1. The Tincture of Time - Should Journals Return to Slower Publishing Practices?
Reducing the time to publication is becoming increasingly associated with blather. Most journals have adopted rapid publication processes, but with the rise of preprint servers and new trends among readers, maybe they can return to a slower, more considered pace, notes Kent Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Perhaps, instead, the strategic differentiator for journals isn't unpredictable schedules, rapid publication, and error-prone publishing of scientific reports. With preprint servers supporting rapid, preliminary publication in an environment that is actually more supportive of amendments/corrections, speed, and unpredictability, perhaps journals should rethink shouldering the load of and courting the risks of rapid publication. More importantly, there are indications that coordinating with your audience, taking more time to fact-check and edit, and returning to a higher level of quality may be the smart move………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Exposing peer review
The transparent and open peer review is critical to the future of journals publishing. From pilots to practice, more and more publishers are warming to open peer review, reports Rebecca Pool, in her post in the Research Information Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Elsevier surveys indicate open peer review actually increases the quality of review reports. When authors taking part in the Publishing Peer Review Pilot were asked if they noticed an increase in the quality of review reports, a massive 70 per cent replied that the reports were more in-depth and constructive. To support such findings, the company is now rolling out open peer review metrics that, for example, measure how many reviews are conducted per article, how many reviews a reviewer has written, and also determine review report quality. Indeed, open peer review can bring much-needed recognition for the reviewer. Once a review report is made freely accessible and interlinked to the original articles, it is given a separate Digital Object Identifier. This means reviewers that choose to publish these reports with their names can claim the report as a publication and include it on their ORCID profile………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Are you the right reviewer? 5 questions to ask yourself
Ethical research is everyone's responsibility. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers all play a role in maintaining the quality and integrity of research pushed out into the public domain. With that in mind, Tom Culley, in his post in the Publons Blog, discusses some ethical questions to consider before accepting a manuscript to review.
The blog post says (quote): It is critical that all peer reviewers have a sound understanding of good ethical conduct before accepting a review invitation. This includes being aware of the personal biases, conflicts of interest and expertise, and being able to identify potential breaches of normal ethical practice in the research itself. Without this knowledge, reviewers risk unintentionally influencing the research they are tasked with reviewing. They also risk false findings and potentially dangerous research practices being introduced to the public sphere - slowing down science………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. In Praise of 'B' Journals
Posted by Andrew J. Hoffman in the Inside Higher ED post, this post argues that academic publishing is becoming more about establishing a pecking order and less about pursuing knowledge. And that has several unintended consequences.
The blog post says (quote): B journals that reach nonacademic audiences are cited much less by academics (if at all) and are therefore ignored as having impact. Further, social media is starting to enter the academic portfolio and is again ignored, even though increasing numbers of the public, politicians and even fellow academics find their information about science there. How does a blog with a half million views compare in impact to the average academic paper that was cited only 10.81 times between 2000 and 2010 (that number drops to only 4.67 for the social sciences), according to Thomson Reuters? Further, some preliminary research is beginning to show a positive value from social media, like Twitter, for increasing visibility (even citation counts) for academic papers. And some organisations, like the American Sociological Association, are exploring metrics and models for rigorously measuring the impact of alterative outlets………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Find Open Access Articles Faster with UnPayWall
The problem of Green Open Access is that if you go to the subscription journal site, you would not be able to see if there are open access versions of the article available. However, open access versions might exist on authors' own websites, or institutional and subject respositories. Google and Google scholar can often find those without help, but that is not always going to be the case. In his post in The Chronicle of Higher Education Blog, Maha Bali discusses about the new browser extension that helps to find open-access versions of paywalled articles.
The blog post says (quote): The idea is that when you search for an article, the Unpaywall icon turns "green" if there is an OA version available (and you can even set it up to turn yellow if the OA version is gold OA). And otherwise, it turns grey. The bookmarklet is always green. The icon that changes color is in the middle right of the screen and not very conspicuous unless you know to look for it. Unpaywall promises to find the open access version of an article 50 percent of the time, and the librarian tested it and found it to be so. The author suspect this will improve over time as this is just the pre-release version………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
6. Following the success of the learning technologist, is it time for a research equivalent?
With so many scholarly communications tools and technologies now available, how do academics decide which are most appropriate for their research? In his post in The Impact Blog, Andy Tattersall suggests it might be time for a research equivalent of the learning technologist, a role that has helped drive innovations in teaching underpinned by technologies.
The blog post says (quote): The reason why in-house support could benefit the practice and dissemination of research is that researchers are pressured for time, and often don't know what they need regarding research technologies and especially dissemination. Secondly, when they do know what they want, they often need it "as soon as possible". The two problems are more solvable within the department, especially as researchers often don't know where to go for specific help. The research technologist would be a designated, focused role, embedded within the department. They would be a signpost to new ways of working, problem solving and, most importantly, be able to consider all issues of ethics and/or compliance when passing on advice. They would become the "go-to" person for anyone wanting to use technology as part of their research………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply