共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 906 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.
David Nicholas Anthony Watkinson Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Jie Xu Abdullah Abrizah Marzena Świgoń Eti Herman 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(2):157-166
Early career researchers (ECRs) are of great interest because they are the new (and biggest) wave of researchers. They merit long and detailed investigation, and towards this end, this overarching paper provides a summary of the first‐year findings of a 3‐year, longitudinal study of 116 science and social science ECRs who have published nearly 1,200 papers and come from 7 countries and 81 universities. ECRs were interviewed in their own languages face‐to‐face, by Skype, or telephone. The study focused on the attitudes and behaviours of ECRs with respect to scholarly communications and the extent to which they are adopting new and disruptive technologies, such as social media, online communities, and Open Science. The main findings include: publishing in high‐impact factor journals is the only reputational game in town; online scholarly communities, and ResearchGate in particular, are gaining ground; social media are beginning to have an impact, especially in the dissemination arena; outreach activities have become more important; libraries are becoming increasingly invisible to ECRs; Open Science is not gaining traction; and more transformational ideas are being expressed, especially in the US and UK. 相似文献
3.
David Nicholas Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Anthony Watkinson Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Eti Herman Jie Xu Abdullah Abrizah Marzena Świgoń 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(3):205-217
This study presents findings from the first year of the Harbingers research project, a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. The study recruited 116 science and social science ECRs from seven countries who were subject to in‐depth interviews, and this paper reports on findings regarding publishing and authorship practices and attitudes. A major objective was to determine whether ECRs are taking the myriad opportunities proffered by new digital innovations, developing within the context of open science, open access, and social media, to publish their research. The main finding is that these opportunities are generally not taken because ECRs are constrained by convention and the precarious employment environment they inhabit and know what is best for them, which is to publish (in high impact factor journals) or perish. 相似文献
4.
Early career experiences of navigating journal article publication: Lessons learned using an autoethnographic approach 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 The successful publication of peer reviewed academic journal articles is an essential achievement for early career researchers (ECRs) seeking to establish themselves in their profession. However, this journey can pose several significant challenges for ECRs. We use an autoethnographic approach that draws deeply on our lived experience as ECRs to capture our recent and current experiences of negotiating the academic journal article publication journey to explore the tensions, contradictions, and benefits encountered in the journey. We critically examine challenges we experienced in choosing a target journal and negotiating the follow‐up process; undertaking revisions; and our experiences of limitations and possibilities in peer review and editorial support. While the peer review journal writing process has played a significant role in supporting us to become more effective ECRs, we also highlight challenges we faced negotiating ethical quandaries in this space, as well as illustrate how our preconceptions of a simple publication journey were confounded by subsequent experience of the complex realities of the space. We also suggest that educational interventions are indicated to provide ECRs support in foundational knowledge about what constitutes valuable revisions, an effective paper, and the scope of issues that can be addressed to make a paper more effective, with reference to the possibility of academic mentoring to support this need. Finally, we explore our findings in light of the tensions imposed by the relative inexperience and lack of power yielded by ECRs. 相似文献
5.
Owen KULEMEKA 《Learned Publishing》2014,27(4):301-313
This study examined the views of advertising academics regarding the peer‐review process in English‐language advertising journals. Three issues were examined. First, how do advertising academics assess the peer‐review process in advertising journals on the following dimensions: fairness, anonymity (truly double‐blind), timeliness, and effectiveness in improving the quality of research? Second, how do they perceive the ethicality of review process behaviors? Third, what steps do they suggest for improving the quality or integrity of the peer‐review process? Data was collected through a survey of US‐based advertising academics. The findings reveal that advertising academics believe that, for the most part, advertising journals are succeeding at fairness, protecting anonymity, improving the research of submitters, and avoiding ethical infractions in the review process. However, advertising academics would like to see improvements in timeliness as well as in incentives and guidelines provided to participants in the peer‐review process. 相似文献
6.
David Nicholas Anthony Watkinson Abdullah Abrizah Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Jie Xu Marzena
wigo&#x; Eti Herman 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(2):132-141
A study from the Harbingers research project provides a comprehensive assessment of the main features of the scholarly communications system as viewed by early career researchers (ECRs) in the final year of the study (2018). Aspects covered are: discovery and access, authorship practices, peer review, publishing strategies, open access publishing, open data, sharing, collaboration, social media, metrics, impact, reputation, libraries, publishers, and scholarly transformations. Nearly 120 science and social science researchers from seven countries were questioned about these 16 aspects. It was found that some scholarly features work well for ECRs, and in this category can be included: discovery and access, authorship practices, sharing, collaboration, and publishers. Reputation, publishing strategies, and impact are more problematical, and they, in turn, cause tensions regarding some other factors – social media, open access, and open data. Of the rest, libraries are largely invisible, and ECRs have conflicting views concerning ethical behaviour. Few envisage that transformational change will take place in the next 5 years. 相似文献
7.
David Nicholas Anthony Watkinson Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Jie Xu Abdullah Abrizah Marzena
wigo&#x; David Clark Eti Herman 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(3):237-247
This article provides the final results of a 3‐year study that sought to discover whether early career researchers (ECRs) were the harbingers of change with respect to scholarly communications. Over a hundred science and social science ECRs from seven countries, spanning three continents, were depth‐interviewed annually for 3 years (2016–2018) about their attitudes and behaviours with respect to 23 scholarly issues and activities (aspects). In order to provide an accessible overarching assessment of an extremely large and complex dataset, the interview data were categorized according to the strength and direction of change exhibited and the trends and points of interest raised. Results show that all ECRs have changed in one way or another, and a small minority has changed greatly in both attitude and practice and that collaboration and research impact are the scholarly aspects where most changes have occurred, and the greatest cause of change is not so much new technology as a change of jobs. 相似文献
8.
David Nicholas Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Jie Xu Anthony Watkinson A. Abrizah Eti Herman Marzena Świgoń 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(1):19-29
This article presents findings from the first year of the Harbingers research project started in 2015. The project is a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs) to ascertain their current and changing habits with regard to information searching, use, sharing, and publication. The study recruited 116 researchers from seven countries (UK, USA, China, France, Malaysia, Poland, and Spain) and performed in‐depth interviews by telephone, Skype, or face‐to‐face to discover behaviours and opinions. This paper reports on findings regarding discovery and access to scholarly information. Findings confirm the universal popularity of Google/Google Scholar. Library platforms and web‐scale discovery services are largely unmentioned and unnoticed by this user community, although many ECRs pass through them unknowingly on the way to authenticated use of their other preferred sources, such as Web of Science. ECRs are conscious of the benefits of open access in delivering free access to papers. Social media are widely used as a source of discovering scholarly information. ResearchGate is popular and on the rise in all countries surveyed. Smartphones have become a regularly used platform on which to perform quick and occasional searches for scholarly information but are only rarely used for reading full text. 相似文献
9.
Yanping LU 《Learned Publishing》2008,21(4):307-318
Journal reviewers' understanding and expectations of peer review, their incentives to take on the task, and the reasons why they sometimes declined were explored through a questionnaire survey, with particular attention to potential differences between education, physics, and chemistry. Eighty‐four senior researchers from 27 Australian universities, who had served as reviewers in education, physics, and chemistry, returned a completed questionnaire. There were significant variations in reviewers' expectations and understanding of reviewing, mostly related to seniority rather than discipline. They valued peer review as a way of maintaining the quality of science publications, and were generally satisfied with the current system; their impression of peer review's effectiveness was significantly correlated with their own experience. They saw reviewing as a professional obligation and part of their personal professional development. The most frequently mentioned reasons for declining to review were lack of expertise and lack of time. 相似文献
10.
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.
11.
学术期刊开放同行评议(open peer review, OPR)内涵丰富,审稿流程多变。为了探讨OPR的开放层次,提出了OPR多层次模块化分解与组合思路,以期为学术期刊探索适合自身的OPR制度提供理论依据。运用模块化方法将OPR全流程的开放环节解构为3层,再进行组合;最后采用案例分析法对出版商和学术期刊实施的多种OPR制度进行分析。经模块化解构,先得到要素层的OPR功能模块;其次得到单刊实施层的7个开放子模块:众包审稿、开放指定审者权限、审者身份公开、原稿预出版、评议报告公开、开放互动和出版后期刊评议;再自单刊实施扩展至产业链实施层,得到刊群/多主体实施层的3个开放子模块:审稿外包、期刊间的评议报告转移和出版后外部评论;进而组合成OPR多层次模块化开放体系。多案例分析结果表明,各种OPR均可视为上述开放子模块的单一或不同组合形式。所提出的学术期刊OPR多层次模块化思想扩展了OPR概念外延,为显性理解OPR多变流程开辟了新途径,为OPR分类阐明了新思路,为学术期刊选择OPR制度并定制审稿流程提供了有益建议。 相似文献
12.
Quality scholarly research outputs, such as peer reviewed journal articles published in reputable journals, are essential for early career researchers' (ECRs) vocational success while also offering benefits for their institutions. Research outputs destined for audiences beyond academia are also increasingly valued by funders, end users, and tertiary institutions. While there is an expectation that ECRs may create diverse research outputs for an array of audiences, the kinds of research output texts produced by ECRs for varied audiences warrants further investigation. In addition, the routes of dissemination that ECRs use to share their academic research outputs to secure impact beyond academia are not well understood. Drawing on semi‐structured interviews of 30 respondents in Australia and Japan, we explore the research‐sharing practices of ECRs, finding that ECRs may potentially create a wide range of research‐informed texts for end users beyond academia, using an array of methods for dissemination. The examples of the output text types and dissemination routes we provide in this paper can be used to inspire ECRs and also more senior academics to share their research more broadly, and perhaps more effectively, and can be used by publishers to improve research impact and support ECRs' research translation. 相似文献
13.
[目的/意义] 探讨开放同行评议（OPR）对期刊论文的引文及社会关注度的影响。[方法/过程] 采用描述性统计及配对样本非参数检验方法，比较OPR与非OPR期刊在期刊年龄、SCI年龄、国别、出版周期、开放存取、评审透明度级别、论文引文及社会关注度指标上的差异，探索期刊一般特征对OPR期刊论文引文及社会关注度指标的影响，检验OPR期刊论文引文与社会关注度指标间的相关关系。[结果/结论] OPR期刊论文有显著的引文与社会关注度优势。国别对引文指标有显著影响，出版周期对引文及社会关注度均有显著影响。OPR期刊论文的引文指标与社会关注度指标显著正相关。 相似文献
14.
One of the most important issues facing scholarly communication today is what constitutes quality in the publishing and dissemination of research findings; the aim of this exploratory research study was to investigate author‐perceived quality characteristics of science, technology and medicine journals. We triangulated data from a small number of volunteer full‐time faculty members of Long Island University, using three different research techniques: (1) questionnaire survey, (2) focus groups, and (3) semi‐structured face‐to‐face interviews. The study identified some significant differences by discipline, gender, and tenure status. Overall, the three most important attributes were the reputation of the journal, the estimated length of time to article publication, and the readership of the journal. Our findings bring new insight into this area for the scholarly research community as a whole. 相似文献
15.
David Nicholas Chrifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Jie Xu Eti Herman David Clark Abdullah Abrizah Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Marzena
wigo&#x; 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(2):147-153
The Harbinger project was a 3‐year‐long international study of the changing attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers (ECRs). One of the aims of the project was to discover if ECRs were adopting disrupting platforms that, legitimately or illegitimately, promote openness and sharing. It has been alleged that such an adoption appeals to them as Millennials. More than 100 ECRs from seven countries were questioned annually, and questions about Sc‐Hub were raised as part of discussions about discovery and access. Interview data were supplemented by desk research and Google Trends statistics. It was found that Sci‐Hub use was increasing and that a quarter of the ECRs now use it, with French ECRs being the biggest users. However, Sci‐Hub is making little headway with ECRs from the UK, USA, Malaysia, and China, although in China's case, this can be explained by it being banned and the country having its own equivalent, www.91lib.com . Sci‐Hub is used as much for convenience as necessity; use is not connected to the strength of library provision and and it has been suggested that it represents a bigger threat to publishers than ResearchGate, whose star might be waning. 相似文献
16.
David NICHOLAS Anthony WATKINSON Hamid R. JAMALI Eti HERMAN Carol TENOPIR Rachel VOLENTINE Suzie ALLARD Kenneth LEVINE 《Learned Publishing》2015,28(1):15-21
The article presents one of the main findings of an international study of 4,000 academic researchers that examined how trustworthiness is determined in the digital environment when it comes to scholarly reading, citing, and publishing. The study shows that peer review is still the most trustworthy characteristic of all. There is, though, a common perception that open access journals are not peer reviewed or do not have proper peer‐review systems. Researchers appear to have moved inexorably from a print‐based system to a digital system, but it has not significantly changed the way they decide what to trust. They do not trust social media. Only a minority – although significantly mostly young and early career researchers – thought that social media are anything other than more appropriate to personal interactions and peripheral to their professional/academic lives. There are other significant differences, according to the age of the researcher. Thus, in regard to choosing an outlet for publication of their work, young researchers are much less concerned with the fact that it is peer reviewed. 相似文献
17.
18.
Ulrich Pschl 《Learned Publishing》2004,17(2):105-113
Many scientific publications are careless, useless or false, and inhibit scholarly communication and scientific progress. This is caused by the failure of traditional journal publishing and peer review to provide efficient scientific exchange and quality assurance in today's highly diverse world of science. The most promising way to improve matters is a two‐stage (or multi‐stage) publication processes with interactive peer review and public discussion in new and traditional scientific journals. A concept for such interactive scientific journals is outlined, and its applicability is demonstrated by the open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 相似文献
19.
20.
David Nicholas Hamid R. Jamali Eti Herman Anthony Watkinson Abdullah Abrizah Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Jie Xu Marzena
wigo&#x; Tatiana Polezhaeva 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(3):198-211
This article describes an international study informed by a 3‐year‐long qualitative longitudinal project, which sought to discover the scholarly communication attitudes and behaviour of early career researchers (ECRs). Using a combination of small‐scale interviews and a larger‐scale survey, ECRs were questioned on their searching and reading behaviour, publishing practices, open data, and their use of social media. Questionnaire invitations were sent out via publisher lists, social media networks, university research networks, and specialist ECR membership organizations. One‐thousand and six‐hundred responses were received, with many coming from China, Russia, and Poland. Results showed that ECRs are adopting millennial‐facing tools/platforms, with Google, Google Scholar, social media, and smartphones becoming embedded in their scholarly activities. Open data sharing obtains widespread support but somewhat less practice. There are some differences in attitudes and behaviour according to age and subject specialism. 相似文献