1. Guest post — Pandemic reveals broader audiences for science and carves out new all-digital publishing opportunities
The scholarly community is in a unique position to respond to a new found appetite for accurate and valid medical and health information. Scholarly Kitchen is aiming to leverage people’s curiosity, deepen their knowledge, their ability to recognise trustworthy sources of information, and enhance their connection to the broader science and technology that impacts their day-to-day lives. Throughout the course of the pandemic, people have demonstrated a desire to understand even complex medical and scientific concepts related to COVID-19, from ways of preventing its spread to potential cures on the horizon. People have been given the opportunity to consume much of this scientific information in an accessible language. Sabine Louët and Karla Fallon, in this post, discuss how to realize the opportunities for better communicating research results to a broader audience.
The full entry can be read: Here.
2. What COVID-19 articles did patrons access? A list of top viewed articles
The academic community is publishing many new journal articles about various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fortunately, many of the articles are open access, allowing researchers and other interested parties to share and gain new insights regardless of their institutional affiliation. Ex Libris’ list of top viewed articles (https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/bX/Knowledge_Articles/Covid19_Top_viewed_Articles) represents a highly used subset of all the publications. While many patrons clicked on articles from the more prominent medical journals, such as JAMA, The Lancet, Nature, The BMJ, and the New England Journal of Medicine, the list also contains articles drawn from a variety of other journals from different fields, from Virology to Anesthesiology and Public Health. It provides interesting insights into what users are most interested in but also offers a good list of publications to start with, especially for users who would like to read more about COVID-19 from a scholarly perspective.
The full entry can be read: Here.
3. There is no black and white definition of predatory publishing
The nature and extent of predatory publishing is highly contested. While debates have often focused defining journals and publishers as either predatory or not predatory, Kyle Siler argues that predatory publishing encompasses a spectrum of activities and that by understanding this ambiguity, we can better understand and make value judgements over where legitimacy lies in scholarly communication.
The full entry can be read: Here.
4. Chinese publishers react to new policies on research evaluation
In February 2020, the Chinese government released two documents that set forth important changes in policies governing science research evaluation. One of the most eye-catching changes is the requirement for researchers to publish one third of their representative papers in domestic Chinese journals, which is being hailed as a big boost for Chinese publishers. Will all the 5000 STM titles published in China benefit from these new policies? How do Chinese publishers themselves interpret the documents? In this blog, three Chinese publishers, Yuehong (Helen) Zhang, Daliang Zhao and Dr Xiaofeng Wang, present their thoughts on the new Chinese policy on research evaluation.
The full entry can be read: Here.
5. How COVID-19 is making scientific research more transparent
The evolving COVID-19 pandemic has created an urgent need for scientific evidence, and quickly. Politicians need to make informed decisions and to be supported for the development of effective vaccines and treatments, as well as understanding the unfolding impact of the pandemic on society. The speed with which the global scientific community has risen to the sudden pressing need is remarkable. But science is usually a slow-moving process – a series of steps towards a better understanding, rather than individual ‘eureka’ moments. Getting to the truth is often not straightforward, and scrutinising claims and counter-claims is an inherent part of the scientific method. Individual studies need to be replicated to see if the original observations are robust, and often they turn out not to be, notes this article republished from The Conversation by Marcus Munafo, Professor of Biological Psychology, University of Bristol under a Creative Commons license.
The full entry can be read: Here.
6. To engage with audiences, publishers are reimagining content
Content has always been king for news publishers, but with print readership declining, publishers have had to think creatively with how to reach readers who are moving over to different platforms. Whether it’s through TikTok, podcasts or videos, media companies are experimenting with various ways to entertain and engage with consumers. Editor & Publisher (E&P) takes a look at couple of platforms and speaks with news companies who are finding success with redefining their content to meet the habits of today’s audience.
The full entry can be read: Here.
Leave a Reply