Publish, Don't Perish - Scholarly Publishing Today

“ How to attack manuscripts like an editor or reviwer“

 “Pipeline” Model of Publishing 1

Author Publisher Library User

1 Kahin, Brian. Institutional and Policy Issues in the Development of the Digital Library. 1995.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.120> . Web. 1 May 2010.

Proportions of Article Output in SMT 2
4% 2%

30%

64%

Commercial Publishing Companies
Learned Societies
University Presses
Government Research Department

2 Professional Scholarly Publishing. Publishing Facts. 2010.
<http://www.pspcentral.org/pubFacts/pubFacts_008.cfm > . Web. 1 May 2010.

 Building a collective knowledge base
 Communicating information
 Validating the quality of research
 Distributing rewards
 Building scientific communities

3 Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age. 2007. <
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107>. Web. 1 May 2010.

 20,000-25,000 peer-reviewed journals
 More than 1 Mio articles published
annually
 80% of papers subject to peer review
were reviewed by 2 or more reviewers
 Active reviewers referee an average of 8
papers/year


 Average acceptance rate for journals is
about 50%.
› About 20% are rejected prior to peer review
 poor quality (13%)
 out of scope (8%))
› 30% are rejected following peer review.
 Of the 50% accepted, 40% are
accepted subject to revision.


Author

Editor

Referee

6 Peters, John. The Hundred Years War Started Today: An exploration of electronic peer review. 1995. <

 “Single Blind” Reviews
› the reviewer knows the identity of the author,
but the reviewer‟s identity is kept confidential
 “Double Blind” Reviews
› neither the reviewer nor the author‟s identities
are disclosed to the other
 “Open” Peer Reviews
› author and the reviewer are both aware of
each other‟s identity at the time of the review


 The lack of timely publication
› Four to six months is fast for a scholarly
journal; two years not uncommon
 The formulaic approach often adopted
by reviewers limits creativity


 Eliminating the tradition of blinding the
reviewers‟ identities
 Making the full peer-review record public
› BioMed Central
 Opening the review process to anyone who
wishes to provide comments
› Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence
(ETAI)
› Atmospheric Chemistry and Physcs
 Treating publications as organic documents
that evolve over time

 Serve to facilitate communication
among scholars
 Provides at least the same level of
quality control as traditional peer review
 Fosters scientific communities


 Paper format = subscription model
› Individual subscriber
› Institutional subscriptions
 Online journals = “big deals”
› License fees
 “Open Access” = new funding models
› community service model
› author-side payments


 Access to material via the
Internet in such a way that the
material is free for all users to
read and use
 A grass-roots movement of
scientists advocating the
publication of scientific journals
openly on the Web started in
the mid-1990s
Open
 The advantages of Open Access
Access Logo

12 Björk, Bo-Christer and Turid Hedlund. Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their Business
Model to Open Access. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.102>. Web. 1 May 2010.

No. Of Peer-Reviewed OA Journals 13
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
No. Of Peer-
2000 Reviewed OA
1500 Journals
1000
500
0
2002 2009

 The desire to share information with
fellow researchers
 Open access as a condition of a funding
grant
 Article was rejected by Journals
 Reservations about working with large
organizations suspicions about the
concept of intellectual property

14 Esposito, Joseph J. Open Access 2.0: Access to Scholarly Publications Moves to a New Phase. 2009. <

 Changing the business model has proven to be
much more difficult and time-consuming than
envisaged 5–10 years ago (Book Help)
 Industry with a few dominant publishers
 Customers (i.e. University libraries) have a
strong pressure to buy subscriptions and
licenses from all the leading publishers
 For publishing researchers, prestige of the
journal often more important than OA
 Author charges a new type of cost for
universities or research funders

 Oxford University Press offers “Oxford
Open” to 90 journals and 6 fully open
access journals.
 Wiley-Blackwell offers Online Open,
which covers almost all of their1,264
journals.
 Springer offers Open Choice to all of its
1,470 peer-reviewed online journals and
full open access to a number of them
› BioMed Central

 The Scholarly Kitchen is a moderated and
independent blog
 Established in Feb 2008 by the
Society for Scholarly Publishing to:
› Keep SSP members and interested parties aware of new
developments in publishing
› Point to research reports and projects
› Interpret the significance of relevant research in a
balanced way
› Suggest areas that need more input by identifying gaps in
knowledge
› Translate findings from related endeavors
› Attract the community of STM information experts
interested in these things and give them a place to
contribute
17 Scholarly Kitchen. About. . <http://www.scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about> Web. 1 May 2010.

 Features of Google Scholar
› Search
› Find
› Locate
› Learn
 Ranking system
› weighing the full text of each document,
› where it was published
› who it was written by
› how often and how recently it has been cited in
other scholarly literature.

18 Google Scholar. About. . <http://www.scholarl.google.com/about> Web. 1 May 2010.

 Concerns about the definition of
"scholarly" in determining inclusion or
exclusion, and the currency of the
content
 Not restricted to peer-reviewed content:
too much or too little useful content
 One opportunity open to Google
Scholar is to offer searches that
recognize the context of the words used
in searching.
19 Friend, Frederick J. Google Scholar: Potentially Good for Users of Academic Information. 2007. <

The future internet: Service Web 3.0

 The Web was designed as an information space,
not only to be useful for human-human
communication, but also that machines would
be able to participate and help users
communicate with each other.
 Computers are better at handling carefully
structured and well-designed data, yet even
where information is derived from a database
with well-defined meanings, the implications of
those data are not evident to a robot browsing
the web.
 More information on the web needs to be in a
form that machines can „understand‟ rather than
simply display.
20 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web’. 2001.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010

 Semantic Web Technology involves
asking people to make some extra
effort, in repayment for which they will
get substantial new functionality
 A new set of languages is now being
developed to make more web
content accessible to machines.


 Tools for publishing papers on the web will
automatically help users to include more of
this machine-readable markup
 Whereas current tools using XML (Extensible
Markup Language) can allow a user to assert
general descriptions the new languages will
be able to express more details
 Papers that include this new markup
language will be found by new and better
search engines, and users will thus be able to
issue significantly more precise queries.

 The semantic web will facilitate the
development of automated methods for
helping users to understand the content
produced by those in other scientific
disciplines
 On the semantic web, one will be able
to produce machine-readable content
that will provide a self-evolving translator
that allows one group of scientists to
directly interact with the technical data
produced by another

 The Semantic Web will allow users to
create relationships that allow
communication when the commonality
of concept has not (yet) led to a
commonality of terms.
 The semantic web will provide unifying
underlying technologies to allow these
concepts to be progressively linked into
a universal web of knowledge

 “The very notion of a journal of medicine
separate from a journal of bioinformatics,
separate from the writings of physicists,
chemists, psychologists will someday become
as out of date as the print journal is
becoming to our graduate students. “

 “Does this sound like a crazy science-fiction
dream? A decade ago, who would have
believed a web of text, conveyed by
computer, would challenge a 200-year-old
tradition of academic publishing?”
'Tim Berners-Lee & James Hendler

 Arnold, Kenneth. The Body in the Virtual Library: Rethinking Scholarly Communication.
1995. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.104>. Web. 1 May 2010.
 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web’. 2001.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May
2010.
 Björk, Bo-Christer and Turid Hedlund. Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could
Change Their Business Model to Open Access. 2009. <
 Esposito, Joseph J. Open Access 2.0: Access to Scholarly Publications Moves to a New
Phase. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.203>. Web. 1 May 2010.
 Friend, Frederick J. Google Scholar: Potentially Good for Users of Academic Information.
 Kahin, Brian. Institutional and Policy Issues in the Development of the Digital Library. 1995.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.120> . Web. 1 May 2010.
 Moxley, Joseph M. How to Attack Manuscripts like an editor or reviewer. 1992. Publish,
don‟t perish: the scholar‟s guide to academic writing and publishing. Print.
 Nadasdy, Zoltan. Electronic Journal of Cognitive and Brain Science: A Truly All-Electronic
Journal: Let Democracy Replace Peer Review. 1997. <
 Peters, John. The Hundred Years War Started Today: An exploration of electronic peer
review. 1995. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.117>. Web. 1 May 2010.
 Peters, Paul. Redefining Scholarly Publishing as a Service Industry. 2007. <
 Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age.

Publish, Don't Perish - Scholarly Publishing Today

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (13)

Similaire à Publish, Don't Perish - Scholarly Publishing Today

Similaire à Publish, Don't Perish - Scholarly Publishing Today (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Publish, Don't Perish - Scholarly Publishing Today