1. SSP and STM Collaborate to Promote the Value of Mentorship in Scholarly Communications for Early-Career Professionals
Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) and the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) are collaborating to develop a panel discussion to be presented at the SSP 38th Annual Meeting in Vancouver, BC, on June 1. Members of the SSP Professional Development Committee and Early-Career Task Force have teamed up with STM’s Early-Career Publishing Committee to highlight the mentoring efforts of both organizations and raise awareness of the value of mentorship for career advancement. This post in the SSP website looks at how both STM and SSP are offering mentoring schemes for professionals starting out in their careers.
The blog post says (quote): Mentoring facilitates the sharing of knowledge, expertise, skills, insights and experiences through dialogue and collaborative learning between a more experienced colleague and a more junior or less experienced colleague........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Harvest Tiny Data in Scientific Papers
During the information age, traditional geoscience is transforming towards community-driven, collaborative, and open research culture. Currently, we use software and code process and visualize data and then embed the plots in our journal papers. These software and data (including intermediate data, analysis pipelines) could be as tiny as few lines of code, numbers or letters. Without access of “tiny data”, readers can hardly reproduce and reuse the entire research, notes Xuan Yu, in his post in the Digital Science Blog. Xuan Yu is a postdoctoral researcher at Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Delaware.
The blog post says (quote): A modern publication strategy utilises data repositories and computational workflow to link digital files and scientific stories. By applying such publication strategies, data are stored in public repositories (e.g. Figshare, Github), and are linked from any detailed pieces of code to each plot in the final paper. Such geoscience paper will not only tell the story through traditional publication methods (e.g. text, figures, and tables) but also make digital research outputs (e.g. software, data - including raw, intermediate, and final data) persistent, linked, user-friendly, and sustainable. As a result, potentially large groups of readers from scientific communities, governments, and the public will be able to understand the knowledge and reuse the data for their own purposes..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Think academic publishers are greedy? Do your research
The academic publishing market is worth £4.4bn to the UK economy. It encompasses global academic publishers and sector-specific publishers, as well as a thriving and learned society publishing community. If you read the recent article “It’s time to stand up to greedy academic publishers” you could be forgiven for confusing publishers with printers, thinking that all they do is passively receive research articles, proof, typeset and then publish them, notes Stephen Lotinga, in his post in the Guardian Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Publishers offer value to research institutions by providing data-driven metrics and analytics that inform their research management activities. This investment allows for rigorous peer review, thereby enabling scrutiny of the collective scientific record and helping to ensure that the business-related aspects of publishing are effectively managed. It also pays for the development of technology of that ensures articles are discoverable, shareable and able to be accessed in underserved regions.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Elsevier purchase SSRN: Social scientists face questions over whether centralised repository is in their interests.
The Social Science Research Network (SSRN), an online repository for uploading preprint articles and working papers, has been recently acquired by publishing giant Elsevier. In his post in The Impact Blog, Thomas Leeper looks at what this purchase means for the scholarly community and for-profit academic services more generally. Many regular users may not be aware that SSRN has been run by a privately held corporation since its founding in 1994.
The blog post says (quote): Two things about the deal stand out. First, Elsevier may be the most loathed academic publisher in the world, a reflection of its size, ubiquitousness, and success at maintaining a high-profit business model despite pressure for greater public access to publicly funded scientific research. More than 16,000 researchers have signed on to a boycott of publishing in or performing peer review service for Elsevier-published journals, in protest of the high costs of Elsevier journal articles despite the uncompensated labor of authors, reviewers, and editors. While Elsevier practices a for-profit model much like other academic publishers, the fees it charges to libraries, individual end-users, and authors (in the form of APCs) and the greater than 30 percent profit margin it earns on that revenue have led to sharp criticism by academics and high-profile organisations like the Wellcome Trust.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Sci-Hub and Academic Identity Theft: An Open Letter to University Faculty Everywhere
When entities like Sci-Hub invite you to share your network credentials in order to help create free access to licensed scholarly publications, they’re asking for more than access to research. What they’re asking for may also give them access to your email account, your course management program, your tax documents, and more. Rick Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, discusses some things to think about before you decide to share your network user ID and password.
The blog post says (quote): So far, the Sci-Hub database reportedly contains roughly 50 million articles, most of them obtained by allegedly illegal means. You may well sympathize with Sci-Hub’s goal of providing free access to high-cost scholarly and scientific information; after all, there are problems with the current system of scholarly communication, and the high cost of access is one of them. By freeing published scholarship from the chains of toll access and copyright protection and making them freely available to all, it can feel like you are helping a Robin Hood figure rob from the rich and give to the poor. However, by giving someone your network credentials, you’re doing something else as well: you’re sharing with that person the ability to do lots of interesting things that have nothing to do with providing access to published scholarship. Depending on how access is configured on your campus........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
6. Portable Journal Acceptance?
In a changing market, authors increasingly find themselves negotiating with publishers to see their work to completion, even after they successfully navigate academic peer review. The solution is to make journal acceptance portable, notes Michael S. Evans, in his post in the Inside Higher ED post.
The blog post says (quote): One objection is that academic editors who are hard-pressed to find peer reviewers may see a JPR publication as free riding on their peer-review process. But arguably every paper rejected after peer review is also a free rider. Making acceptances portable likely would have little effect on submissions or editorial workload. But it would put pressure on publishers to improve terms and conditions for authors. Admittedly, that pressure could create awkwardness for editors who cooperate with publishers to limit author rights. Then, of course, there is the possibility of fraud.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply