共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Hamid R. Jamali David Nicholas Anthony Watkinson Abdullah Abrizah Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Jie Xu Tatiana Polezhaeva Eti Herman Marzena
wigon 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(2):142-152
This article reports on the findings of an international online survey of early career researchers (ECRs) with regard to their authorship and peer review, attitudes, and practices, which sought to discover how the new wave of researchers were utilizing these key aspects of the scholarly communications system. A questionnaire was developed on the back of a 3‐year longitudinal, qualitative study and was distributed through publisher lists, social media networks, university networks, and specialist ECR membership organizations. Identical English, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Spanish, and French versions of the questionnaire were used. Results from 1,600 respondents demonstrated that 82.7% had co‐authored a paper, and most had performed a variety of authorship tasks. Almost half the respondents reported being subject to various authorship policies, although a quarter said they were not aware of any such policies. Almost all Chinese ECRs reported being subject to authorship policies, but only a third of UK ECRs reported the same. Three‐quarters of ECRs had experience in responding to peer review, and half had been peer reviewers. Half the respondents had a good experience of review and viewed it as a valuable way to improve their authorship skills. However, there was some criticism of some shortcoming such as lengthy peer review and superficial or uninformed comments by reviewers. Double‐blind review was the preferred methodology, and there were few suggestions for how to improve the review process. 相似文献
2.
3.
Most of the researchers collaborating with different institutions and involved in a number of international projects would be happy to have only one place where information about their academic activity could be stored, and everyone around the world could check it in a transparent way. In mid‐2013 to early 2014, an online survey of researchers was conducted, and 8,554 fully completed questionnaires were analysed. The respondents represent all age and experience groups, fields of science, and continents in different proportions. The aim of this article is to discuss the topics touched upon in the survey: methods and software used by researchers to manage the list of their activities; outputs recorded by researchers, institutions, and the outputs which should not be part of an academic record according to the respondents; whom researchers entrust with the management of their public profile and the most important attributes that could make an author identification and academic record storage system attractive for researchers. 相似文献
4.
Book editors in the social sciences and humanities: an analysis of publication and collaboration patterns of established researchers in Flanders 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Book editors in the social sciences and humanities play an important role in their fields but little is known about their typical publication and collaboration patterns. To partially fill this gap, we compare Flemish editors and other researchers, in terms of career stage, productivity, publication types, publications with domestic and international collaboration as well as the number of (international or all) unique co‐authors, co‐editors and associated book chapter authors. The results show that editors are mostly established researchers, especially in the social sciences, produce more book chapters and monographs than do other researchers, and are more productive. Nevertheless, editors collaborate less than do other researchers, both in terms of publications and in number of co‐authors. Including book chapter authors in the editors' collaboration networks makes those networks substantially larger, demonstrating that editors do not mainly call upon authors from their existing collaboration network when choosing book chapter authors in the edited books. Finally, editors seem to co‐author with their book chapter authors slightly more often after the publication of the edited book than before. 相似文献
5.
评述国内外编辑团体出版的各项道德规范,从重复发表、一稿多投、剽窃、未公开的利益冲突、作者署名、数据造假、研究伦理7个方面,比较国际出版道德委员会(COPE)、国际医学期刊编辑委员会(ICMJE)、欧洲科学编辑学会(EASE)制定的道德规范的异同.分析表明:3家机构制定的学术道德规范形式不同,内容各有侧重,但影响力还有提升空间;中国制订科技期刊编辑出版道德规范时应借鉴国内外的成功经验,甄别出期刊编辑关心的核心问题,采用适合的内容和形式,制订符合中国学术出版生态的编辑实践指南;在指南出台后,应积极进行推广培训,切实应用于学术出版中. 相似文献
6.
7.
8.
