Plan S,self‐publishing,and addressing unreasonable risks of society publishing

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.

     

数字出版如何为传统科技期刊服务

数字出版正在给科技期刊出版业带来深刻变革。通过分析数字化技术在过去和现在科技期刊发展中发挥的作用,提出"技术为内容服务"的思想。传统科技期刊代表着内容的源泉,而数字出版商提供了服务渠道和发行渠道,展望了在数字出版技术的推动下科技期刊的发展前景。     

Changes in the role of the commissioning editor in academic book publishing

This article reviews research on the role of the commissioning editor in academic book publishing. It argues that there has been a historic shift from a primarily ‘gatekeeper’ role to a more proactive role in shaping what authors write, driven by the requirements of business strategy, the need to focus more closely on end‐user needs, and, increasingly, by the new challenges of commissioning within a digital environment.     

Normative drift and self‐correction in scholarly book publishing: The case of Makerere University

University academics face multiple pressures to publish. These pressures emanate from contexts with different, often competing, social norms, which result in academics publishing for reasons that may run counter to accepted scientific practice. This paper asks what decisions are being taken by academics when it comes to their choice of scholarly book publisher. An analysis of books selected from more than 2,500 self‐reported scholarly publications produced by academics at Makerere University in Uganda from 2011 to 2017 shows that 31 scholarly books were published. Of these books, more than half (54%) were published by publishers that do not follow accepted scholarly publishing practice. Findings also show that there was a sharp decline in books published with suspect publishers in the second half of the 7‐year period. The article discusses possible reasons for the selection of suspect publishers and considers four factors that may account for the observable decline: (1) a cyclical downturn, (2) improved research management and reporting, (3) explication of the norms of science, and (4) self‐correction.     

医学期刊出版流程中“利益冲突”的控制策略

针对医学期刊中利益冲突产生的原因及表现形式,提出了在论文出版流程的各个环节控制或消减利益冲突影响的措施和建议。认为医学期刊从业者需要潜心研究控制利益冲突的相关措施,从而保证医学期刊科学信息的真实性,维护医学期刊自身的公信力和品牌信誉,维护科学出版的公正性和客观性。     

Economies of small: How a single‐journal publisher remains independent and grows

Key points

• Delivering focused and relevant content that researchers find valuable creates and sustains a dedicated and loyal audience.
• Partnerships expand the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT)’s audience and reach and enable growth.
• Introducing innovations at the right time is key – neither too soon nor too late.
• Investing in specific initiatives developed through strategic planning moves JOSPT forward.

     

Normal service continues — the role of intermediaries in electronic publishing

The paper outlines some of the conditions which bring about the need for intermediaries in the electronic world, the views of end users and librarians towards electronic journals and the range of intermediary services which exist for Internet based full texts. It also briefly considers archiving and digitisation activities.     

学术期刊如何防范编辑的学术不端行为

近年来学术界频繁出现学术不端问题,其中学术期刊是学术失信的高发领域,作者缺乏诚信固然是产生学术不端的种子,作为学术期刊诚信的建设者和参与者的编辑也同样负有重要责任。为净化学术环境,本文从分析稿件处理过程中学术期刊编辑可能出现的学术不端行为入手,提出加强编辑道德教育、签订诚信责任书、规范审稿流程、加强对学术不端的抽查和审查、建立编辑成长的良好机制等净化学术期刊编辑行为的措施,系统地防范可能出现的编辑学术不端行为,使得学术期刊编辑成为真正的科学“守门人”。     

多元化出版冲击下科技期刊传统出版模式的对策与措施

通过对传统出版和数字化出版现状的分析及<中国实用内科杂志>在传统出版和数字化出版中的探索,认为在多元化出版的今天,传统出版应积极探索数字化出版的方式并主导数字化出版,两者相互包容和促进,并且以技术发展商作为重要的辅助手段,才能使我国出版业健康、有序地发展.     

On the skewness of journal self‐citations and publisher self‐citations: Cues for discussion from a case study

This paper takes the cue from the case of a retracted paper, cited both by the retraction notice and by an article published later in the same journal. This led to analysis and discussion on the skewness of citations in the journal Sustainability and within Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) journals, particularly investigating self‐citations at journal and publisher levels. I analysed articles published by Sustainability in 2015 and found that self‐citations are higher than expected under a uniform probability distribution. Self‐citations in this journal make a 36% difference to the journal's impact factor. This research raises the question of what citation patterns can be expected as normal, and where the boundary between normal and anomaly lies. I suggest the issue deserves further investigation because self‐citations have several implications, ranging from impact factors to visibility and influence of scientific journals.     

How to spot Ugly Black Ducklings: the next competitive frontiers in scholarly publishing

This paper reviews events of SSP 2013 and AAUP 2013 within the context of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's notions of Black Swans (unexpected game changers) to anticipate the formation of competitive arenas (i.e. new models and revenue streams) for scholarly communications. It examines Tim O'Reilly's keynote address at SSP 2013, the advice of Michael Schrage from the opening Plenary at AAUP 2013, and Tim Sullivan's discussion of Harvard Business Publication's use of a topical blog network as new publishing platform to access global digital communications networks. The essay extrapolates from the case studies presented to overlay the strategies of successful practitioner presses and the advice of sought‐after business consultants on the work of academic houses, to imagine the next competitive frontier(s) in scholarly publishing.     

数字化出版模式下科技期刊《稿约》的修订

数字化出版模式下,科技期刊运作中会出现一些新的问题,如论文数字版版权的授权与转让、编辑伦理学上的新问题、论文电子模板的细化、稿件在线管理系统的操作说明等.这些问题均促使编辑部在《稿约》中做出及时的内容修订.例如:在《稿约》的在线版中设立必要链接,为论文撰写提供更为便捷的服务;加大对编辑出版伦理相关问题的强调力度;补写关于稿件在线管理系统操作的说明;简要说明在线稿件同行评议制度程序;进一步明确数字版版权的相关问题;等等.编辑部只有适时地做好《稿约》内容上的修订,才能更好地适应数字化出版的要求,同时,借助新技术提高期刊的传播力和影响力.     

The Gutenberg‐e project: opportunities and challenges in publishing born‐digital monographs

The Gutenberg‐e project was created as an experiment to explore whether peer‐reviewed, born‐digital monographs would alter the way in which historical scholarship is presented, whether scholars would receive the same professional credit for these publications as for work published in print, and whether the project would enable publication of monographs that would otherwise be turned down by university presses for financial reasons. The project reached the following conclusions: authors and publishing staff collaborated in creating new models of scholarship and writing; over the course of the project, attitudes toward digital publications evolved toward acceptance of this new form of publication; the time and costs involved in creating these models exceeded expectations; continued experimentation is necessary in order to keep up with authors' growing expectations in publishing digital scholarship.     

The changed – and changing – landscape of serials publishing: Review of the literature on emerging models

This article presents an up‐to‐date portrayal of the greatly changed landscape of scholarly journal publishing and identifies the emerging trends characterizing it. We consider the attributes, novelty, and disruptive potential of different models, which range from improvements to the extant model to attempts at reconfiguration and transformation. We propose that journal transition can be seen as falling into three categories. The first is enhanced models of the traditional scholarly journal, which typically afford enriched functionality that breaks the bonds of the printed page whilst otherwise remaining wholly traditional in their offerings. The second category is innovative models of the traditional scholarly journal, which aim at supporting the journal in performing its traditional roles through convention‐altering ways. The third category is the possible alternatives to the traditional journal, which represent a move towards alternative modes of knowledge dissemination. This review shows that each of the models identified makes contributions to enriching the reporting and showcasing of scholarly output. They also make it more effective and more efficient. However, we conclude that none of the possible alternatives being discussed can serve as a full‐fledged alternative to the journal.     

The library's role in the management and funding of open access publishing

This survey presents information on library management of open access resources, institutional involvement in open access funding, and the role librarians see themselves playing in this model in the future. 149 responses from 30 different countries were included. 94% of respondents were librarians, and the remaining 6% consisted of faculty, students, and other library staff. Results showed that most libraries are cataloging open access journals, though they usually represent only 1–5% of total listings. The responsibility for funding open access is more likely to fall on the author or a granting organization than the library or institution. 23% of libraries in this survey help finance open access, and one‐third of these had established criteria for funding. While librarians disagreed on the appropriate level of their involvement in the publishing process and financing of article charges, the majority viewed the library as an important advocate for open access publishing in their institution.     

Implementation of promotion standards to discourage publishing in questionable journals: the role of the library

To discourage faculty members from publishing in questionable journals, tenure and promotion standards in which the librarians play an active role can been developed. These standards have been effective in terms of identifying publications in questionable outlets. However, we need to explore how these systems are perceived by the main actors in research, which are the researchers. This study explores the perception of the researchers at a university in Ghana who have been evaluated by a system implemented to discourage publishing in questionable publication outlets. We collected data using an online, largely qualitative questionnaire distributed to all faculty members that had applied for promotion since the implementation of the verification process. The results show that the majority of the faculty members are satisfied or very satisfied with the new tenure and promotion standards. There are differences across faculties, and this seems to be tied to concerns about the choice of publication outlets. Furthermore, the dissatisfied faculty members are concerned with the role of the library in the verification process whereas the satisfied trust the judgement of the librarians. We discuss implications of the results as well as future development of the standards.     

学术期刊传统审稿机制与网络化审稿机制的比较分析

在讨论期刊出版质量控制的基础上,针对国外正在兴起的基于W eb的期刊质量控制的新机制,分析并讨论传统评审机制和网络化同行评审机制的区别,给出了二者的工作流程,对这2种评审机制的优缺点进行比较,总结出网络化评审软件系统的功能结构,并对今后网络化评审机制的发展作了预测。     

恪尽职守编辑匠 勤勉敬业做学者

从编辑工作实践出发,在总结办刊经验的基础上,提出了学者型编辑的概念.把科研工作与编辑业务紧密结合起来,使编辑工作与科技写作相结合,从专业的角度看论文内容,从科技写作的角度看论文结构,从语法的角度看论文表达,使编辑工作在编辑理论与专业技能相结合的基础上更为精准与高效.在出版管理、队伍建设和期刊谋划上提出了一些见解和行之有效的措施.对于编辑部建设及管理、期刊质量控制、编辑队伍培养和期刊长远发展规划具有一定的借鉴意义.     

ADONIS—latest developments and its role in the changing publisher/library relationship

相似文献