Blogs selected for Week September 4 to September 10, 2017 -

1. 'Reputed institutions publish in bogus journals'

Papers by researchers from reputed institutions in India have found their way into bogus journals. R. Prasad, in his post in The Hindu Blog, looks at a study that found that research papers from India top the list, while US universities are not far behind.

The blog post says (quote): Researchers from prestigious international universities in the U.S. too published in predatory journals. With nine papers, Harvard University had the highest number of papers published in bogus journals, followed by the University of Texas - 11 papers from all campuses. Researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, published seven papers in such journals. According to the 2017 Institute for Democracy and Economic Analysis (IDEA) study, about 15,000 papers from researchers based in the U.S. are published in predatory journals.........(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

2. If you are paid to write, you don't own the content

No tax inspector or police officer can claim rights over what they write for their jobs, so why should academics? Academics have considerable freedom to choose their own topics, and their writing is more "authored" than that of other public servants, which is typically anonymous, notes Gabriel Egan, in his post in the Times Higher Education Blog.

The blog post says (quote): Only academics who have no research hours at all specified in their contracts can truthfully claim that their books are made entirely in their own time and hence are their own private property. Everyone else should acknowledge that the public pays for our works and should therefore not have to pay again to read them. Aside from all else, there is an unassailable argument in favour of open access monographs from a global rights perspective. More research will get done more efficiently when all the raw materials for doing it are available for free on the internet, which (unlike research libraries) can now be accessed by more than half the world's population.........(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

3. Much Ado About Metadata 2020!

Metadata 2020 is a new initiative to improve research metadata by increasing the understanding of its value, and engaging with the community to ensure it's fit for purpose. Led by Crossref and supported by individuals and organisations across all of scholarly communications, participation is open to all. Alice Meadows, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, discusses how to get involved in this.

The blog post says (quote): Good (enough) metadata will never be a reality if we don’t make it easy to create. This is where we need some serious innovation. Rather than reinventing the wheel, though, perhaps we can adapt a system that researchers are already using. Manuscript submission systems seem a likely candidate, however, they're already viewed as too complex and time-consuming by some authors, so how can we ask them for even more information? Synchronisation and automation will be key in solving the challenge, as will taking a community approach - collaborating around common processes and standards in order to build (sometimes competing) platforms and systems.........(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

4. Journal policies that encourage data sharing prove extremely effective

There is currently little incentive for researchers to share their data. But what if it was enough for journals to simply ask authors to make their data available? Michèle B. Nuijten, in her post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, reports on a recent study that found journal policies that encourage data sharing to be extremely effective, with a steep increase in the percentage of articles with open data from the moment these policies took effect.

The blog post says (quote): Data-sharing policy is not a "one-size-fits-all" solution. In some fields of psychological research (e.g. sexology or psychopathology) data can be very personal and sensitive, and can't simply be posted online. Luckily there are increasingly sophisticated techniques to anonymise data, and often materials and analysis plans can still be shared to increase transparency. It is also important to acknowledge the time and effort it took to collect the original data. One way to do this is to set a fixed period of time during which only the original researchers have access to the data. That way they get a head start in publishing studies based on the data. When this period is over and others can also use the data, the original authors should, of course, be properly acknowledged through citations, or even, in some cases, co-authorship.........(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