Tove Faber Frandsen 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):57-62
Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publication, and consequently, predatory journals are feared to be a threat to the credibility of science as they perform no or low‐quality peer review. The question of why researchers decide to publish in a questionable journal remains relatively unexplored. This paper provides an overview of the existing literature on why researchers decide to publish papers in questionable journals, specifically whether or not they search for a low‐barrier way to getting published while being aware that the chosen journal probably does not adhere to acceptable academic standards. The choice of a publication outlet can be seen as a submission tree that consists of various incentives, and explaining why authors publish in deceptive journals may thus consist of a combination of awareness and motivational factors. Awareness and motivation of diligent authors is very different from that of unethical authors. Unethical authors may use a lack of awareness to excuse their actions, but they may actively search for a low‐barrier way to getting published. As there are different types of authors who publish in deceptive journals, we need different approaches to solve the problem. 相似文献
9.
Jie Xu Chen He Jing Su Yuanxiang Zeng Zixian Wang Fei Fang Wenhui Tang 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(3):246-258
This paper reports the results of a survey on Chinese researchers' perceptions and use of open access journals (OAJs). A total of 381 Chinese researchers from different universities and disciplines were investigated through an online questionnaire survey in August and September 2018. The results showed that most Chinese researchers are familiar with and have positive attitude to OAJs. They know OAJs mainly through their peers, colleagues, and friends. PubMed Central, PLoS, and COAJ (China Open Access Journals) are the most well‐known OAJ websites among Chinese researchers. As for use, most of the respondents read and cite OAJs frequently and have experience of publishing in OAJs. However, they strongly prefer to use OAJs indexed in reputable databases (e.g. Web of Science, WoS) when making publishing decisions. Significant differences can be seen among disciplines, with researchers in HSS areas using OAJs less frequently than researchers from other disciplines, although they have the same positive attitudes and are equally well informed about them. Younger researchers preferred to rely on prestigious institutions and authors when using OAJs. 相似文献
10.
11.
Since its inception in 2007, Springshare's LibGuides has become a popular content management system (CMS) with academic libraries. The challenges of managing LibGuides content through a cohesive content strategy have not been well documented. The researchers conducted a survey of academic libraries that were using the LibGuides platform in Fall 2019 to determine how institutions are managing content challenges. Of 120 respondents, only 53% of the respondents indicated that their institutions had content guidelines that LibGuides authors were expected to follow. The top three most observed elements of these content guidelines were page design (80%), content reuse policies (77%), naming conventions (73%), and navigation (3%). 15% of respondents' institutions did not review guides once they were published. Of those that reviewed guides post-publication, authors (84%) most frequently reviewed their own guides. These findings imply that LibGuides are largely cared for on an honour system. Guidelines tend towards quantifiable elements and omit more abstract concepts. 相似文献
12.
Ludo Waltman 《Journal of Informetrics》2012,6(4):700-711
There are different ways in which the authors of a scientific publication can determine the order in which their names are listed. Sometimes author names are simply listed alphabetically. In other cases, authorship order is determined based on the contribution authors have made to a publication. Contribution-based authorship can facilitate proper credit assignment, for instance by giving most credits to the first author. In the case of alphabetical authorship, nothing can be inferred about the relative contribution made by the different authors of a publication.In this paper, we present an empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Our analysis covers all fields of science. We find that the use of alphabetical authorship is declining over time. In 2011, the authors of less than 4% of all publications intentionally chose to list their names alphabetically. The use of alphabetical authorship is most common in mathematics, economics (including finance), and high energy physics. Also, the use of alphabetical authorship is relatively more common in the case of publications with either a small or a large number of authors. 相似文献
13.
Patricia M. Sias 《Communication Studies》2013,64(4):375-395
This study examined the extent to which the amount and quality of work‐related information employees received was associated with the quality of their relationships with peer co‐workers and their immediate supervisors. Results indicated that supervisor–subordinate relationship quality was positively related to both the amount and quality of information employees received from their immediate supervisor. In addition, employees’ proportions of information peer relationships were negatively related, and their proportions of collegial peer relationships were positively related, to the quality of information they received from their co‐workers. Regression analyses also indicated that the quality of information employees received from their supervisors and co‐workers was positively related to their job satisfaction and commitment to the organization. 相似文献
14.
Verity Warne 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(1):41-50
In July 2015, Wiley surveyed over 170,000 researchers in order to explore peer reviewing experience; attitudes towards recognition and reward for reviewers; and training requirements. The survey received 2,982 usable responses (a response rate of 1.7%). Respondents from all markets indicated similar levels of review activity. However, analysis of reviewer and corresponding author data suggests that US researchers in fact bear a disproportionate burden of review, while Chinese authors publish twice as much as they review. Results show that while reviewers choose to review in order to give back to the community, there is more perceived benefit in interacting with the community of a top‐ranking journal than a low‐ranking one. The majority of peer review training received by respondents has come either in the form of journal guidelines or informally as advice from supervisors or colleagues. Seventy‐seven per cent show an interest in receiving further reviewer training. Reviewers strongly believe that reviewing is inadequately acknowledged at present and should carry more weight in their institutions' evaluation process. Respondents value recognition initiatives related to receiving feedback from the journal over monetary rewards and payment in kind. Questions raised include how to evenly expand the reviewer pool, provide training throughout the researcher career arc, and deliver consistent evaluation and recognition for reviewers. 相似文献
15.
16.
Melanie Ramdarshan Bold 《Publishing Research Quarterly》2013,29(1):73-92
This paper gives a detailed overview of contemporary authorship in Scotland through the analysis of interviews with and a survey of Scottish authors. These results are compared to previous studies to highlight the changing nature of authorship over the years. Both the survey and interview results paint a pessimistic picture of authorship in the twenty-first century, with the majority of authors earning very little from their writing and depending on alternative avenues to improve their income. Additionally, Scottish authors are not benefiting from the numerous new platforms to exploit their work through, which could help to enhance their income. This is partly because many Scottish authors still have a traditional view of publishing and do not think about their work commercially, and partly because, in many cases, their rights are controlled by their publishers and not widely exploited. This survey also found that Scottish authors with London literary agents earned more income than their counterparts with Scottish agents; however, this was mainly because they were more likely to be published with London publishers. This shows that Scottish publishers are failing their authors by not fostering their rights efficiently and effectively: fostering these rights more effectively could help supplement authors’ income. 相似文献
17.
Javier Gómez-Ferri Gregorio González-Alcaide Ramón LLopis-Goig 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(4):100980
Increasing levels of collaboration constitute one of the characteristics of science. However, the knowledge production system is based on a fundamental discordance: on the one hand, it is cooperative in nature, with links articulated through coauthorships, and on the other, the systems for assigning merit and distributing rewards function on an individual scale. This contradiction can give rise to dysfunction and inappropriate practices.This study analyses researchers’ perceptions about the problems associated with authorship in scientific publications. We make use of a coauthorship dissatisfaction index that measures the degree of dissatisfaction with the author order on the byline, ghost authors, and unjustified authorship. There are differences in this regard according to the branch of knowledge, status in the academic hierarchy, and sex. Using a sample of 2344 university researchers, we observed an overall dissatisfaction rate of 12.4%. The highest rates were in the areas of Health Sciences and Social Sciences, in early-stage career academics, and in women. The cognizant authorities should take steps to regulate authorship, tailoring rules to each area of knowledge, with an eye toward reducing discrimination, gender bias, and abuse of authority. 相似文献
18.
《期刊图书馆员》2013,64(3):127-138
Will current pressure for faculty members to publish in order to achieve promotion and tenure affect authorship patterns in the library literature? A survey of articles in twelve library journals between 1973 and 1982 showed a steady increase in the percentage written by academic librarians. The range here was from 28 to 42 percent. The yearly distribution in each of the journals was documented for academic librarian authors and for the size of the library they represented. The productivity of these authors ranged from one to fourteen articles each. Seventy-eight percent of the librarians published only one article in this sample. The sample size of 357 libraries was divided into five classes ranging from smallest, with holdings of less than 100,000 volumes, to largest, with holdings of one million and more volumes. As might be expected, more authors came from the larger libraries and indications are that academic authors will continue to increase their share of authorship in general library journals. 相似文献
19.