1. The REF's focus on linear and direct impact is problematic and silences certain types of research
In the last Research Excellence Framework (REF), the new element of research impact was understood in very linear and direct terms. In their post in The Impact Blog, Aoileann Ní Mhurchú, Laura McLeod, Stephanie Collins and Gabriel Siles-Brügge consider how accepted definitions of impact may have had the effect of silencing certain types of research.
The blog post says (quote): Research "impact" was the new component of the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) - a government-sponsored evaluation of research at UK universities last carried out in 2014, with the next iteration foreseen for 2021. According to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, research has "impact" when it has "an effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life beyond academia" (emphasis added). But the perceived need for academics to speak beyond the proverbial "ivory tower" is not confined to discussions surrounding the REF, as the existence of this very forum and many other pieces extolling the virtues of academics not "talking only to their peers" suggest.......(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. How Societies Structure Deals with Their Partners
Professional societies often seek partnerships for different reasons. In his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Joseph Esposito summarises the categories of partnerships and helps to identify when a partnership is not really a partnership.
The blog post says (quote): In a licensing arrangement a society publisher makes an arrangement with a larger publisher, which then provides an entire suite of publishing services. These are likely to include making available a manuscript submission system, providing a hosting platform, handling all aspects of sales and marketing, and in many cases most or all aspects of production. In such a situation the key thing that the society retains is full editorial control of the contents of the publications. It appears that a society signs a licensing agreement with a large publisher every week. In a licensing arrangement, the society outsources an almost comprehensive set of services, but unlike the fee-for-services model, the services are paid for by sharing revenues, which the larger publisher collects and then redistributes to the society........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. When the Wolf Finally Arrives: Big Deal Cancelations in North American Libraries
For years, researchers in libraries have been predicting the imminent demise of the manifestly-unsustainable Big Deal - and yet it has persisted. Now that may be changing, notes Rick Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): In some cases libraries replaced Big Deal access with the promise of effectively unlimited on-demand access to articles from the canceled journals, and the resulting demand for that service was much lower than expected. Again, it’s important not to jump to conclusions as to what is causing this apparently low demand: it may be that demand was never terribly high to begin with, or it may be that the nuisance of requesting articles on an individual basis is great enough to dissuade library patrons from requesting them (leading them to go without access they genuinely want - or, perhaps even more likely, sending them into the arms of Sci-Hub or other pirate operations........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Peer review, from the perspective of a frustrated scientist
The report from SpotOn, 'What might peer review look like in 2030?' has now been published. In her post in the BioMed Central Blog, Elodie Chabrol discusses a section on peer review perspectives from 'frustrated scientist'.
The blog post says (quote): With Single-blinded peer review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the authors (the authors are ‘blinded’ to the reviewers’ identities) but the reviewers know who the authors are. A potential issue could be that some reviewers may see the authors as competition and thus review a paper more harshly than may be warranted. This may lead to an unfair disadvantage for the authors based on things like the history between ‘competing’ labs. A way around that would be either double-blinded peer review (where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous) or, even better, open peer review where reviewers are not anonymous and their comments are openly available. But open peer review comes with problems of its own.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Three Marketing Tips that Can Help Corporate Librarians
Corporate librarians understand that knowledge is power, and real knowledge comes from authoritative information resources, robust research tools and, most importantly, from librarians and their libraries or knowledge centers. A post in the EBSCOpost Blog discusses three fundamental tips to help corporate librarians make sense of promoting their information resources and services.
The blog post says (quote): Starting with an effective strategy will help corporate librarians to stay on course with the marketing promotions. Organise all of the campaign information in a central document for corporate librarians and their team to refer back to. The document should contain: Audience - are you focused on a specific department or group?; Basic Message - keep this to one to two sentences; Tactics - the vehicles/channels you will use to promote; Timing - time frame for you campaign; and Goal - what you hope to achieve through your efforts and what you hope the audience achieves. Make sure your goals are both qualitative and quantitative.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply