1. Improving students’ academic performance - there’s an app for that
A recent article published in International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education makes a case for a multi-functional mobile app as a university learning tool. Using statistical correlational analysis, the authors found significant connections between the app usage and improved student outcomes, such as retention and academic performance, notes Katya Pechenkina, in her post in the BioMed Central Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The increase of student retention rate may suggest there was indeed some important trigger present for this increase to happen, especially since other variables (teaching staff, curriculum, and assessment types) did not change. Further, increased academic performance strongly suggests there is a potential to go beyond engaging students in the learning activities with the app to boosting their knowledge acquisition, resulting in higher final grades. Finally, the positive correlation found between students' scoring highly on the app and achieving higher academic grades is important as it can be used as a measure of internal consistency, suggesting that a subject-integrated app is well-positioned to help guide students towards better learning outcomes..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Seven functionalities the scholarly literature should have
Some of the most basic functionalities to be expected of a digital object continue to elude scholarly articles, making the literature much less useful than it could be. In his post in The Impact Blog, Björn Brembs has compiled a short list of seven such functionalities that academic publishers looking to modernise their operations might invest in; from unencumbered access and improved social components, to dynamic data visualisations and more precise hyperlinking.
The blog post says (quote): Social media technology started around 1999 with the development of the "web 2.0". However, the scholarly literature is still firmly stuck in web 1.0, despite the commendable efforts of some publishers to implement one of the earliest social functionalities: commenting. However, commenting is only one of many social technologies and one that may even better implemented in a formal peer review process at that. There is little reason we shouldn't be able to form scholarly online communities which share common interests – after all, scholarly societies have been around for centuries. These communities could use social functionalities to share articles, but also to track recommendations, citations, downloads, etc., as we do with any other digital object..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Seven Steps to Help Your Authors Through the APC Maze
As Open Access has evolved, article processing charges (APCs) have become increasingly complex for authors to understand and manage. What can institutions, intermediaries and publishers do to help them successfully and swiftly navigate the APC maze? Suzanne Kavanagh, in her post in the CCC Blog, discusses the seven steps that help to set a clear path.
The blog post says (quote): The challenges start with choosing an outlet for publication, as open access authors juggle complying with funder and institutional guidelines and publishing in the journal best suited for their work or career aspirations. There's also the issue of archiving the appropriate version of the paper in a repository. Researchers need to submit the necessary underlying information behind the article, and increasingly, the supporting research data. By the time it comes to payment, it's often hard for authors to know whether fees can be offset against existing subscription charges, or even more simply, who pays – the author, funder or institution? And once submitted, who is responsible for tracking the processing and payment?..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Jisc Futures: research in the age of open science
Open science is a celebration of what is best in the scientific community: collaboration, internationalism and a desire for the furthering of human knowledge, and the endeavours at present are focused on three crucial areas: open access to research publications, open research data and open metrics. In his post in the Times Higher Education Blog, Jo Johnson says that the UK is leading the drive towards a more open way of doing and sharing science.
The blog post says (quote): This commitment to open science is based upon the benefits that it can bring to publicly funded science in the UK. The number of open access journals and publications increases year on year, and more scientific papers allows for more scrutiny and an increase in the integrity of the scientific record. More research data available online means that researchers no longer have to repeat experiments and can instead base new hypotheses on existing, openly available data. Small and medium enterprises that previously might not have been able to afford subscription fees to scientific journals can access cutting-edge research material free of charge, increasing innovation in the UK workplace and getting new products to market faster..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. The One-Percent Club For Top-Cited Papers
As an alternative to the Journal Impact Factor, editors propose an index that measures highly cited papers. Straightforward in its construction, the "Impact Quotient" or IQ is the percentage of a journal's papers that reached the top 1 percent most-cited papers in the journal's research area, discusses Phil Davis, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Unsurprisingly, most of the highly cited papers were published in prestigious, high Impact Factor journals, like Nature Reviews Microbiology (IF 26.819) and Cell Host & Microbe (IF 14.946). For journals with Impact Factors smaller than 10, the editors claim that there is no correlation between IQ and IF, which, in theory has the potential of adding new information to the performance evaluation of a journal. However, the IQs of these journals are based on a very small number of papers that made it into the top-1 percent of their field. As a result, for all but a small group of elite journals, the one-percent club is a small numbers club, prone to chance and subject to wild fluctuations from year to year..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
6. Strategies to cut overheads in a shrinking book business make a lot of sense
An inexorable reality of present commercial book publishing world is that it is shrinking. Mike Shatzkin, in his post in The Shatzkin Files Blog, discusses the strategies to cut costs to maintain margins and profits, when businesses are shrinking, or even just not growing.
The blog post says (quote): In a environment where top-line revenue is declining, it is just logical to figure out how to cut costs. That's what F+W has done with this move. It is likely that the declining number of publishers with their own operations will increasingly find it sensible to get rid of those overheads. The shareholder that wants B&N to sell inherently makes the point that Barnes & Noble should really be thinking along the same lines. Getting smaller demands close examination of fixed overheads. And, in a different way than it does for publishers, once again Ingram offers a solution. Barnes & Noble could take a big step in the right direction by switching from its own network of warehouses for resupply to using Ingram. They would trade large fixed costs for what might be a slight increase in costs per unit, but they'd almost certainly have greater inventory efficiency, as measured by a higher "fill rate" for books they want to bring into the stores..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply