1. Missing the Target: The UK Scholarly Communications License
The UK Scholarly Communications License repeats many of the stumbles of the original monolithic and mandatory OA policies. In their post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Karin Wulf and Simon Newman urge its proponents to slow down and learn from them instead.
The blog post says (quote): The SCL and similar systems are designed with the very best intentions, to make scholarship freely available to all. But any system that undermines the small arts and humanities journals that enhance the quality of research through their editorial, peer review and quality assurance processes, or which makes such journals inaccessible to academics operating under such institutional licensing systems is manifestly counter-productive. If the SCL is introduced in many British universities, it will work only if waivers are granted without condition, and arts and humanities academics will find that in order to publish in the best journals they will almost always require such waivers. CC-BY-NC-ND licenses will be essential to protect academic research from inappropriate reuse, as is the case with the Harvard license and terms-of-usage. With these qualifications the SCL becomes all but unworkable……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Policymaking must become more empathetic rather than continuing its current overreliance on economic measures
In many cases policymaking is conducted without engaging with the public. It is economic measures, rather than any official public consultation, that inform monetary policy, for example. But does this contribute to the perception of policymakers as "out of touch"? In his post in The Impact Blog, Emmanuel Lee argues that policymaking must become more empathetic, with aggregate economic measures often failing to accurately reflect the wellbeing of the individuals who make up the economy.
The blog post says (quote): Firstly, policymaking could benefit, in this sense, from greater use of qualitative research which helps to capture the attitudes, motivations, and values of the public. This includes traditional methods such as the use of focus groups, interviews, and surveys, but also more radical methodologies such as ethnography, which enable policymakers to gain a deeper insight into the human experience. This also feeds into a wider movement of people attempting to introduce design principles into policymaking and encourage development of policies centred around the "user-need". Economists also continue to develop new measures for wellbeing, such as the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being index, which merges clinical research, health leadership, and behavioural economics research to track and understand the key factors that drive wellbeing in America and around the world……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Where will you publish your next article?
How do you choose where to publish your research? Are there a set handful of journals that are seen as 'the best' in your discipline? Has your supervisor pointed you to one that they typically refer to? These approaches are good, but they might miss journals that are relatively new or better suited for your work than your supervisor realises. In her post in the Altmetric Blog, Cat Williams explores a slightly different approach, which will offer some tips for making a more informed decision to help you ensure you achieve the outcomes you're after.
The blog post says (quote): Altmetrics can help you get a better understanding of the influence and reach of individual articles amongst researchers and the broader public alike. They collate in real-time and can tell if articles have been tweeted about, cited in public policy documents, or shared in many other spaces on the social web. One might have already come across them on publisher websites or other platforms such as institutional repository – many have embedded the Altmetric badges to showcase this online engagement for their articles. When sifting through altmetrics for articles published by a journal they’re evaluating, there are a few different ways to parse the numbers: First, one can look at specific types of altmetrics, depending on what type of exposure is important to them (e.g. tweets about an article from certain countries, citations in public policy documents from NGOs that are relevant to the field, and so on)…………… (unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. What's in a Name? The Library vs. Knowledge Management Center
How can information professionals incorporate more tacit knowledge alongside traditional information resources? Jill Shuman, in her post in the CCC Blog, investigates the conundrum of The Library versus The Knowledge Management Center.
The blog post says (quote): Librarians are very familiar with explicit knowledge, often referred to as information. This information is typically documented and public, codified, structured, and externalised, such as journal articles and patent data. Tacit knowledge, however, is defined as personal and undocumented knowledge that is dynamically created and experience based. This type of knowledge is difficult to write down, visualise, or even pass on from one person to another, because it is intuitive and depends on experience and context. In the biotech environment, this might include the brainstorming that precedes the search for a new molecular compound or the steps in a complicated manufacturing process……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Cabell's New Predatory Journal Blacklist: A Review
The deceptive/predatory publishing is a genuine problem, and that the effort to pay attention to it is a worthwhile one. Cabell's International has stepped into the gap left by the demise of Beall's List, providing a new predatory journal blacklist that promises to perform the function of identifying and calling out scam publishers more consistently and transparently, discusses Rick Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Cabell's Blacklist perpetuates the common problem of conflating low-quality journal publishing with deceptive or predatory publishing. In this case, the conflation happens because many of the blacklisting criteria Cabell's applies are really quality criteria ("poor grammar and/or spelling," "does not have a clearly stated peer review policy," "no policy for digital preservation," etc.) that can easily end up gathering fundamentally honest but less-competently-run journals into the same net as those journals that are actively trying to perpetuate a scam. Predatory and incompetent journals do often evince some of the same traits, but these traits don't always indicate predatory intent. It's worth noting that on the scale of predatory or deceptive practices, many of these violations of scholarly-communication norms are, while troubling and perhaps annoying, not especially egregious. This is precisely why a blacklist needs to be transparent about the reasons for a journal or publisher's inclusion - so that the reader can decide for him- or herself how worrisome the journal's behaviour really is. This transparency is one of the most important positive aspects of the Cabell’s product……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply