1.COPE Introduces Less Specific Member Rules Along with a New Policy on Expulsions
New changes at COPE seem to move the organisation further away from standards and closer to suggested behaviour. At the same time, a new policy on member expulsions was announced, notes Angela Cochran, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): One could certainly argue that an organisation that has requirements for member transparency must ensure that they themselves are transparent. While COPE reserved the right to expel members before, the policy and procedure for doing so was not transparent. According to the announcement on sanctions, there are three main reasons for a member to get expelled: the member shows resistance to correcting identified problems that violate COPE principles of publication ethics; the member repeatedly acts in unethical ways; and the member refuses or fails to engage with COPE to remediate ethical issues. The statement also makes it clear that expulsion would be a last resort. It appears that COPE very much intends to stick to its mission of change through education……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2.E-Book Preservation: EBSCO's Ongoing Commitment to Preservation and Access for Libraries
Digital preservation is an essential issue for libraries. This post from the EBSCOpost Blog, highlights EBSCO's ongoing commitment to preserving e-books.
The blog post says (quote): EBSCO recognises technological obsolescence as a threat to successful digital preservation and takes necessary actions to ensure digital continuity. In the event that EBSCO is no longer able to provide access to e-books under the terms of a library's purchase, EBSCO will work to ensure either: delivery of the appropriate content directly to libraries; or delivery of the appropriate content to a similar e-book aggregator, as needed, to ensure all access rights granted by EBSCO are continued through a comparable service which can support the existing terms of the agreement. In the event that no successor organisation can be identified and titles are not available through other services, Portico will act as preservation safeguard by offering access to affected titles through their archive……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3.Bypassing peer-review: Is preprint a taboo or catalyst in scientific research?
When the preprint revolution started with the launch of arXiv – a scientific online repository – in August 1991, it sent a jolt through the scientific community. Many perhaps considered it a 'rogue mission' to sidestep peer-review, a critical process in the conventional journal submission system, notes Nur Syarafina Mohamad Radzi, in her post in the MIMS Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The idea of preprint as the future of scientific research has received a huge share of criticisms ever since its inception. Nonetheless, when the concept extends to the clinical domain, a rather distinct kind of apprehension rises among members of the medical community. This was the reaction displayed after Yale cardiologist Harlan Krumholz presented the plan to launch a preprint server specialising in clinical research results, named MedArXiv, at the Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication. The plan invited a mixed response – the primary concern being that this would lead to patients trying treatments on their own before findings are reviewed or vetted……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4.Policy Fellowships Programme: developing enduring relationships between academia and policymakers
Having an impact on policy is an important part of demonstrating the wider contribution of academic work and expertise. The Policy Fellowships Programme was set up as part of a wider commitment to find increased and better ways for scientific expertise and evidence to be considered in public policy. In their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Nicola Buckley and Charlotte Sausman explain the background of the programme, emphasise the importance of facilitating relationships which develop over time and across many interactions, and reflect on some of the key factors to success.
The blog post says (quote): Researchers and policymakers inhabit different worlds and it can be difficult for both groups to understand and navigate each others' motives and ways of operating. Policy cycles and research cycles are rarely aligned and whilst policymakers may be looking for available research findings with which to address complex questions, research programmes are often set up to allow researchers necessarily long time periods to address focused questions in depth. As a result, policy may not be informed by robust empirical evidence. And research may not produce findings that easily translate into addressing pressing policy questions, where findings from several disciplines need to be consolidated. Through the Policy Fellowships Programme, civil servants are able to spend time away from a busy policy role to meet a wider range of researchers, who may have different and unexpected perspectives on policy issues, as well as offer insights from leading academic thinking……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5.PLOS Reports $1.7M Loss In 2016
After several high surplus years, a relatively small 2016 deficit will not sink PLOS. However, the trend over the past five years does not look encouraging, and 2017 looks no better, notes Phil Davis, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Earlier, Scientific Reports, which is published by Springer Nature, overtook PLOS ONE as the world's largest megajournal. In the first ten months of 2017, Scientific Reports has already surpassed research article output from last year, while PLOS ONE is down by 7 percent. PLOS is not a financially diversified company. It is almost entirely dependent upon a single revenue model (the APC) from a single journal (PLOS ONE). This makes the publisher highly vulnerable to market changes and competition with larger, more diversified publishers. After several high surplus years, a relatively small 2016 deficit will not sink PLOS. However, the trend over the past five years does not look encouraging, and 2017 looks no better……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply