共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 109 毫秒
1.
Vicky Williams 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(3):207-209
2.
Sabrina J. Ashwell Patricia K. Baskin Stacy L. Christiansen Sara A. DiBari Annette Flanagin Tracy Frey Racquel Jemison Mia Ricci 《Learned Publishing》2023,36(1):94-99
- Inclusive language will make scholarly publishing more accurate and more respectful, and it has the potential to help authors reach a wider audience.
- JAMA and the JAMA Network journals, the American Chemical Society and the Coalition for Diversity and Inclusion in Scholarly Communications have free guides on inclusive language, formatting and images.
- The guides provide principles and rationale, as well as examples of preferred language, in order to equip people with knowledge to choose the most inclusive words even as terminology preferences change.
3.
- 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.
4.
Haseeb Md. Irfanullah 《Learned Publishing》2021,34(1):57-63
- Resilience in the publishing industry can be viewed through a framework of assessing five capitals or assets: human, social, physical, financial, and natural capital.
- A resilient system requires four properties: robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity, and scholarly publishing can be seen to have some element of each.
- The ability to thrive in adversity and bounce back is not found in all parts of the publishing system, with those in the Global South disproportionately disadvantaged.
- The positive changes introduced in the past year need to be retained and elements of inequality and exclusion removed to ensure future resilience and sustainability.
5.
Key points
- The term ‘predatory journal’ hides a wide range of scholarly publishing misconduct.
- The term ‘predatory journal’ unhelpfully bundles misconduct with poor quality.
- The term ‘predatory journal’ blinds us to important possibilities, needs, and questions arising in the developing scholarly landscape.
- The current scholarly publishing environment cannot rely on such a simplified classification of journals into predatory or not.
6.
Julie G. Kosteniuk Debra G. Morgan Carl K. D'Arcy 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2013,101(1):32-37
Objectives:
The research determined (1) the information sources that family physicians (FPs) most commonly use to update their general medical knowledge and to make specific clinical decisions, and (2) the information sources FPs found to be most physically accessible, intellectually accessible (easy to understand), reliable (trustworthy), and relevant to their needs.Methods:
A cross-sectional postal survey of 792 FPs and locum tenens, in full-time or part-time medical practice, currently practicing or on leave of absence in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan was conducted during the period of January to April 2008.Results:
Of 666 eligible physicians, 331 completed and returned surveys, resulting in a response rate of 49.7% (331/666). Medical textbooks and colleagues in the main patient care setting were the top 2 sources for the purpose of making specific clinical decisions. Medical textbooks were most frequently considered by FPs to be reliable (trustworthy), and colleagues in the main patient care setting were most physically accessible (easy to access).Conclusions:
When making specific clinical decisions, FPs were most likely to use information from sources that they considered to be reliable and generally physically accessible, suggesting that FPs can best be supported by facilitating easy and convenient access to high-quality information.Highlights
- Medical textbooks were the most popular information source for family physicians'' (FPs'') clinical decision-making purposes, and medical journals were the most popular information source for the purpose of updating FPs'' general medical knowledge.
- FPs considered medical textbooks to be the most reliable (trustworthy) source, colleagues the most physically accessible, and continuing medical education the most relevant and intellectually accessible.
- The lowest ranked information sources across all four attributes were personal digital assistants, mental health professionals, pharmaceutical sales representatives, and other decision aids.
Implications
- The most popular information sources for clinical decision-making purposes among FPs were sources characterized as reliable and generally physically accessible.
- This study suggests the need for further research into interventions that target information access barriers in FPs'' practice settings and the promotion of reliable evidence for FPs'' clinical decision-making purposes.
7.
Violaine Iglesias 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(1):49-54
Key points
- Convergence of international standards has made requirements for accessible multimedia content clearer.
- Legal and commercial pressure for accessible content is mounting for higher education institutions (HEIs) and publishers as highlighted by recent high‐profile settlements in North America.
- Accessibility requirements for multimedia can be met by setting realistic, progressive goals and focusing resources on key content.
- Multimedia accessibility benefits range from wider audiences and increased user engagement to greater discoverability and improved search engine optimization.
- Vendors are ramping up their offerings for accessible production, and costs are going down.
8.
Paul Kudlow Alan Rutledge Aviv Shachak Roger S. McIntyre Gunther Eysenbach 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(2):125-129
- With over 6,000 new peer‐reviewed articles published daily, scholarly content providers face growing challenges of reaching their target audience.
- There are few evidenced‐based strategies for disseminating online scholarly content to a targeted audience.
- TrendMD increased weekly page views by 49% relative to baseline traffic for a group of articles published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.
- Future studies are needed to determine how article page views correlate with other article‐level metrics such as Altmetric scores and citations.
9.
Madeleine Rothberg 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(1):45-47
Key points
- Publishers should layer on the right standards to create accessible publications.
- Accessible publications have accessible content at the core, wrapped in semantic structure, and topped off with accessible metadata.
- Resources to help publishers implement accessibility in their programmes are available.
10.
Tom Hill 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(4):421-422
Key points
- Digital Science's paper is one of the first looking at the application of blockchain technology in scholarly publishing.
- Wholesale use of blockchain technologies is suggested as a possible replacement for scholarly publishers.
- There remain questions around the adoption of blockchain technologies, including privacy, researcher support, and fraudulent use.
- Blockchain technologies may provide a new means of understanding problems and customers' evolving expectations, but careful consideration is required of whether blockchain is the best solution.
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.
Brad Turner 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(1):25-29
Key points
- Bookshare is the world's largest library of accessible titles provided to members and through special agreements.
- Dyslexia is often forgotten as an impediment to access but must be accounted for within accessible publications.
- Certification of accessibility provides confidence for purchasers and a marketing tool for publishers.
- Accessibility requires multiple routes to access, on different platforms and in different formats.
- Accessible artworks need particular attention, and this is often lacking in ‘accessible’ publications.
13.
Making materials accessible to students in higher education institutes: Institutional obligations,methods of compliance,and recommendations for future action 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Jamie Axelrod 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(1):39-44
Key points
- Current publishing restrictions cause duplicated – and wasted – effort to delivery of accessible information to students.
- Universities have a legal obligation to provide access, but this is not required from publishers.
- Initiatives to support access are helpful, but do not completely resolve the accessibility problems.
14.
Benjamin MUDRAK 《Learned Publishing》2015,28(2):147-149
- As a result of the considerable (and growing) number of scholarly journals, it is difficult for authors to find the best place for their research, even as many journals face challenges in finding new submissions.
- JournalGuide ( www.journalguide.com ) is a free tool that matches user‐inputted keywords or text to article metadata and returns journals that have recently published similar work.
- Users can then compare information about these journals and make an informed decision about where to submit.
15.
Objectives:
Standards for evaluating evidence-based medicine (EBM) point-of-care (POC) summaries of research are lacking. The authors developed a “Critical Appraisal for Summaries of Evidence” (CASE) worksheet to help assess the evidence in these tools. The authors then evaluated the reliability of the worksheet.Methods:
The CASE worksheet was developed with 10 questions covering specificity, authorship, reviewers, methods, grading, clarity, citations, currency, bias, and relevancy. Two reviewers independently assessed a random selection of 384 EBM POC summaries using the worksheet. The responses of the raters were then compared using a kappa score.Results:
The kappa statistic demonstrated an overall moderate agreement (κ = 0.44) between the reviewers using the CASE worksheet for the 384 summaries. The 3 categories of evaluation questions in which the reviewers disagreed most often were citations (κ = 0), bias (κ = 0.11), and currency (κ = −0.18).Conclusions:
The CASE worksheet provided an effective checklist for critically analyzing a treatment summary. While the reviewers agreed on worksheet responses for most questions, variation occurred in how the raters navigated the tool and interpreted some of the questions. Further validation of the form by other groups of users should be investigated.Highlights
- Few critical appraisal tools have been evaluated with inter-rater reliability testing.
- The ways that users of evidence-based medicine (EBM) point-of-care (POC) tools interpret how to appraise an evidence summary—particularly when defining the grading of evidence, currency, and bias—may vary even when a standard evaluation sheet is used.
- The Critical Appraisal for Summaries of Evidence (CASE) worksheet had a moderate level of inter-rater reliability, similar to previous evaluative studies of critical appraisals tools.
Implications
- Medical librarians can develop tools useful for librarians, students, and clinicians to guide them in appraising clinical evidence summaries.
- The CASE worksheet can be a valuable tool to consider the quality of individual evidence summaries and to see patterns of overall quality in EBM POC tools.
16.
Margaret WINKER 《Learned Publishing》2015,28(2):143-145
- Post‐publication peer review (PPPR) has not achieved its promise and potential.
- Few articles receive PPPR – even those in high‐profile journals.
- PPPR is difficult to find and needs to be linked to the original article.
- Academics require recognition if they are to contribute their time to PPPR.
- Improving PPPR would improve the scholarly corpus.
17.
Anne‐Katharina Weilenmann 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(3):219-221
Key points
- Publishing is fixated on the format of the scholarly article, and this is stifling innovation.
- Content should be presented in a way that adapts dynamically to the reader's needs.
- A lot of interdisciplinary research is needed to transform reading, writing, and publishing processes.
18.
Objective:
The research sought to establish a rubric for evaluating evidence-based medicine (EBM) point-of-care tools in a health sciences library.Methods:
The authors searched the literature for EBM tool evaluations and found that most previous reviews were designed to evaluate the ability of an EBM tool to answer a clinical question. The researchers'' goal was to develop and complete rubrics for assessing these tools based on criteria for a general evaluation of tools (reviewing content, search options, quality control, and grading) and criteria for an evaluation of clinical summaries (searching tools for treatments of common diagnoses and evaluating summaries for quality control).Results:
Differences between EBM tools'' options, content coverage, and usability were minimal. However, the products'' methods for locating and grading evidence varied widely in transparency and process.Conclusions:
As EBM tools are constantly updating and evolving, evaluation of these tools needs to be conducted frequently. Standards for evaluating EBM tools need to be established, with one method being the use of objective rubrics. In addition, EBM tools need to provide more information about authorship, reviewers, methods for evidence collection, and grading system employed.Highlights
- Eleven of the fourteen previous evidence-based medicine (EBM) tool evaluations were based on clinicians evaluating tools based on their perception of the products'' ability to answer a clinical question.
- EBM tools'' evidence summaries are not updated as often as products claim.
- Although many EBM tools claim to be evidence based, only 74% of the 70 evaluated treatment summaries included graded evidence.
Implications
- To offer the best tools for users, medical libraries should evaluate EBM resources regularly, including the quality of the evidence provided.
- Medical librarians have a role to play in evaluating the quality of EBM products and can develop assessment tools to aid in this evaluation.
19.
20.
《Slavic & East European Information Resources》2013,14(1):13-28
Abstract Some North American scholars believe that libraries on their continent lack adequate indexes and other finding aids to identify scholarly publications and primary resources from Slavic and East European countries. In the belief that such materials can be located only by using esoteric finding aids, they may overlook the major Western subject bibliographies and indexes for the humanities and social sciences. In addition, during the past decade an increasing number of research library catalogs in North America, Europe and Eurasia have become accessible electronically to scholars around the world. The author here lists and describes bibliographic databases which can be of value to a search for Slavic — and East European language research materials in the social sciences and humanities. Many of these tools can be found even in smaller North American academic libraries. 相似文献