共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
Witold Kieńć 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(2):125-131
This article analyses attitudes of academic authors toward open access (OA) and the frequency of choosing OA publication venues. The research looks particularly at differences between authors based in countries with a gross domestic product per capita less or greater than US$18,000 (called periphery and core countries, respectively). The data were obtained with an online survey sent to 107,296 scholars listed on the mailing lists belonging to De Gruyter Open from December 2015 to January 2016. A total of 1,012 responses were received. Authors from the periphery countries publish their articles in gold OA more often and they also pay OA publication fees equally often as those based in the core countries. The reasons for that are complex, involving both their preference to publish in OA and the composition of the publishing market in the periphery. 相似文献
2.
对104个高校人文社会科学学报的数据采集,探索现阶段高校学报的本校科研人员发文情况,并分析其对高校学报影响力的影响。研究表明：高校学报的本校科研人员发文比率在20%—60%之间;985或211高校、具有社科博士点高校学报更倾向于刊发本校作者的论文;从区域上来看,华东、华北、东北的高校学报更倾向于刊发本校作者的论文;CSSCI 和非 CSSCI 高校学报在本校科研人员发文占比上差异不显著;高校学报的本校科研人员发文占比并未显著影响学报的影响力。 相似文献
3.
Serhat Kurt 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(2):141-147
This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK. Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency. Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals. 相似文献
4.
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
5.
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
6.
7.
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
8.
Jean-Pierre V. M. Hérubel 《Learned Publishing》2023,36(2):164-170
Academic book and journal publishing constitutes the majority focus of university presses. Besides commercial scholarly publishers, academic scholars and researchers view the opportunities provided by university presses as important venues for the dissemination of their research. This discussion focuses on the disciplinary imperative to publish scholarship that is ever more fluid and specialized as academic disciplines continue to become further nuanced in their response to the increasing knowledge produced by humanities and social science inquiry. The focus is on university presses and not commercial scholarly presses, although constitute a significant locus of scholarly publishing. What are the general characteristics of academic specialization and university press publishing? Further, how is disciplinary fluidity, especially evolving specialization, reflected in university press book publishing nomenclature and how scholarship is tied to the intellectual preoccupations of academic specialization? Multi- and inter-disciplinarities further articulate disciplinary publishing, accelerating disciplinary fluidity. Examples from disciplinary and emerging configurations of disciplinary nomenclature utilized by university presses offers insight into specialization and publishing. Academic history publishing is used to illustrate newly emerging fluid disciplinary configurations. 相似文献
9.
《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
10.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2023,49(4):102746
PurposeThis mixed-methods study integrates bibliometric and altmetric investigation with a qualitative method in order to assess the prevalence and societal-impact of Open-Access (OA) publications, and to reveal the considerations behind researchers' decision to publish articles in closed and open-access.Design/methodology/approachThe bibliometric-altmetric study analyzed 584 OA and closed publications published between 2014 and 2019 by 40 Israeli researchers: 20 from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) and 20 from SSH (Social Sciences and Humanities) discipline. We used a multistage cluster sampling method to select a representative sample for the STEM disciplines group (engineering, computer science, biology, mathematics, and physics), and for the SSH disciplines group (sociology, economics, psychology, political science, and history). Required data were extracted from Scopus and Unpaywall databases, and the PlumX-platform. Among the 40 researchers who were selected for the bibliometric-altmetric study, 20 researchers agreed to be interviewed for this study.FindingsComparing bibliometrics and altmetrics for the general publications did not reveal any significant differences between OA and closed publications. These were found only when comparing OA and closed publications across disciplines. STEM-researchers published 59 % of their publications in OA, compared to just 29 % among those in SSH, and they received significantly more bibliometric and altmetric citations from SSH OA publications and from their own closed-access publications. The altmetrics findings indicate that researchers are well acquainted and active in social media. However, according to the interviewees, there is no academic contribution for sharing research findings on social-media; it is viewed as a “public-service”. Researchers' primary consideration for publishing in closed or OA was the journal impact-factor.Research limitations/implicationsOur findings contribute to the increasing body of research that addresses OA citations and societal-impact advantages. The findings suggest the need to adopt an OA-policy after a thorough assessment of the consequences for SSH disciplines. 相似文献
11.
Do academic journals favor authors who share their institutional affiliation? To answer this question we examine citation counts, as a proxy for paper quality, for articles published in four leading international relations journals during the years 2000–2015. We compare citation counts for articles written by “in-group members” (authors affiliated with the journal’s publishing institution) versus “out-group members” (authors not affiliated with that institution). Articles written by in-group authors received 18% to 49% fewer Web of Science citations when published in their home journal (International Security or World Politics) vs. an unaffiliated journal, compared to out-group authors. These results are mainly driven by authors who received their PhDs from Harvard or MIT. The findings show evidence of a bias within some journals towards publishing papers by faculty from their home institution, at the expense of paper quality. 相似文献
12.
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
13.
This study examines the role of learned societies as publishers in Finland based on bibliographic information from two Finnish databases. We studied the share of learned societies' peer‐reviewed publication channels (serials with ISSNs and book publishers with distinct ISBN roots) and outputs (journal articles, conference articles, book articles, and monographs) in Finland. We also studied the share of learned societies' open access (OA) publications. In 2018, there were 402 peer‐reviewed publication channels in Finland. In 2011–2017, the number of peer‐reviewed publications from scholars working in Finnish universities and published in Finland was 17,724. Learned societies publish around 70% of these channels and publications, mostly in the fields of humanities and social sciences. Learned societies in Finland focus on journal publishing, whereas university presses and commercial publishers focus on book publishing. In 2016–2017, 38.4% of the learned societies' outputs were OA. This study concludes that Finnish learned societies play an integral part in national scholarly publishing. They play an especially important role in journal publishing, as commercial publishers produce only 2.6% of Finnish journals and book series, and only 1.4% of the journal articles from scholars working in Finnish universities. 相似文献
14.
During the 2004–2005 fiscal year, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) awarded $252,654,341.97 in grant money to 6,958 research initiatives submitted by Canadian researchers working in academic settings. The results of these initiatives are reported in published papers, books, articles, and other forums. A question of concern is how much of the data being produced in the course of this research is being archived? What are the attitudes and concerns of the researchers themselves towards ensuring their work is preserved for the future? Results indicate that Canadian researchers in the humanities and social sciences actively share data. On the whole they are supportive of initiatives to preserve data but have thus far not systematically ensured preservation of their research materials. Researchers expressed concern over issues of confidentiality in providing access to their research data. Further dialogue is needed between researchers and other stakeholders to overcome impediments pertaining to preservation and access to research data on a national scale. 相似文献
15.
Previous reports stressed on the importance of international collaboration and open access (OA) publishing, as they increase the quality of the research and increase its benefits. In this study, we will assess Jordanian international research collaboration and OA publishing in the past 10 years. We performed a Scopus search for Jordanian publications in the years 2008–2017, where we extracted and calculated the total number of publications, publications in OA journals, publications with international collaborations. Moreover, we assessed the disciplines Jordanians usually publish in. During the 10-year interval, we found a total of 20,359 Jordan-affiliated publications indexed in Scopus. We found a dramatic increase in number of publications with international collaboration from 38% in 2008 reaching 53.3% in 2017, and an increase in OA publications from 7.3% of the total publications in 2008, reaching 18.7% of the total publications in 2017. Total number of Scopus indexed publications from Jordan has increased by 57.9% over the past 10 years. Although international collaboration and OA publications have dramatically increased in recent years, Jordanian researchers should focus more on international collaboration with developed countries and on self-archiving their publications. 相似文献
16.
Using the theory of planned behavior as a theoretical framework, survey data from 121 authors in the professional field of school librarianship (40% of whom were practitioners) were used to identify beliefs about publishing in the field, attitudes to research and publication, perceived social norms and social influences on research and publication, and perceived barriers to research and publication. The journals in which the authors prefer to publish and their reasons for journal choice are also reported. This is the first reported study to specifically address reasons for publication choice in a professional field, and it indicates that relevance to practice is an important consideration, in addition to scholarly rigor, when authors in professional fields consider where to publish their research. The views and motivations of full professors, other researchers and practitioner-authors were surprisingly similar, although practitioners—who had less research preparation than researchers—were less confident about their ability to conduct and write-up research. Additionally, researchers other than full professors, and practitioners, reported that the encouragements of peers and supervisors or senior colleagues were important social influences for research and publication. 相似文献
17.
As new media technologies and platforms emerge and take hold in our society, traditional publishers are wondering: What’s in this new content climate for me? The simple answer is: a lot. The digital world, mobile content delivery mechanisms and the public’s increasing comfort—even preference for—a media menu from which they can pick and choose what they want and how they want to receive it, brings exciting and potentially lucrative opportunities. For publishers who understand how to leverage their brand and create authentic, identifiable value in the eyes of the customer, risk can be reduced and new revenue streams built. Here are four best practices to position your publishing company for growth. 相似文献
18.
Selcuk Besir Demir 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(4):1296-1311
This sequential explanatory mixed-methods study investigated where predatory/fake journals (PFJs) are founded, which countries’ researchers publish more frequently in PFJs, the identity of the editors of PFJs, why researchers publish in PFJs, and what factors encourage such publications. A survey and semi-structured follow-up interviews were used to collect data. The results indicate that the majority of PFJs are located in developing countries; 119 journals provided incorrect postal addresses; the greatest number of researchers who published in PFJs are from India, Nigeria, and Turkey, suggesting that most of the publications in PFJs are submitted by researchers in developing countries; the interviewed Turkish researchers submitted their articles to PFJs in pursuit of rapid academic promotion; the incentive allowance system encourages researchers to publish in PFJs; and the well-known “publish-or-perish” pressure and unawareness are other potential factors that drive participants to submit their papers to PFJs. 相似文献
19.
20.
Developments in vanity presses, electronic publishing and social media have led to outstanding growth in the publishing industry. Eighty percent of people believe they have a book in them and the opportunities provided by new technologies are responding to their needs. This raises important questions: What effect will these developments have on the industry? In this environment, is quality control feasible? How will potential readers find their treasure? Will book publishing remain a cost-effective activity? We will examine the publishing industry looking for the answers to these questions and may just find that things are not as bleak as we initially thought. 相似文献