1. Unhelpful, caustic and slow: the academic community should rethink the way publications are reviewed
The current review system for many academic articles is flawed, hindering the publication of excellent, timely research. There is a lack of education for peer reviewers, either during PhD programmes or from journal publishers, and the lack of incentives to review compounds the problem. Thomas Wagenknecht, in his post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog, offers some solutions to the current system, including encouraging associate editors to use their authority to mitigate the impact of bad reviewers, shortening the entire peer review process, and increasing peer reviewer education during PhD and even Masters programmes.
The blog post says (quote): Beyond the current system, there are various proposals to increase the quality of academic reviews more significantly. One rather prominent suggestion is post-publication peer review (PPPR). The principle is: papers get published quickly after a light sanity check by an editor. Once published, referees conduct the same review process as with pre-publication review but their reviews are published right next to the article – possibly including the name and affiliation of the reviewer. Crucially, reviewers need not provide a recommendation to publish or withhold the paper. It is enough for them to point out problems and possible solutions. Authors can then either write rebuttals or try to address problems. Reviewers could embark on addressing these problems too. This in turn could increase the incentives to conduct reviews in the first place. Furthermore, PPPR could reduce the risk of reviewers suggesting unsubstantiated extensions of sections without providing concrete guidance………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Counting the Holes in the Swiss Cheese: "Read and Publish" Discovers America
The read-and-publish business model has been introduced to the U.S. by MIT and the Royal Society of Chemistry. It has implications for publishers, however, that must be studied carefully, notes Joseph Esposito, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The largest publishers, which are now going to have to assess the implications of RAP, will be putting these figures together, upon which they will build their strategy. And the reason they will put these figures together is because they know that the important business question is not what happens at MIT and its ilk with RSC (and its ilk); the important question is what happens at Montana, Carleton College, and their ilk. Simply put, RAP at Princeton could result in cancellations at Alabama. Now, why would this be? Publishers like RSC are placing a bet that they can flip their programs to OA and still maintain their revenue. To do this, they must maintain all the customers they currently have. But when a major institution joins RAP, the outflow of OA articles skyrockets………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Why open access publishing is growing in Latin America
The move towards open access publishing in scientific research is certainly a global one. However, Latin America or Iberoamérica is using the OA publishing model to a far greater extent than any other region in the world. Latin American researchers have a specific social commitment to ensure that their work is accessible and contributing to the good of their communities, notes Victoriano Colodrón, in his post in the Times Higher Education Blog.
The blog post says (quote): A report recently published in Spanish by CERLALC, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation centre for the promotion of reading and publishing in Latin America and the Caribbean, uses OpenDOAR data to highlight the fact that currently there are 519 OA repositories in Iberoamérican countries, with Spain leading (22 percent), followed by Brazil (19 percent), Portugal (10 percent), Peru (10 percent), Colombia and Argentina (both with nine percent). Regardless of which numbers you turn to, OA's growth in Iberoamérica has been dramatic over the past few years. As an example, the number of OA repositories in Peru went from eight in 2010 to 48 in 2018. In Argentina, they grew from six to 44 in the same time period and from 25 to 99 in Brazil………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Sustainability of Article Publishing Charge to Further Open Access
In the field of academic publishing, there are a variety of models. Many journals use 'reader-pay' model wherein readers pay a fixed price to access to read. Increasingly, open access journals and hybrid journals are using an 'author-pay' model where the author pays a fixed Article Publishing Charge (APC) and the article is made accessible to all readers for free, discusses a post in the InfoJustice.org Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Higher-ranking universities and institutions have access to more funding and can afford to pay APCs in order to publish their research in open access and adopt an open access policy. Papers published as open access reach a wider section of the population, and is cited more often than papers published in traditional journals. More quality research published in open access helps further build these tier-1 schools' credibility, and reputation. Stronger reputation attracts new funding, thus feeding into this inequitable cycle. Similarly, prominent academic careers and tenure teaching decisions are significantly impacted by quality and quantity of publications. Requiring high APCs to publish a work disproportionately hinders the ability for academicians from developing and poor regions of the world to publish their articles and research in reputed journals. As a result, they are less likely to be promoted at or hired into high-level institutions – furthering equity gaps and entrenching colonialism in education………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply