1. Upstreaming: The Migration of Economic Value in Scholarly Publishing
As publishers increasingly lose control of the final stage of the publishing process, they are looking elsewhere to extract economic value. They are finding it upstream, in the various linked processes that lead to the (erstwhile) final document, notes Joseph Esposito, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The reason to go upstream for a publisher is that it is like fleeing a burning house, as the monopoly nature of copyright downstream, where the chain historically was monetised, is undermined at every step. The problem, on the other hand, of going upstream is that it is not as easy to monetise those earlier links in the chain. Once upon a time, libraries would pay a sizable sum downstream for access to packages of content, but will they pay for a data analytics tool that examines submissions and rejections? If they won't, who will? If the prospective customer is another publisher, is there not something awkward in Publisher A attempting to sell a tool to its rival, Publisher B? And how much is Publisher B willing to pay for such a tool? How will Publisher B in turn make money on that investment? Will B perhaps use the tool as a means to extract larger payments for enhanced content sold to libraries? But, libraries no longer need to purchase or lease content when it can be found lying around everywhere, from the hallowed halls of Ivy League repositories to the Russian steppe………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Let's focus on the research process, not the outputs
The outsized importance of publications has meant too many research students focus on featuring papers in prestigous journals, despite having success in doing so feeling like something of a lottery. A strong focus on the research output instead of the research process is detrimental to research itself, notes Mattias Björnmalm, in his post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Research is about increasing the understanding of the world and/or helping to solve problems. At its best and most effective, this is a collaborative endeavour leveraging diverse skills and experiences. Hiring, funding, and many publication decisions, however, are inherently competitive. This creates a tension between doing good, collaborative research on one hand, and being individually competitive on the other. Increased focus on the output exacerbates this tension as authorship assumes an outsized importance. On the contrary, increased focus on the research process eases this tension when researchers are recognised for collaborative contributions. Ensuring they focus the definition of success around valuable contributions - instead of around the final output - would therefore recognise and reward good research and researchers. Putting the focus back onto the research process is a multifaceted challenge. It requires cultural changes within the research community, such as those advocated by the Leiden Manifesto and the Declaration on Research Assessment………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. The case for crowd peer review
In traditional peer review, a manuscript would be distributed to just a handful of anonymous reviewers, and each volunteer would write a formal, independent critique of the paper. This process can take up to several months. Crowd review can take as little as one week, notes Tien M. Nguyen, in her post in the C&EN Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Manuscripts for crowd review arrive about once a week, and by the time a reviewer gets to it, a manuscript may already have lots of comments. Often commenters who get to the paper first leave longer comments. Editors encourage those who follow to simply write "agree" instead of rephrasing the same point. In that case, later reviewers might focus instead on another part of the paper or the supplementary material, essentially splitting up the work. The researcher estimates that they spend about one to two hours total reviewing each manuscript. One advantage of the crowd is that it helps deter unfair reviews, which can occasionally happen in traditional peer review. The crowd acts as a "free market of ideas" and generally comes to a sensible consensus. Disagreement regularly crops up over reviews, but it is generally polite, likely because comments are open to the crowd rather than private………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Addressing the Crisis in Academic Publishing
Academic excellence requires excellent research and excellent teaching - research-led as well as research-informed teaching. We must find ways to ensure that equal respect, recognition and reward is given to excellence in teaching, research and service by institutional leaders, governments, publishers, university ranking and accreditation schemes, discusses Hans De Wit, Phillip G. Altbach and Betty Leask, in their post in the Inside Higher Ed Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The academic publishing system has become corrupted. Top journals in all fields have daunting backlogs of articles awaiting review. Hence new commercial publishers have emerged, seeking to capitalise on the situation with little understanding of, or concern for, the quality of what they publish. In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in predatory journals claiming to be publish peer-reviewed content when they do not. Between this rapidly growing group of predatory journals and the small group of elite quality academic journals is a new group of serious journals seeking to establish themselves with blind peer review as their quality control mechanism. However, it is becoming more difficult to distinguish new, but good journals, from predatory journals. Editors, editorial board members and their academic affiliations are no longer reliable measures as there have been reported cases of high-profile academics being named to boards without their knowledge. Regulation and control mechanisms are required to ensure peer reviewers and authors are not exploited by a growing corrupt and commercial system and so that the academic publishing system supports rather than undermines academic excellence………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply