the near future, research findings will be disclosed in a much different manner than they have been. What we should be asking ourselves instead is: how, exactly, will this shift translate to a "public good?" In other words, will academic publishing better fulfill its key roles in dissemination and quality control, and can it do so at a more reasonable cost? The answer will depend on the actions taken by the various groups involved: publishers, librarians, research funding agencies and, of course, the researchers themselves………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Practical Steps for Creating a Corporate Copyright Policy
Any original work of expression written, recorded, or otherwise captured in some fashion is protected by copyright. How does a company teach all its employees about copyright and protect itself against copyright infringement? Kristen Noonan, in her post in the CCC Blog, discusses five steps that will help to get started in crafting a copyright policy that meets the company's needs and decreases the risk of infringement.
The blog post says (quote): Each country has its own copyright laws, and therefore there is no such thing as international copyright law. The differences in the national copyright laws present a challenge for global organisations with employees working in worldwide offices and sharing content across borders. Nevertheless, more than 160 countries have ratified a treaty-the Berne Convention, administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)-that aims to protect the rights of creators around the world by "harmonising" the participating nations’ copyright laws to some degree………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply