共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 990 毫秒
1.
Jonathan J. Mallett 《Learned Publishing》2021,34(1):49-56
- Scientific publication has been a key part of the scientific method since the inception of Philosophical Transactions in 1665.
- The scientific publications industry has grown exponentially along with science, incorporating technological innovations along the way, and adapting journal processes and practices to changing needs of science as it matured.
- Of all the technological innovations over more than 300 years, the move to online journals may be the most significant, making open access to content practical for the first time.
- The open‐access movement is disrupting the economics of journal publishing, which is hoped will make the industry more competitive: the ability of the publications industry to adapt to open access will be a measure of its resilience.
- The demand for articles published in reputable journals continues to grow as readers trust the credibility of peer reviewed journal articles, and good authors value the prestige of publishing in the best journals.
- It is difficult to predict what new functionalities may be included in articles of the future or what additional services publishers and editors will provide, but there is every reason to believe that scientific journal articles are here to stay.
2.
3.
- As the number of authors on scientific publications increases, ordered lists of author names are proving inadequate for the purposes of attribution and credit.
- A multi‐stakeholder group has produced a contributor role taxonomy for use in scientific publications.
- Identifying specific contributions to published research will lead to appropriate credit, fewer author disputes, and fewer disincentives to collaboration and the sharing of data and code.
4.
Gabriel M Peterson 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2010,98(2):135-139
Objective:
This research measures the effectiveness of the practice of correction and republication of invalidated articles in the biomedical literature by analyzing the rate of citation of the flawed and corrected versions of scholarly articles over time. If the practice of correction and republication is effective, then the incidence of citation of flawed versions should diminish over time and increased incidence of citation of the republication should be observed.Methods:
This is a bibliometric study using citation analysis and statistical analysis of pairs of flawed and corrected articles in MEDLINE and Web of Science.Results:
The difference between citation levels of flawed originals and corrected republications does not approach statistical significance until eight to twelve years post-republication. Results showed substantial variability among bibliographic sources in their provision of authoritative bibliographic information.Conclusions:
Correction and republication is a marginally effective biblioremediative practice. The data suggest that inappropriate citation behavior may be partly attributable to author ignorance.Highlights
- The citation of flawed articles occurs at a rate nearly equal to that of corrected versions.
- The practice of correction and republication is only marginally effective and does not prevent the continued citation of flawed articles post-correction, with the analysis finding only a slight reduction in the citation of flawed articles after publication of the corrected version.
- Neither MEDLINE nor Web of Science consistently alert users when dealing with corrected and republished literature.
Implications
- The practice of correction and republication would be more effective if prominent sources of bibliographic information were more consistent in providing users with information about the status of corrected and republished articles and the existence of post-publication modifications to the literature.
- It is incumbent upon the scientific community to raise the profile of post-publication changes to the literature to prevent the wasteful and potentially tragic consequences of scientists and medical professionals applying flawed information. Failure to do so will surely result in a reduction of public trust in the reliability of the scientific literature and its users.
5.
Objectives:
This study sought to ascertain the publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Medical Library Association (MLA) for the years of 2002 and 2003. The secondary objectives were to examine possible reasons for non-publication and factors influencing publication.Methods:
A total of 442 abstracts from both meeting years, consisting of presented papers and posters, were examined. The 2 methods used to obtain a publication rate were literature searches and an online questionnaire sent to first authors. The questionnaire also asked abstract authors about reasons for non-publication and other factors that might have influenced their decisions about whether or not to submit the project for publication.Results:
The overall publication rate from the survey was 26.5%, and the publication rate found via literature searching was 27.6%. The most common reason given for non-publication was time restrictions. Also notable was the large proportion of abstracts written by librarians working at universities and those having 25 or more years in the library profession.Discussion:
Publication rates for abstracts presented at the Medical Library Association meetings for the years studied rank at the low end in comparison with other medical professional associations. Further research into factors affecting publication may reveal ways to increase this rate.Highlights
- Publication rates from posters and presentations at the Medical Library Association''s 2002 and 2003 annual meetings were estimated at less than 28.0% using data from an author survey and literature search. In contrast, a Cochrane systematic review of 79 similar biomedical research studies found a mean publication rate of 44.5%.
- Respondents listed time restrictions as their primary reason for not submitting their presentations for publication.
Implications
- Compared to biomedical conferences, relatively little of the information presented at Medical Library Association annual meetings is available as peer-reviewed evidence in the published literature.
- Each profession has different norms for the nature and style of information in presentations at meetings. The further presenters get from basic research, the more difficult it may be for them to conceptualize a presentation as a formal paper. Diverse publication rates between professions are likely to remain.
- Additional study could be aimed at further clarifying the reasons for non-publication and possible means to ameliorate them.
6.
- Open research infrastructure provides the building blocks of scientific progress, which must be available to everyone, with no barriers to access.
- Organizations enabling open research infrastructure must endorse these fundamental principles: equity, value, trust, interoperability, sustainability, and community governance.
- Finding ways to invite co‐creation and community participation engenders a strong sense of ‘buy‐in’ and is therefore essential to developing successful research infrastructure.
7.
The effect of publishing a highly cited paper on a journal's impact factor: A case study of the Review of Particle Physics 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Key points
- A more general and continuous form of ‘A short history of SHELX’ phenomenon has been found.
- The Review of Particle Physics (RPP) series, which is called the bible in the particle physics field, is highly cited by other research papers.
- The RPP phenomenon is found in different journals and is affected by the host journal's impact factor and publication size.
- The RPP phenomenon provides a big or small, but temporary, boost to its host journal's impact factor.
8.
Julian M. Bass 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(4):307-310
Key points
- Concepts from lean manufacturing and Kanban production can usefully be applied to writing for academic publication.
- Value and pull focus the author's attention on the needs of reviewers, editors, and readers.
- Value stream and flow emphasize an end‐to‐end process of prioritization, writing, editing, revision, resubmission, and publication
- Perfection places emphasis on publication quality.
- A Kanban board is advocated to plan and monitor the writing and publication lifecycle.
- The author's experience shows a steady improvement in output rankings and researcher reputation metrics over a four‐year period.
9.
Dean Hendrix 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2008,96(4):324-334
Objective:
The objective of this study was to analyze bibliometric data from ISI, National Institutes of Health (NIH)–funding data, and faculty size information for Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) member schools during 1997 to 2007 to assess research productivity and impact.Methods:
This study gathered and synthesized 10 metrics for almost all AAMC medical schools (n = 123): (1) total number of published articles per medical school, (2) total number of citations to published articles per medical school, (3) average number of citations per article, (4) institutional impact indices, (5) institutional percentages of articles with zero citations, (6) annual average number of faculty per medical school, (7) total amount of NIH funding per medical school, (8) average amount of NIH grant money awarded per faculty member, (9) average number of articles per faculty member, and (10) average number of citations per faculty member. Using principal components analysis, the author calculated the relationships between measures, if they existed.Results:
Principal components analysis revealed 3 major clusters of variables that accounted for 91% of the total variance: (1) institutional research productivity, (2) research influence or impact, and (3) individual faculty research productivity. Depending on the variables in each cluster, medical school research may be appropriately evaluated in a more nuanced way. Significant correlations exist between extracted factors, indicating an interrelatedness of all variables. Total NIH funding may relate more strongly to the quality of the research than the quantity of the research. The elimination of medical schools with outliers in 1 or more indicators (n = 20) altered the analysis considerably.Conclusions:
Though popular, ordinal rankings cannot adequately describe the multidimensional nature of a medical school''s research productivity and impact. This study provides statistics that can be used in conjunction with other sound methodologies to provide a more authentic view of a medical school''s research. The large variance of the collected data suggests that refining bibliometric data by discipline, peer groups, or journal information may provide a more precise assessment.Highlights
- Principal components analysis discovered three clusters of variables: (1) institutional research productivity, (2) research influence or impact, and (3) individual faculty research productivity.
- The associations between size-independent measures (e.g., average number of citations/article) were more significant than associations between size-independent bibliometric measures and size-dependent (e.g., number of faculty) bibliometric measures and vice versa, except in the case of total National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding.
- The factor coefficients, or loadings, for total NIH funding may associate more with the quality of research rather than the quantity of research.
- The removal of twenty outliers, fourteen highly productive or influential medical schools and six medical schools with relatively low research profiles, changed the results of the analysis significantly.
- This study''s broad institutional bibliometric data sets cannot be extrapolated to specific departments at the studied medical schools.
Implications
- Librarians, administrators, and faculty should use several methodologies in tandem with bibliometric data when evaluating institutions'' research impact and productivity.
- Health sciences librarians should not make use of university rankings materials lacking strong methodological foundations.
- This study''s bibliometric data may provide a starting point or point of comparison for future assessments.
10.
11.
George Kerscher 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(1):83-85
Key points
- Accessibility of publications in academia is a non‐negotiable legal requirement.
- The accessibility of your journal or other scholarly publication is the most important design consideration in your workflow.
- EPUB Accessibility 1.0 and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 provide a clear publishing pathway.
- Consider the readability chain: Any link can result in accessibility failure but an unbroken chain will benefit all readers.
12.
Objective: The research analyzes usage of a major biomedical library''s pre-1993 print journal collection.Methodology: In July 2003, in preparation for a renovation and expansion project, the Biomedical Library at the University of California, San Diego, moved all of its pre-1993 journal volumes off-site, with the exception of twenty-two heavily used titles. Patrons wishing to consult one of these stored volumes could request that it be delivered to the library for their use. In the spring of 2006, an analysis was made of these requests.Results: By July of 2006, 79,827 journal volumes published in 1992 or earlier had been requested from storage. The number of requests received declined with age of publication. The usage distribution exhibited a “long tail”: 50% of the 79,827 requests were for journal volumes published before 1986. The availability of electronic access dramatically reduced the chance that corresponding print journal volumes would be requested.Conclusions: The older biomedical print journal literature appears to be of continued value to the biomedical research community. When electronic access was provided to the older literature, demand for older print volumes declined dramatically.
Highlights
- Analysis of requests for stored biomedical journal volumes published prior to 1993 indicates that older biomedical journal literature receives substantial use: during this 3-year study, there were nearly 80,000 requests for journal volumes published in 1992 or earlier, with half the requests for volumes published from 1986–1992 and 40% of the request for volumes published from 1970–1985. These results indicate that retaining older print volumes, or providing easy access to the older literature through electronic journals or other means, will likely be required to meet user information needs.
- Use of older journal volumes varies by title and by user population, and a small number of journal titles were responsible for most of the use.
- Requests for older print biomedical journal titles dropped significantly when electronic access became available.
Implications
- Biomedical libraries should carefully consider implications of eliminating on-site access to older journal literature for users and budgets.
- Removing access to older journal literature may result in higher demand for interlibrary loan and document delivery services.
- Biomedical libraries can safely substitute reliable electronic access to older literature to meet ongoing needs for this information, thereby creating space for other purposes.
13.
14.
The journal impact factor (JIF) has been questioned considerably during its development in the past half-century because of its inconsistency with scholarly reputation evaluations of scientific journals. This paper proposes a publication delay adjusted impact factor (PDAIF) which takes publication delay into consideration to reduce the negative effect on the quality of the impact factor determination. Based on citation data collected from Journal Citation Reports and publication delay data extracted from the journals’ official websites, the PDAIFs for journals from business-related disciplines are calculated. The results show that PDAIF values are, on average, more than 50% higher than JIF results. Furthermore, journal ranking based on PDAIF shows very high consistency with reputation-based journal rankings. Moreover, based on a case study of journals published by ELSEVIER and INFORMS, we find that PDAIF will bring a greater impact factor increase for journals with longer publication delay because of reducing that negative influence. Finally, insightful and practical suggestions to shorten the publication delay are provided. 相似文献
15.
- Digital preservation will never be a solved problem: it needs constant reinvention, and is going to become harder over time.
- Scholarship is changing and this is affecting what needs to be preserved and what preservation means to the future of knowledge discovery.
- The diversification of outputs means that knowledge exists in a network of contextual metadata, data, software, standards and publications—requiring multilateral management of this complex knowledge graph.
- Preservation demands new skills, technologies and resources from librarians, publishers, funders and institutions—and more joined-up thinking about archiving.
16.
Francis Dodds 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(3):270-275
Key points
- This article marks the publication of the Tenth edition Clark's Publishing Agreements: A book of precedents.
- The growing complexity of traditional assignment agreements is accompanied by researchers’ misunderstanding about their rights.
- There is a shifting balance between assignment and licensing of rights in an author's work.
- Academics continue to agree standard assignment contracts even where they disagree with the principles.
- Publishers are loosening control over copyright in response to demands from funders and a growing minority of researchers.
- There is a complex range of researchers’ attitudes to copyright issues.
17.
Key points
- Instructions to authors about submitting papers for publication vary hugely – from none at all to whole handbooks.
- Online submission systems have not reduced the complexity of submission and may have increased the work of authors.
- Electronic submission processes do not appear to have been adequately ‘road tested’ with authors.
- Some publishers are introducing more flexible submission rules that may help authors.
18.
19.
- Peer review is used to evaluate research, including publications, scientific awards, and grant proposals, and there is a continuum of at least six approaches to review from completely closed, double‐blind review to fully‐open and citable peer review.
- It is getting harder to find suitable experts to serve as reviewers so publishers and others are experimenting with methods to incentivize researcher participation, with a growing interest in enabling citation of peer‐review activity as a component.
- A Working Group on Peer Review Service, facilitated by CASRAI, was created to develop a data model and citation standard for peer‐review activity that can be used to support both existing and new review models.
- Standardized citation structures for reviews can enable the inclusion of peer‐review activity in personal recognition and evaluation, as well the ability to refer to reviews as part of the scholarly literature.
20.
Yunrong Li Filippo Radicchi Claudio Castellano Javier Ruiz-Castillo 《Journal of Informetrics》2013,7(3):746-755
Wide differences in publication and citation practices make impossible the direct comparison of raw citation counts across scientific disciplines. Recent research has studied new and traditional normalization procedures aimed at suppressing as much as possible these disproportions in citation numbers among scientific domains. Using the recently introduced IDCP (Inequality due to Differences in Citation Practices) method, this paper rigorously tests the performance of six cited-side normalization procedures based on the Thomson Reuters classification system consisting of 172 sub-fields. We use six yearly datasets from 1980 to 2004, with widely varying citation windows from the publication year to May 2011. The main findings are the following three. Firstly, as observed in previous research, within each year the shapes of sub-field citation distributions are strikingly similar. This paves the way for several normalization procedures to perform reasonably well in reducing the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices. Secondly, independently of the year of publication and the length of the citation window, the effect of such differences represents about 13% of total citation inequality. Thirdly, a recently introduced two-parameter normalization scheme outperforms the other normalization procedures over the entire period, reducing citation disproportions to a level very close to the minimum achievable given the data and the classification system. However, the traditional procedure of using sub-field mean citations as normalization factors yields also good results. 相似文献