Blogs selected for Week October 23 to October 29, 2017 -



1. Who's using open peer review?

Since the 1990s the ideas surrounding open access gained momentum alongside other alternative forms of publishing, including 'open peer review.' More transparency is needed to bring a greater level of trust and efficiency to the peer review process, and open review is one way to achieve that. Jo Wilkinson, in her post in the Publons Blog, discusses what is open peer review and how often is it used.

The blog post says (quote): European Commission's Open Science monitor provides stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, funders, publishers and libraries with access to data and trends on different characteristics of open science, including open access to publications, open research data, open scholarly communication, and citizen science. As part of open scholarly communication, the monitor includes data from Publons and PeerJ on the use of open peer review. Open peer review is an important element of open science, as it leads to increased transparency and accountability in the research process and enables reviewers to receive recognition for their work. The open science monitor explores the different types of open peer review that are being used and how this varies by discipline, by country, and over time. In addition, this looks at whether reviewers are using open peer review and whether journals allow open peer review to be carried out……………(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

2. Journal flipping or a public open access infrastructure? What kind of open access future do we want?

Open access debates are increasingly focused on 'how' rather than 'why'. In their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Tony Ross-Hellauer and Benedikt Fecher present two possible scenarios for an open access future, consider the relative merits and viability of each, and invite your input to the discussion.

The blog post says (quote): The "green" OA infrastructure of institutional repositories and preprint servers has been growing in interesting ways. Will preprint servers like arXiv, bioRxiv and the host of newly-created servers hosted by the Open Science Framework integrate review and editing technologies to enable them to become functional publishing platforms? Could infrastructures like OpenAIRE and visions like COAR Next Generation Repositories provide a way forward for public infrastructures of repositories and overlay journals to create a user-centric, public publishing ecosystem? Meanwhile, science funders like the European Commission, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust have already announced the establishment of their own OA megajournals. Although currently based on proprietary technologies, it is possible that in future these funds would be diverted to support public infrastructures……………(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

3. Guest Post - "Essential and Existential": The Work of Equity and Inclusion in Scholarly Publishing

Recent Society for Scholarly Publishing panels in Boston and Durham addressed equity and inclusion in scholarly publishing and best practices for organisations seeking to recruit, retain, and support people of colour. Jocelyn Dawson and Rebecca McLeod, in their guest post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, gather together helpful advice for recruiting and maintaining a more diverse workforce in publishing.

The blog post says (quote): OUP actively reaches out to LGBTQ, African-American and Latinx groups to make publishing a more visible career option. One of its strategies is to participate in career fairs and events at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU). Outreach to minority groups can serve as a way to correct historical barriers and broaden hiring pools since, as Devine, Human Resources Generalist at Duke University Press, reminded attendees, "one of the major pipelines to an organisation is the people already in that organisation." Rimer-Surles, Assistant Director for Contracts and Intellectual Property at Duke University Press, made the point that everyone needs to be involved in recruiting - Human Resources cannot do it all themselves. Beacon Press networks with its advisors and authors of colour for potential candidates and posts and advertises in places with a more significant audience of colour……………(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

4. The Library Workflow: Three Challenges to Address

A proper library workflow is the thread that keeps the back end of library together. What patrons don't see is a complex system where the threads of the library workflow cross and intertwine to ensure the front-end experience runs as smoothly as possible. A post in the EBSCOpost Blog discusses the challenges within the library workflow.

The blog post says (quote): Collection development is one of the most important, yet challenging, components in the library workflow. The goal of a library’s collection development is to meet the goals of an institution while satisfying the research needs of the end user. Having the right tools in place for selection and ordering is vital to the success of the library. The biggest challenges within selection and ordering are managing subscription workflows; finding, ordering and managing both e-books and print books for the library; and then building specific content items - which leads into the next challenge……………(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

5. Who Owns Digital Science?

In the shift beyond content licensing and towards supporting researcher workflow, Elsevier has few competitors. Roger C. Schonfeld, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, discusses whether Digital Science and SpringerNature should be understood strategically as one company, or two.

The blog post says (quote): Other publishers - and libraries and universities - that are working in collaboration with, or customers of, various Digital Science businesses might wish to give greater attention to the implications. First, Digital Science itself may soon become an operating unit of Springer Nature. Second, this could well yield changes to the Digital Science strategy, if its current model as an investor were to give way to the operating integrations that have been a hallmark of Elsevier's strategy. Universities, libraries, and other publishers should have contingencies in place today that will position them appropriately should these developments occur. Any kind of acquisition of Digital Science would leave Springer Nature and Elsevier with many of the pieces of a research workflow business in combination with publishing operations and platforms. There are a number of differences between the two workflow businesses and publishing operations, but the fundamentals would be that the two largest scientific publishers, and the two largest open access publishers, would also be the two largest scientific workflow providers……………(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


sponsor links

For banner ads click here