共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 250 毫秒
1.
Not so different after all: Malaysian researchers' cross‐discipline view of quality and trustworthiness in citation practices 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Abdullah Abrizah David Nicholas Abdullah Noorhidawati M. K. Yanti Idaya Aspura Fathiah Badawi 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(3):165-172
This paper reports a survey on citation behaviour of Malaysian researchers. It is part of a wider study gauging quality and trustworthiness in scholarly communication in the emerging digital environment. The survey questionnaire was distributed between 1 October 2014 and 31 January 2015. A total of 391 respondents, from four research areas (humanities, life sciences, physical sciences, and social sciences) completed the questionnaire. The finding indicated that motivations for citing were complex and multi‐faceted, but in all four disciplines, researchers cite a work because they regard it as an authoritative and trustworthy source, which provides a context or building block to their own research. Although researchers have moved from a print‐based system to a digital one, it has not significantly changed the way they decide what to trust. Peer reviewed journals are still the most influential. Open access journals will be cited if they have been peer reviewed. Citing on the basis of high altmetrics and other social judgements, such as mentions, likes, and use, was not prevalent. Measures of establishing trust and authority do not seem to have changed profoundly in Malaysia. 相似文献
2.
David NICHOLAS Eti HERMAN Hamid JAMALI Blanca RODRÍGUEZ‐BRAVO Cherifa BOUKACEM‐ZEGHMOURI Tom DOBROWOLSKI Stephanie POUCHOT 《Learned Publishing》2015,28(3):169-183
The article reports on a study of the views and actions of nearly a hundred scholars – mostly academic researchers from four European countries and four disciplines – in regard to scholarly reputation in the Science 2.0 age. It specifically looks at the role that 'emerging reputational mechanisms and platforms are playing in building, maintaining, and showcasing scholarly reputation in the digital age. Popular examples of such platforms are ResearchGate and Academia.edu . Data were obtained through one‐to‐one interviews and focus groups, supported by desk research. The main findings were: (a) it is early days and uptake is light and patchy with platforms largely used for non‐reputational purposes, such as sharing documents; (b) most users were passive and did not fully engage with the social aspects of the platforms; (c) the reputational focus was very much on just one scholarly activity (research), on just two outputs of that activity (publications and conferences) and one measurement of that activity (citations), but there are the stirrings of change; (d) young researchers are set to profit most from the emerging platforms. 相似文献
3.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2020,46(5):102187
The COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to a flood of papers and preprints, has placed multiple challenges on academic publishing, the most obvious one being sustained integrity under the pressure to publish quickly. There are risks of this high volume-to-speed ratio. Many letters, editorials, and supposedly “peer reviewed” papers in ranked and indexed journals were published in a matter of days, suggesting that peer review was either fleeting or non-existential, or that papers were rapidly approved by editors based on their perceived interest and topicality, rather than on their intrinsic academic value. In academic publishing circles, the claim of “peer review”, when in fact it has not been conducted, is a core characteristic of “predatory publishing”, and is also a “fake” element that may undermine efforts in recent years to build trust in science's budding serials crisis. While the world is still centrally focused on COVID-19, the issue of “predatory publishing” is being ignored, or not being given sufficient attention. The risks to the scholarly community, academic publishing and ultimately public health are at stake when exploitative and predatory publishing are left unchallenged. 相似文献
4.
Saskia C. J. DE VRIES 《Learned Publishing》2007,20(3):196-201
The Internet has been a huge success in the academic world, as it makes it possible for academics to share and find research materials; open access has therefore become a fact of life for academic publishing. But what is the role of publishers in this new environment? The key functions of publishing – organizing peer review, editorial support, graphic design, marketing, and distribution of academic information – do not just disappear; publishers still have a role here, but they need to take a more service‐minded perspective. Academics still need to find ways to ensure the dissemination of their output; it is important that they realize that this will cost money, whether it is brought in‐house or outsourced. The IMISCOE project, on which Amsterdam University Press has recently embarked, offers an entirely new publishing model oriented towards online dissemination of academic research results, as well as in book form. 相似文献
5.
Xiang REN 《Learned Publishing》2013,26(3):197-205
A growing number of online journals and academic platforms are adopting light peer review or ‘publish then filter’ models of scholarly communication. These approaches have the advantage of enabling instant exchanges of knowledge between academics and are part of a wider search for alternatives to traditional peer review and certification processes in scholarly publishing. However, establishing credibility and identifying the correct balance between communication and scholarly rigour remains an important challenge for digital communication platforms targeting academic communities. This paper looks at a highly influential, government‐backed, open publishing platform in China: Science Paper Online, which is using transparent post‐publication peer‐review processes to encourage innovation and address systemic problems in China's traditional academic publishing system. There can be little doubt that the Chinese academic publishing landscape differs in important ways from counterparts in the United States and Western Europe. However, this article suggests that developments in China also provide important lessons about the potential of digital technology and government policy to facilitate a large‐scale shift towards more open and networked models of scholarly communication. 相似文献
6.
David NICHOLAS Anthony WATKINSON Rachel VOLENTINE Suzie ALLARD Kenneth LEVINE Carol TENOPIR Eti HERMAN 《Learned Publishing》2014,27(2):121-134
The paper provides the results of the first phase of the research project Trust and Authority in Scholarly Communications in the Light of the Digital Transition. It provides for an examination of the behaviours and attitudes of academic researchers as producers and consumers of scholarly information resources in the digital era in respect to how they determine authority and trustworthiness in the sources they use, cite, and publish in. The first phase of the study utilized focus groups to formulate research questions for the project as a whole. It provided the direction for the literature review, interviews, and questionnaires studies that would follow. Fourteen focus groups were held in the UK and US in order to obtain this information. A total of 66 science and social science researchers participated. The main findings were: (a) researchers play down difficulties of establishing trustworthiness, not because there are none, but because they have well‐developed methods of establishing trust; (b) citation‐derived metrics are becoming more important in regard to where researchers publish; (c) social media are ancillary to research, but are used for promotion of research and idea generation; (d) researchers are suspicious and confused about open access, but less so if produced by a traditional publisher; (e) there was a uniformity of perceptions/behaviour of researchers irrespective of differences in subject, country, and age; (f) although some early career researchers behave the same as their more senior colleagues this is because of a fear of the system: they actually think differently. 相似文献
7.
《Library & information science research》2014,36(3-4):192-202
In an increasingly digital environment, many factors influence how academic researchers decide what to read, what to cite, where to publish their work, and how they assign trust when making these decisions. This study focuses on how this differs according to the geographical location of the researcher, specifically in terms of the country's level of development. Data were collected by a questionnaire survey of 3650 authors who had published articles in international journals. The human development index (HDI) was used to compare authors' scholarly behavior. The findings show that researchers from less developed countries such as India and China (medium HDI) compared to those in developed countries, such as the USA and UK (very high HDI) are more reliant on external factors and those criteria that are related to authority, brand and reputation, such as authors' names, affiliation, country and journal name. Even when deciding where to publish, the publisher of the journal is more important for developing countries than it is for researchers from the US and UK. Scholars from high HDI countries also differ in these aspects: a) they are less discriminatory than authors from developing countries in their citation practices; b) for them the fact that a source is peer reviewed is the most important factor when deciding where to publish; c) they are more negative towards the use of repositories and social media for publishing and more skeptical about their potential for increasing usage or reaching a wider audience. 相似文献
8.
Over 660 Chinese researchers were questioned about their scholarly use, citing, and publishing and how trust is exercised in these key activities. Research showed few signs of new forms of scholarly usage behaviour taking hold, despite multiple opportunities afforded by Science 2.0 developments. Thus, for determining trustworthiness for usage purposes, the most important activity was reading the abstract. In terms of citations, citing the seminal source was the most common activity. In contrast, citing non‐peer reviewed sources, such as the social media, was not thought acceptable. For publishing, relevance to the field was the most important factor when choosing a place to publish. Comparisons were made with a study of 3650 international researchers, which employed the same methods and questions. The main differences between Chinese and international researchers were that the former (a) rated abstracts more highly, (b) took into account impact factors more when citing and publishing and (c) were much more likely to be influenced by institutional directives when placing their articles. 相似文献
9.
[目的/意义] 信任是社交媒体和用户之间的桥梁,但频发的隐私侵犯事件常使社交媒体陷入信任危机。因此,在隐私侵犯后,如何重建用户信任至关重要。[方法/过程] 回顾信任修复相关研究,基于社交媒体隐私侵犯的具体情境构建信任修复的四元结构模型,通过调查问卷搜集有效问卷324份,并使用PLS-SEM和fsQCA进行探讨和验证。[结果/结论] 研究结果发现,社交媒体的行动修复策略和政府介入的净效应显著,社交媒体的言语修复策略和技术第三方的净效应不显著。但经fsQCA的组合分析发现,社交媒体言语修复和技术第三方可以与其他变量一起触发高强度信任修复,此外,分析结果中的8种高信任修复的前因变量组合可以为隐私侵犯后的信任修复策略提供参考。 相似文献
10.
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?
11.
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
12.
Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo David Nicholas Eti Herman Chérifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Anthony Watkinson Jie Xu Abdullah Abrizah Marzena Świgoń 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(4):269-277
This paper presents selected findings from the first year of a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. Specifically, the aims of the paper are to show: (1) how much experience and knowledge ECRs had of peer review – both as authors and as reviewers; (2) what they felt the benefits were and what suggestions they had for improvement; (3) what they thought of open peer review (OPR); and (4) who they felt should organize peer review. Data were obtained from 116 science and social science ECRs, most of whom had published and were subject to in‐depth interviews conducted face‐to‐face, via Skype, or over the telephone. An extensive literature review was also conducted to provide a context and supplementary data for the findings. The main findings were that: (1) most ECRS are well informed about peer review and generally like the experience, largely because of the learning experiences obtained; (2) they like blind double‐peer review, but would like some improvements, especially with regards to reviewer quality; (3) most are uncomfortable with the idea of OPR; and (4) most would like publishers to continue organizing peer review because of their perceived independence. 相似文献
13.
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.
14.
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
15.
Peer review is well established across most academic disciplines, and publishers, editors, and researchers devote considerable resources to it. This paper uses examples from biomedical journals to examine its shortcomings. Although mainly anecdotal, the evidence suggests that peer review is sometimes ineffective at identifying important research and even less effective at detecting fraud. Most reviewers identify only the minority of a paper's defects and they may be biased. Peer review plus other editorial processes are associated with improvements in papers between submission and publication, but published papers remain hard to read and a significant proportion contain errors or omissions. While it is hard to quantify the costs, peer review does not seem an efficient use of resources. Research into the outcomes of peer review, the establishment of sound methods for measuring the quality of the process and its outcomes, and comparisons with alternative methods are needed. 相似文献
16.
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
17.
《Government Information Quarterly》2023,40(1):101775
Government social media has been integrated as part of the government administrative tools to improve public service and promote public goals. However, the current government information literature is limited to understanding government social media adoption and its purpose for political marketing. The present study seeks to understand the role of government social media in promoting government digital initiatives (i.e., government-backed digital currency). The study validated the inter-relationships between government social media effort, privacy concerns, trust in technology, reachability, and citizens' participation in government-initiated digital innovations. A total of 505 responses from Chinese citizens were collected through an online self-administered questionnaire survey, and the data was submitted to a two-stage Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling-Artificial Neural Network analysis. The analytic results revealed that privacy concerns, trust in technology, and reachability positively influence digital participation. In addition, the information quality and perception of trust in government social media have significant positive influences on government social media engagement. The study provides strategic practical suggestions to government agencies in effectively utilizing social media as a communication platform to foster citizens' participation in government's digital initiatives. 相似文献
18.
对12名35岁以下在美国杜克大学肿瘤研究所学习的公派留学人员进行访谈,了解他们对中国科技期刊学术论文的阅读、写作和引用情况,探察他们对于中国科技期刊的真实认知。结果发现,青年一代的医学科研人员对于中国科技期刊有“三不”的态度倾向,即不阅读、不写作、不引用,对于中国科技期刊的认知片面,存在轻视、误解和偏见。急需扭转这种不利于我国科技期刊发展的态势,引导青年一代的医学科研人员树立健康的科研价值观,期刊也要提升学术质量和品牌声誉,做好营销,助力科研人员重拾科技文化自信。 相似文献
19.
由于高校学报来稿研究领域广泛、涵盖学科众多、稿源范围综合等特点,所需审稿专家范围广且重复度较低,“审稿难”问题日益凸显。作为高校学报骨干力量的青年编辑,通常需要专业基础扎实、思维活跃、应变能力强。本文结合自身工作,从青年编辑特点和优势出发,有针对性地提出了一些措施,从熟悉专业、抓住机会、修炼自身等几个方面,阐述如何发挥青年编辑优秀,提高高校学报审稿效率。 相似文献
20.