Blogs selected for Week June 15 to June 21, 2020 -



1. RightsLink for scientific communications puts customer experience first

The transition from subscription-based reading models to full and immediate Open Access (OA) publishing is complex and varies by discipline, geography, and publisher. From APCs to Transformative Agreements, Subscribe to Open models and Pure Publish deals, each organisation must choose a framework that meets its community’s needs. As the scientific ecosystem evolves, sustainable, scalable infrastructure is necessary to support this paradigm. In order for OA publishing to be viable in 2020 and beyond, researchers, institutions, publishers and funders agree that there must be solutions that can address the needs and concerns of all stakeholders. Customer Experience First (CX1) is a core operating principle for CCC. CCC is working with all stakeholder groups to build workflows in RightsLink for Scientific Communications that simplify and enhance the user experience–whether the user is an author, institution, funder, or publisher.

The full entry can be read: Here.

2. Peer review should be an honest, but collegial, conversation

Differences of opinion, critique and robust debate are at the heart of how research advances. Learning and practicing how to make — and how to respond to — an argument is foundational to both research and research publishing. Authors present their work against a background of existing knowledge and make a case for why their findings are new. Reviewers assess the work, offer their honest opinion and explain the reasons, especially if they disagree. But such disagreements are not always communicated collegially, and all of those involved — authors, editors and reviewers — will recall occasions when lines were crossed. To obtain insight into researchers’ experiences of the process of peer-review communication, Nature conducted two short polls of authors and editors earlier in 2020.

The full entry can be read: here.

3. To fight Covid-19, open access to scientific publishing

To tackle the ongoing catastrophe of the Covid-19 pandemic, the biomedical research community must deploy all the tools at its disposal, especially the extensive networks of international communication and collaboration that fuel scientific discovery. Unfortunately, scientific publishing is hamstrung in use of most essential tool: open access to the vast repositories of accumulated knowledge contained in the published scientific literature. Restricting access to the resource, which can help scientists find tests, treatments, and even cures for Covid-19, is shortsighted and unethical, with tangible impacts on human life.

The full entry can be read: Here.

4. You can publish open access, but ‘big’ journals still act as gatekeepers to discoverability and impact

One of the proposed advantages of open access publication is that it increases the impact of academic research by making it more broadly and easily accessible. Reporting on a natural experiment on the citation impact of health research that is published in both open access and subscription journals, Chris Carroll and Andy Tattersall, suggests that subscription journals play an important role in making research discoverable and useful and thus have a role to play even in open publication strategies.

The full entry can be read: Here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


sponsor links

For banner ads click here