1. How to compare apples with oranges: using interdisciplinary "exchange rates" to evaluate publications across disciplines
Academic research performance is typically assessed on the basis of scientific productivity. While the number of publications may provide an accurate and useful metric of research performance within one discipline, interdisciplinary comparisons of publication counts prove much more problematic. To solve this problem, Timo Korkeamäki, Jukka Sihvonen, and Sami Vähämaa, in their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog, introduce interdisciplinary "exchange rates", which can be used to convert the publication records of individuals or institutions to a common scale.
The blog post says (quote): In a recent article, they propose an objective method for comparing the value of publications across business disciplines. They use publication data from the leading peer-reviewed journals in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing to construct intradisciplinary author rankings that they then employ to estimate the empirical association between the number of publications and author rankings in each discipline. Based on the estimated effort required for improving an individual’s ranking within his or her own discipline, they can deduce the marginal value of a single-authored publication in each discipline. They convert these marginal values into “exchange rates” to compare the interdisciplinary value of publications.………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Digital Transformation Accelerators for Content Reuse
Even well into the digital age, publishers have persisted in maintaining processes that confine their businesses to a specific format (usually, the book) and to a single business model. Forward-thinking editors, however, demand freedom to reuse and repurpose content in innovative, high-value ways, especially on mobile devices, discusses Christopher Kenneally, in his post in the CCC Blog.
The blog post says (quote): People can't find the information that they are looking for when it's buried down in a very deep part of the book. It’s just not really made for the mobile devices that they're starting to see people use, especially in research and that kind of content. One of the things that is important to do is start to break the way that people start to create their content, so they're thinking about how their content can be explored and used in different ways on the platforms that they’re developing at present and any new platforms that are going to be coming in the future. So it's really about looking at that process – editorial process – and looking at, instead of creating a front-to-back book – front-to-back set of content that's really about a particular product – it's more creating more granular pieces of content that can be mixed and matched and enriched that devices, whether that might be a web platform or a mobile device, can explore that content in new ways………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. The Roadmap to Advocacy - Uncovering Your Library's Support System
True advocacy and activism relies on highly radicalised supporters taking significant actions on a library's behalf to help push social change. Patrick Sweeney, in his post in the EBSCOpost Blog, provides tips to identify and engage with the library's supporters, and explains why library advocacy is so important to the future.
The blog post says (quote): The reason this roadmap is so useful and important is because various tactics are only effective when the audience is ready to engage with that specific kind of tactic. For example, direct mail or robo-calls just aren't effective unless they go to a very engaged audience of supporters and the sender or caller has strong data about the message that the audience wants to hear. Other communication channels, like social media, are very effective at sharing stories and good for the initial education of early and unengaged audiences of potential supporters. They can take the data about their initial audience that was collected along the roadmap and use it to make more informed decisions about the effectiveness of using canvassing, or to determine if the cost of canvassing is prohibitively expensive because they don’t have a targeted or well-educated audience. This audience engagement roadmap allows to plan for those issues throughout the campaign and use the right tactics at the right time for the right audience………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. 2017 Journal Impact Factors Feature Citation Distributions
The 2018 release of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) now features citation distributions for each journal. Poor implementation may prevent these figures from being used and may actively encourage abuse by predatory publishers, notes Phil Davis, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): It is not clear that Clarivate wants these histograms be reused, however. There is no way to download or export them as a simple image file. More importantly, each histogram lacks a journal title, source attribution, and permitted use statement. As a consequence, legitimate publishers may be uneasy about putting these distributions on their websites while illegitimate publishers may exploit these shortcomings by misappropriating citation distributions of real journals for their own. Given that the JCR is released just once per year, it is unlikely that periodic updates to these histograms will get noticed. The proverbial horse has left the stable………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Retracted papers keep being cited as if they weren't retracted. Two researchers suggest how Elsevier could help fix that
As many readers know, even after a paper is retracted, it will continue to be cited - often by researchers who do not realise the findings are problematic. Alison McCook, in her post in the Retraction Watch Blog, discusses with Bar-Ilan and Halevi about what worries them about their findings - and why they believe Elsevier could help fix the problem.
The blog post says (quote): Unlike other publishers, Elsevier makes all the retracted articles on ScienceDirect free in full text open access format. That means that anyone can download and read them. Since the vast majority of Elsevier articles are not open access, it is a bit strange that they choose to have retracted articles completely open access. In 2017 they recommended already that they change this practice and place retracted articles behind a paywall. They have to remember that there are institutions and countries who cannot afford to buy Elsevier content. These institutions rely on open access resources for their academic and scientific work. Therefore, Elsevier has to ensure that retracted articles are not easily accessible. These articles often represent erroneous research in forms of falsified data and findings. Elsevier should make them harder rather than easier to access………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
6. Guest Post: Time to Check Out of the Hybrid Hotel?
Heralded by many as a transition mechanism to full open access (OA), hybrid OA has shown impressive growth in recent years, but questions are now being asked of its sustainability. Rob Johnson, in his guest post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, looks at the growth of hybrid open access, and questions whether it will remain a reliable revenue stream for publishers.
The blog post says (quote): For hybrid publishing to become a sustainable OA strategy, there must be both transparency around the cost of publishing for the institution, and a seamless publishing experience for the author. Institutions are entitled to expect robust reporting to enable them to evaluate value-for-money in offsetting deals, and track compliance with funder mandates. Meanwhile, publishers themselves need to be able to understand and evaluate the impact of these deals on their revenues and ensure that hybrid offers a sustainable transition pathway. This pathway is less likely to take the form of a global 'flip' than a gradual shift to OA, the pace of which will vary by both geography and discipline………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
7. Who cares about scholarly communication?
Scholars typically communicate mostly with each other: they create articles, books, white papers, and other scholarly products, not usually expecting that those writings will reach millions of people and directly affect the public’s collective mind and discourse, but more often with the hope that their colleagues will read what they have written and that their ideas and discoveries will shape the discourse within their fields, and will eventually make the world a better place in that way. Rick Anderson, in his post in the OUPblog, discusses that scholarly communication is nowhere near as self-contained as one might think, and that it's important for the general public to have a better understanding of how it works.
The blog post says (quote): An understanding of how scholarly communication works can only help those who are going to spend formative years of their young adulthood (and possibly the rest of their lives) both contributing to and drawing from the well of scholarly and scientific literature that is that system's lifeblood. Being an advanced student means being a scholarly communicator, and to participate effectively in scholarly communication they need to know more than just the difference between a peer-reviewed and a non-peer-reviewed journal: they need to have at least a general idea of how journals are evaluated, how different kinds of book publishers work, how copyright works (and doesn't work) in the academic context, and so forth………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply