共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
2.
Jonathan J. Mallett 《Learned Publishing》2021,34(1):49-56
- Scientific publication has been a key part of the scientific method since the inception of Philosophical Transactions in 1665.
- The scientific publications industry has grown exponentially along with science, incorporating technological innovations along the way, and adapting journal processes and practices to changing needs of science as it matured.
- Of all the technological innovations over more than 300 years, the move to online journals may be the most significant, making open access to content practical for the first time.
- The open‐access movement is disrupting the economics of journal publishing, which is hoped will make the industry more competitive: the ability of the publications industry to adapt to open access will be a measure of its resilience.
- The demand for articles published in reputable journals continues to grow as readers trust the credibility of peer reviewed journal articles, and good authors value the prestige of publishing in the best journals.
- It is difficult to predict what new functionalities may be included in articles of the future or what additional services publishers and editors will provide, but there is every reason to believe that scientific journal articles are here to stay.
3.
论文发表时滞与优先数字出版 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
将论文发表时滞分为审稿时滞与等待印刷时滞,解释了论文从投稿到发表的过程中各个环节所产生的时滞及其所产生的负面影响。分析优先数字出版在大幅缩短论文发表时滞方面的功能与意义,统计表明,优先数字出版能将期刊影响因子提高约15％。提出了优先数字出版中值得讨论的问题。 相似文献
4.
5.
6.
随着科技期刊数字化的不断发展,如何运用数字化技术缩短出版时滞成为科技期刊思考的问题之一.在分析出版时滞的基础上,总结出同行评议以及等待出版是科技期刊出版流程中造成时滞过长的2个阶段.在数字技术的推动下,同行评议专家库建设以及优先数字出版应用都取得显著进展,是目前科技期刊缩短出版时滞的主要手段. 相似文献
7.
8.
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
9.
The article processing charge (APC) is currently the primary method of funding professionally published open access (OA) peer‐reviewed journals. The pricing principles of 77 OA publishers publishing over 1,000 journals using APCs were studied and classified. The most commonly used pricing method is a single fixed fee, which can either be the same for all of a publisher's journals or individually determined for each journal. Fees are usually only levied for publication of accepted papers, but there are some journals that also charge submission fees. Instead of fixed prices, many publishers charge by the page or have multi‐tiered fees depending on the length of articles. The country of origin of the author can also influence the pricing, in order to facilitate publishing for authors from developing countries. 相似文献
10.
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
11.
12.
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.
While many agree that society as a whole, the progress of science, education, health care, patients, and policy makers would benefit tremendously from making access to research publications and data freely available to students, researchers, physicians and even the public, particularly in the case of publicly funded research, many questions regarding the future of the author-pays journal model to publish in open access journals remain unanswered, especially since article processing charges (APCs) fund peer review and publishing costs. Unlike the subscriber-pays traditional publishing model, the inherent interest in charging authors APCs as publication costs to have their work peer reviewed by experts in their field raises many concerns including the potential abuse by predatory publishers who may spot opportunities for profit, the objectivity and credibility of peer review, and the viability of this model in the light of rapidly evolving publishing practices and venues. In this piece, we discuss some challenges that may threaten the survival of the author-pays journal publishing model, evolving the “publish or perish” into a “pay to publish or perish” model. 相似文献
15.
16.
Tove Faber Frandsen 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):57-62
Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publication, and consequently, predatory journals are feared to be a threat to the credibility of science as they perform no or low‐quality peer review. The question of why researchers decide to publish in a questionable journal remains relatively unexplored. This paper provides an overview of the existing literature on why researchers decide to publish papers in questionable journals, specifically whether or not they search for a low‐barrier way to getting published while being aware that the chosen journal probably does not adhere to acceptable academic standards. The choice of a publication outlet can be seen as a submission tree that consists of various incentives, and explaining why authors publish in deceptive journals may thus consist of a combination of awareness and motivational factors. Awareness and motivation of diligent authors is very different from that of unethical authors. Unethical authors may use a lack of awareness to excuse their actions, but they may actively search for a low‐barrier way to getting published. As there are different types of authors who publish in deceptive journals, we need different approaches to solve the problem. 相似文献
17.
18.
Mohammad Salehi Mohammad Soltani Hadis Tamleh Shohreh Teimournezhad 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(2):89-95
The proliferation of predatory or bogus journals has been recognized as a threat to academic research, and this study was conducted to discover the experiences of authors published in these journals. Eighty authors who had published in journals identified as predatory were surveyed. We asked how the authors learnt about these journals, what they thought about the reputation of the journals, their experiences of peer review and the quality of feedback provided, and whether publication was driven by PhD or job requirements. Our results showed that a third of authors discovered the journals by web searches or responding to email invitations. Over half said the reputation and name of the journal were important in selecting a journal, although a third admitted that the journal they published in did not have a good reputation. The main reason for selecting the journals was the promise of fast publication (31.2% respondents). Only half of the respondents said that publication was driven by PhD or job requirements. Just over a third reported that peer review was good or excellent, and only 17.5% said that peer review was poor or non‐existent – over 70% thought they had received good feedback from the journals. Although the research was somewhat limited, it does indicate general satisfaction with the journals in which the authors published. Fast publication coupled with good feedback and encouragement to submit can make publishing in predatory journals so tempting that few authors can resist. 相似文献
19.
科技期刊数字优先出版较好地解决了出版时滞长、学术论文难以快速出版等问题,加快了科技成果的传播速度.单篇优先灵活性大,出版速度更快;整期优先版面完整,灵活、便捷.纸质期刊出版后不宜覆盖数字优先版本,以解决版本冲突、DOI不确定等问题.同一文献无论数字优先还是纸质版,都应纳入文献引用频次统计.科技期刊出版工作更应强化互联网思维,尽快把数字出版文献纳入学术评价范畴,加强数字优先出版版权保护.无纸化网络出版是大势所趋,未来单篇数字优先出版将逐渐占据数字优先出版主导地位,乃至全部.期待依托网络时速性及大数据、云计算优势,构建独具特色、性格独特的科技期刊,促进学术环境健康发展. 相似文献