共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Has the challenge of unauthorized digital reproduction and distribution of copyright works been met by the use of so‐called ‘digital rights management’ (DRM) technology – and what role will DRM play in publishing, including scholarly journal and learned publishing? This article explores the legal and commercial issues surrounding DRM from its analogue origins through to the latest market developments. It argues that the implementation of DRM in other media sectors provides valuable lessons to publishers. Acknowledging the practical challenges that DRM has faced, the article suggests that whilst DRM will offer an answer to ‘the machine', it must form part of a flexible solution that adapts to the requirements of electronic publishing. 相似文献
2.
Toby Green 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):13-25
Progress to open access (OA) has stalled, with perhaps 20% of new papers ‘born‐free’, and half of all versions of record pay‐walled; why? In this paper, I review the last 12 months: librarians showing muscle in negotiations, publishers’ Read and Publish deals, and funders determined to force change with initiatives like Plan S. I conclude that these efforts will not work. For example, flipping to supply‐side business models, such as article processing charges, simply flips the pay‐wall to a ‘play‐wall’ to the disadvantage of authors without financial support. I argue that the focus on OA makes us miss the bigger problem: today’s scholarly communications is unaffordable with today’s budgets. OA is not the problem, the publishing process is the problem. To solve it, I propose using the principles of digital transformation to reinvent publishing as a two‐step process where articles are published first as preprints, and then, journal editors invite authors to submit only papers that ‘succeed’ to peer review. This would reduce costs significantly, opening a sustainable pathway for scholarly publishing and OA. The catalyst for this change is for the reputation economy to accept preprints as it does articles in minor journals today. 相似文献
3.
Sally Morris 《Learned Publishing》2005,18(2):115-126
There has been much debate recently about whether publishers' prices are too high, and what publishing a journal article really costs. Publication of the article in a journal is only one part of the cost of research communication; first of all there are the costs of research and writing, then the costs of peer review, editing and publication, and finally the costs of acquisition by the library, management, storage, reading by the end user and long‐term preservation. Several studies have been conducted of these different costs; the results are summarized and the potential impact, both on costs and on sources of funds, of moving to an alternative, ‘author‐funded’ open access model is considered. 相似文献
4.
5.
6.
Jill O'Neill 《Learned Publishing》2000,13(2):105-109
The journal impact factor, as a metric developed in the mid‐1960s by Dr Eugene Garfield and Dr Irving Sher, represents the influence that an ‘average article’ published in a specific journal has on the scholarly discipline and audience that it serves. Originally intended to serve as an equalizer for use by the Institute for Scientific Information® (ISI®) in making comparative evaluations of large and small journals in a particular discipline, the impact factor now has numerous applications for publishers, librarians, and researchers. Ideally, the journal impact factor should be seen by publishers as a useful tool in gauging the effectiveness of their publication product in serving the needs of a particular scholarly community. The significance of a journal impact factor, its appropriate usage by the scholarly publishing community and its extension into the electronic environment are discussed. 相似文献
7.
Surveys were carried out to learn more about authors and open access publishing. Awareness of open access journals among those who had not published in them was quite high; awareness of ‘self‐archiving’ was less. For open access journal authors the most important reason for publishing in that way was the principle of free access; their main concerns were grants and impact. Authors who had not published in an open access journal attributed that to unfamiliarity with such journals. Forty per cent of authors have self‐archived their traditional journal articles and almost twice as many say they would do so if required to. 相似文献
8.
David SHOTTON 《Learned Publishing》2009,22(2):85-94
Recent developments in Web technology can be used for semantic enhancement of scholarly journal articles, by aiding publication of data and metadata and providing ‘lively’ interactive access to content. Such semantic enhancements are already being undertaken by leading STM publishers, and automated text processing will help these enhancements become affordable and routine. Publisher, editor, and author all have primary roles in that process; an incremental approach is needed. Publication of data and metadata to the Web make possible added‐value ‘ecosystem services‘; semantic publishing will bring substantial benefits to scholarly communication. 相似文献
9.
Louisa Ha 《Learned Publishing》2003,16(3):193-199
This article re‐examines the economics of publishing scholarly journals and illustrates the dilemma of publisher identity and publication format with a case study of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication's Media Management and Economics division. The study investigates the perceived interest and demand for a society‐published journal for the field of media management and economics and the preferred format for that journal – print or online. Results showed a divided opinion on the support of a society‐published journal and no consideration of the benefits or harms of journal publishing to the society. The print journal, though a desirable format for authors, is deemed uneconomical. The online journal is viewed as a feasible publication outlet, but its status as a prestigious journal is doubtful. Applications of scholarly journal publishing and economic models to the case are discussed. 相似文献
10.
This article explores the evolution of the role of academic journal articles submitted to the UK's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). By reviewing their role, it is possible to see how the changes from quantitative to qualitative assessment (and the resulting problems surrounding the definition of ‘quality’ journals) has impacted both on the journals selected by academics for publishing their research and the assessment of them. Although only one part of RAE submissions, the listing of published research outputs provides the primary evidence for research quality to most RAE panels, and is a significant driver of the final grade awarded, and thus the funding received by submitting institutions. The RAE, being a peer‐reviewed assessment exercise, mirrors in some ways the peer‐review process immured within scholarly publication. The developing role of journal publications as a vehicle for academic research output is examined via the chronology of the RAE, before assessing the current situation in which published journal output formed almost 70% of all output assessed by RAE panels in the latest exercise. The impact of this increased importance of academic journals in the assessment process is considered not only for academics but also for the wider community, i.e. publishers and libraries. 相似文献
11.
