共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 812 毫秒
1.
David Nicholas Anthony Watkinson Abdullah Abrizah Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Jie Xu Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Marzena Świgoń Eti Herman 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(3):249-253
Key points
- Early career researchers (ECRs) consider journals the central form of communication – but are concerned about pressure to publish.
- ECRs want to share but currently accept the closed publishing system because of the need to build a traditional reputation.
- ECRs know – and appear to care – little about publishers but trust them as publishing and reviewing facilitators.
- Editors are criticized for not managing peer review with better selection of reviewers.
- Megajournals are not seen as the future journal form and criticized for lack of selectivity.
- ECRs want open access/science in principle but are circumspect about their contribution to it.
- ResearchGate is a key force for change as ECRs consider it a mainstay communication and reputation platform.
2.
Key points
- The UK policy landscape supports access for the users whilst allowing publishers to maintain business models.
- Advancements such as EPUB 3, aligning publishing with web technologies, and the Inclusive Publishing hub help publishers reach accessibility compliance.
- Print impairment is not an on/off switch, and each reader has his or her own unique set of requirements – a fact that is supported by EPUB 3.
- The time is ripe for publishers to make firm commitments to accessibility initiatives.
3.
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.
4.
Rebecca Kennison 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(1):69-71
Key points
- Scholarly communication – with the exception of traditional (e.g. blind and double‐blind) peer review – prizes the open exchange of ideas.
- The aim of peer review should be engagement, not judgement.
- Reviews that improve the quality of a work and thus advance the field are not merely service to the community, but contributions to existing scholarship, and need to be rewarded accordingly; an open and transparent review process is the first step in enabling such reviews to be properly recognized.
5.
Bo‐Christer Björk 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(2):173-175
6.
David Brown 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(3):237-243
Key points
- Trends point to increased democratization within STEM, driven by open access, Internet delivery, and digital natives.
- The current journal publishing system does not meet the needs of researchers who want timely access to the latest results.
- Demographic and sociological changes are likely to undermine the inherent conservatism of STEM.
- Traditional STEM systems ignore the latent market of knowledge workers, but new information services do not.
- Radical approaches to STEM are required if we are to respond to the ‘perfect storm’ of changing needs and expectations.
7.
8.
Key points
- Twenty years ago, a fraction of articles were paired with supplements; now, one in five research stories go beyond PDF.
- Why has the evolution of research content's delivery vehicles lagged behind the evolution of the research story?
- Hyperlinked in‐line references are the most used feature of the Enhanced PDF – exposing faster, easier ways to follow the path of research.
- Discovery need not start and end with the search engine – it can start within the PDF itself.
- Discovery is not a solitary process; therefore, content platforms must support collaboration to drive readership.
9.
Alison Baverstock 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(1):65-68
Key points
- Although ‘peer review’ has quasi‐sacred status, times are changing, and peer review is not necessarily a single and uniformly reliable gold standard.
- For publishers, peer review is a process not an outcome.
- Academics understand peer review, but are often ignorant about the quality checking mechanisms within wider publishing.
- Self‐publishing has led to the much wider availability of publishing services – these now being used by all stakeholders in publishing.
- How should universities evaluate comment and ideas that were first disseminated within a non‐academic market?
- Rather than an upper house, is peer review today more of a galley kitchen?
10.
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.
11.
Lack of critical thinking skills leading to research crisis in developing countries: A case of Pakistan 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Sarwat Nauman 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(3):233-236
Key points
- Increasing funding for research may not improve the quality of research.
- Pakistan is investing heavily in research with commensurate increases in publications.
- Pakistan's increase in article output is not being matched with increased quality – is this due to a fundamental problem with critical thinking skills?
- All developing countries need to focus on critical thinking skills to realize the best use of their research funding.
12.
Fiona Murphy 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(1):51-53
Key points
- Technological advances in the amounts of data that researchers generate and use are causing problems for the scholarly communication system.
- How, when and by whom should quality checks and assurance be integrated into this – already overloaded – ecosystem?
- This paper outlines the challenges, illustrates some current initiatives and posits possible directions for the future.
13.
Sneha Kulkarni 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(3):211-213
Key points
- Peer review, the cornerstone of academic publishing, has come under a lot of criticism for its flaws and has been manipulated by both authors and editors.
- Lack of review transparency is a contributing factor to peer review problems.
- Pressure to publish – among authors and journals – is adding to peer review problems.
- Technology can help maintain review integrity, although editorial vigilance remains key.
14.
We've failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach 下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Toby Green 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(4):325-329
Key points
- Sci‐Hub has made nearly all articles freely available using a black open access model, leaving green and gold models in its dust.
- Why, after 20 years of effort, have green and gold open access not achieved more? Do we need ‘tae think again’?
- If human nature is to postpone change for as long as possible, are green and gold open access fundamentally flawed?
- Open and closed publishing models depend on bundle pricing paid by one stakeholder, the others getting a free ride. Is unbundling a fairer model?
- If publishers changed course and unbundled their product, would this open a legal, fairer route to 100% open access and see off the pirates?
15.
Janet A Crum 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2011,99(4):290-296
Objectives:
The purposes of this study were: to determine the number of articles requested by library users that could be retrieved from the library''s collection using the library catalog and link resolver, in other words, the availability rate; and to identify the nature and frequency of problems encountered in this process, so that the problems could be addressed and access to full-text articles could be improved.Methods:
A sample of 414 requested articles was identified via link resolver log files. Library staff attempted to retrieve these articles using the library catalog and link resolver and documented access problems.Results:
Staff were able to retrieve electronic full text for 310 articles using the catalog. An additional 21 articles were available in print, for an overall availability rate of nearly 80%. Only 68% (280) of articles could be retrieved electronically via the link resolver. The biggest barriers to access in both instances were lack of holdings and incomplete coverage. The most common problem encountered when retrieving articles via the link resolver was incomplete or inaccurate metadata.Conclusion:
An availability study is a useful tool for measuring the quality of electronic access provided by a library and identifying and quantifying barriers to access.Highlights
- Lack of holdings, including access to recent articles restricted by embargoes, was the most common barrier to locating full text, accounting for over 90% of all identified problems.
- Availability rates for electronic articles varied by year of publication and by the database in which the OpenURL request originated.
- Link resolver error rates varied widely based on the source of the request and frequently resulted from incomplete or inaccurate metadata.
Implications
- An availability study is an inexpensive, practical tool for assessing the quality of electronic access to journal articles.
- The results of an availability study can help libraries identify barriers to access and thereby allocate limited resources to areas that will provide the most benefit to users.
- Link resolvers might be more accurate if the quality of metadata in OpenURLs was improved and the behavior of full-text targets was standardized.
- Collection and acquisition problems: The library may not subscribe to the desired journal, or the article and/or journal may be unavailable for some other reason.
- Cataloging and holdings problems: The journal may be cataloged or indexed incorrectly, or the library''s holdings data may be wrong.
- Technical problems: Problems may occur with the journal provider''s site or the library''s proxy server.
- gather actual user requests (or simulate them)
- try to fill those requests using the same tools and methods a user would use
- record what happens
- analyze the results
16.
How publishing has helped and hindered me: Experiences and advice from a blind reader and publisher 下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 George Abbott 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(1):79-82
Key points
- Braille remains a relevant technology for access.
- Properly structured content is vital for ease of understanding, as are correctly labelled links and action buttons.
- Accessibility has hugely improved in the past 30 years but remains a fragile benefit, relying on stringent adherence to standards.
17.
Quan‐Hoang Vuong 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(1):64-68
Key points
- Societies face increasing pressure to contain costs and retain revenues, which are threatened by open access mandates.
- Funders and other science publishing campaigns need to recognize the value of learned societies and work with them to sustain the production of quality knowledge.
- Self‐publishing via preprint servers may threaten the quality of academic research.
- Societies can reinforce their value proposition through a model of academic entrepreneurship, including research activities, media engagement, and consultancy.
18.
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.
19.
Rick Anderson 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(3):215-218
Key points
- U.S. university OA policies are far less mandatory than those in the U.K.
- The waiver clauses in U.S. university policies make it easy for authors to decline making their articles OA.
- The relative autonomy – and competitiveness – of U.S. universities may be the reason for weaker OA policies.
- OA in the U.S. is likely to be driven by government funding agency policies rather than by academia.
20.
David Thew 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(4):283-290
Key points
- Most employers offer skill‐based training, but formal mentoring programmes are rare.
- Training tends to be responsibility‐specific and organization‐centric, with fast‐tracking of stand‐out individuals.
- Cross‐organizational mentoring can be more objective and multidisciplinary and support publishers’ needs for innovation.
- Mentoring programmes usually focus on early careers, and there is little support for senior publishing professionals.
- All professional development requires engagement from all parties – no pull without push!