共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
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?
2.
Making materials accessible to students in higher education institutes: Institutional obligations,methods of compliance,and recommendations for future action 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Jamie Axelrod 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(1):39-44
Key points
- Current publishing restrictions cause duplicated – and wasted – effort to delivery of accessible information to students.
- Universities have a legal obligation to provide access, but this is not required from publishers.
- Initiatives to support access are helpful, but do not completely resolve the accessibility problems.
3.
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
4.
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.
5.
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!
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
9.
Jacob Wilcock 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(2):173-179
Key points
- Publishers must think of their websites as marketing tools as well as content delivery systems.
- The five major strategies of content marketing are promotion, personalization, targeting, consumerization, and analysis and optimization.
- Publishers must treat readers as customers, not simply as end users.
- Content marketing is about the environment in which content exists, as well as the form that it takes.
- To compete with pirate sites, publishers need to provide a richer user experience.
- Content marketing benefits authors and readers as well as publishers.
- Readers want the same enjoyable user experience and tailored content on all sites they visit.
- Content marketing can increase site traffic, lengthen visits, boost revenues, thwart piracy, and heighten brand impact.
10.
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.
11.
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.
12.
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.
13.
Key points
- A clear set of rules regarding authorship responsibilities in academic publications is much needed.
- The leading research integrity guidelines on scientific authorship, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations, are unclear about authorship responsibilities in case of misconduct.
- The source of the problem is the fourth authorship criterion – it should be revised.
14.
Tom HILL 《Learned Publishing》2015,28(1):59-62
- New publishing models lead to new players – not all of them good.
- No commonly accepted criteria aid scholars to select ‘good’ journals.
- Journals (and publishers) need to assert their good practice.
- How do publishers serve their different customers – readers, authors, reviewers, and the public?
15.
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.
16.
17.
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.
18.
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.
19.
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.
20.
- A group of UK-based learned societies were anonymously interviewed to understand how trends are affecting their missions, strategies, and operations.
- The societies' missions focus on supporting academics and disseminating knowledge, with publishing being a means to achieve those goals rather than an end in itself.
- The responses were concerned about addressing open access (OA) but, particularly in the post-COVID-19 era, this was not necessarily their highest priority.
- The societies expressed reliance on larger corporate publishers on them to navigate the transition to OA publishing.
- The societies' focus is on evolving their missions to meet the changing needs of their academic communities, with issues around premises as a result of COVID-19 being more pressing than publishing industry changes.
- The societies face challenges in adapting to the shift to online and digital operations, particularly in regards to maintaining engagement with their members.