12.
13.
Library‐led publishing is one of the new approaches to journal publishing and open access that has grown tremendously in the last few years. A 2010 IMLS‐funded survey found that 55% of respondents – from US academic libraries of all different types and sizes – were already implementing or developing a publishing program. Library‐led publishing has garnered such momentum because, by offering low‐ or no‐cost publishing to university scholars, it addresses needs that traditional publishing has not been able to meet. This article presents a series of small case studies to illustrate different journals that have benefited from the library‐publishing model: (i) a journal that struggled to find an affordable publisher in its emerging field; (ii) a small society journal that could no longer afford to support itself in print; (iii) society publications that go beyond the traditional journal format; and (iv) a student journal with a revolving editorial board. 相似文献
14.
John W T Smith 《Learned Publishing》1999,12(2):79-91
The limitations of existing proposed and operational publishing models intended to replace the academic journal are briefly reviewed. Three ‘insights’ are described, the first is into the ‘means/end’ confusion of much current net-based publishing activity, the second is that it is the purpose, not the form, that is the important aspect of the traditional academic journal model, and the third is that satisfactory net-based publishing models need not contain a central publisher. From this new viewpoint is developed the Deconstructed Journal (DJ) model which it is suggested is a better model for network based academic publishing. It also solves some of the problems of the current model. Although the main focus of the DJ model is the replacement of the STM journal it has implications for all areas of academic journal publishing. 相似文献
15.
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.
16.
This questionnaire-based case study investigated non-Anglophone readers’ perceptions of a ‘periphery’ online English language teaching journal. Findings showed respondents (n = 37) regarded its policy of publishing ‘alternative voice’ non-standard academic papers as acceptable. Although seen as a research conduit for and by new periphery academics, some requested impact factor indexing whilst recognizing the journal’s qualitative features. Contrasted with studies showing conservative perceptions by journal reviewers on academic writing, non-Anglophone readers were more open-minded to non-standard language use. It is argued then that the findings and methodology from this small-scale study may resonate with other studies into new online periphery journals. 相似文献
17.
This study investigates attitudes to ‘lay’ or ‘plain‐English’ summaries of open access (OA) journal articles in the context of engaging the public with medical research. It places lay summaries in the wider contexts of patients' information‐seeking behaviour and OA publishing activities. It reports the results of qualitative research involving two stakeholder groups: employees of organizations with a stake in communicating OA medical research to the public, and members of the public who have experience of accessing online medical research. It shows that patient access to the research literature is seen as one of a number of important sources of information that can help them manage their health conditions as ‘informed patients‘. However, accessing the literature was reported to be problematical, particularly because of paywalls, and there were also difficulties in using it, including language barriers. Lay summaries were seen to make a helpful contribution to improving patient access to information. There is, however, a clear need to gather more evidence about the costs and benefits of such an approach and also on the potential ways in which OA can create benefits for the general public. 相似文献
18.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2022,48(1):102481
The issue of ‘predatory publishing’, and indeed unscholarly publishing practices, affects all academics and librarians around the globe. However, there are some flaws in arguments and analyses made in several papers published on this topic, in particular those that have relied heavily on the blacklists that were established by Jeffrey Beall. While Beall advanced the discussion on ‘predatory publishing’, relying entirely on his blacklists to assess a journal for publishing a paper is problematic. This is because several of the criteria underlying those blacklists were insufficiently specific, excessively broad, arbitrary with no scientific validation, or incorrect identifiers of predatory behavior. The validity of those criteria has been deconstructed in more detail in this paper. From a total of 55 criteria in Beall's last/latest 2015 set of criteria, we suggest maintaining nine, eliminating 24, and correcting the remaining 22. While recognizing that this exercise involves a measure of subjectivity, it needs to advance in order to arrive – in a future exercise – at a more sensitive set of criteria. Fortified criteria alone, or the use of blacklists and whitelists, cannot combat ‘predatory publishing’, and an overhaul of rewards-based academic publishing is needed, supported by a set of reliable criteria-based guidance system. 相似文献
19.
Vanessa LAFAYE 《Learned Publishing》2008,21(1):58-62
‘Innovation’ is one of those words, like ‘challenge', which inspires different reactions in different people. Depending on one's background or job sector, it can either represent an exciting opportunity or a resource‐draining waste of time. Yet innovate we must, to satisfy our markets' increasing expectations, especially in the online environment. Some brand leaders have separate ‘laboratories’ where new features and ideas are developed and floated for feedback. In the absence of such a dedicated space, there are several issues relating to innovation within a publishing organization. This article looks at how these are handled at Wiley–Blackwell in the Compass journals team, and tries to distil some working principles. 相似文献
20.
Francis Dodds 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(2):163-168
Key points
- Concerns about a crisis in monograph publishing date back to at least the 1990s, and for traditional journal publishing at least a decade.
- Two key trends behind concerns over book and journal models are pressures on funding and the emergence of open access.
- Despite predictions of a revolution, the academic publishing sector has proved remarkably resilient in adapting to market changes.
- Whilst showing some support for ‘open science’, even early career researchers remain committed to traditional publishing models.
- The growth in scholarly collaboration networks and in sharing across traditional boundaries is the more likely disrupter of traditional publishing.