Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain

Pillars of open science are often included within the editorial policies of scholarly journals, including policies on open access publication, availability of underlying research data, preprints and open peer review. The aim of this paper is to examine and analyse perceptions and editorial practices related to open access, preprints, open research data and open peer review, from the perspective of editors of scientific journals published in Spain, to gain an insight into editorial policies related to open science. Results and data were obtained by a combined method of online interviews and an online questionnaire. The online survey was sent to editors from journals indexed in the Dulcinea directory, which at the time of the study included 1875 academic journals. A total of 420 responses (22.4%) were obtained. The results indicated that 92% of the journals were open access journals, 2% of the journals conducted open peer review, 15% of the journals had instructions to allow archiving preprints, and out of 375 responses, only 59 journals (16%) reported having a policy on underlying research data. Based on these results, there is a trend in favour of open access, but the perceived barriers to open peer review outweighed the advantages. There is also some reluctance to allow preprints to be made available. This concern might be because editors want authors and readers to read and cite the contents published in their journals, rather than their preprint versions.     

Altmetric: enriching scholarly content with article‐level discussion and metrics

Scholarly content is increasingly being discussed, shared, and bookmarked online by researchers. Altmetric is a start‐up that focuses on tracking, collecting, and measuring this activity on behalf of publishers; here we describe our approach and general philosophy. Over the past year we have seen sharing and discussion activity around approximately 750,000 articles. The average number of articles shared each day grows by 5–10% a month. We look at examples of how people are interacting with papers online and at how publishers can collect and present the resulting data to deliver real value to their authors and readers.     

The rise of the machines: Artificial intelligence meets scholarly content

Key points

• New forms of human/machine dialogue are emerging as robots understand vast amounts of content rather than simply indexing content as strings of characters.
• Recognizing strings of characters as entities (e.g. = names = authors) allows for meaningful associations between entities and reasoning over these relationships.
• Web‐scale adoption of the Semantic Web approach has been slow because it is too complex to implement and does not scale.
• User intent, discovered through conversational models of human–computer interaction, allows for a deeper understanding of exactly what researchers are looking for.
• Personal agents hold the promise of finding information that we will find useful before we have started to look for it.
• Publishers can use Academic Knowledge APIs to interpret academic user queries and find rich information from the Microsoft Academic Graph.

     

MedBiquitous and journal publishers: scholarly content and online medical communities

MedBiquitous is a consortium whose members are working to develop a common technology framework that will support reforms in healthcare education and competence assessment. The mission of MedBiquitous is to advance healthcare education through technology standards that promote professional competence, collaboration, and better patient care. The consortium members include professional medical associations, technology companies, e‐learning firms, and publishers, among others. Two publishers actively working within MedBiquitous are John Wiley & Sons, Inc., and the American Academy of Pediatrics, who are pursuing their own objectives to help to create improved online medical communities.     

The economics of scholarly journals: a case study on a society‐published journal

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.     

TrendMD: Helping scholarly content providers reach larger and more targeted audiences

• With over 6,000 new peer‐reviewed articles published daily, scholarly content providers face growing challenges of reaching their target audience.
• There are few evidenced‐based strategies for disseminating online scholarly content to a targeted audience.
• TrendMD increased weekly page views by 49% relative to baseline traffic for a group of articles published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.
• Future studies are needed to determine how article page views correlate with other article‐level metrics such as Altmetric scores and citations.

     

Headlines from the discovery files: Key publications on scholarly content discoverability

This article reviewed 13 research papers and industry publications from 2015 and 2016 to present a broad view of today's scholarly content discovery landscape. The featured publications strive to address limitations in scholarly content discovery and access experiences to expand our understanding of the researcher experience and to influence positive change for all stakeholders. With original research findings or well‐cited expert analysis, the reviewed papers outline the dominant channels of scholarly content discovery channels and demonstrate how trends fluctuate by the type of user and their information needs, as well as a wide variety of demographics. Best practices in metadata management, standards, and cross‐sector collaboration are also discussed. Together, the publications reviewed here validate the importance of user‐centric, evidence‐based, and standards‐compliant approaches to learned resource development and dissemination.     

Evolving scholarly communication

Nature Publishing Group and the Alliance for Cellular Signaling formed a partnership in 2001 to develop a comprehensive website for researchers in the field of cellular signalling. This website aimed to evolve the traditional form of publication (an article with supplementary information and links) into something that made better use of web and database technologies, and provided more value to scientists. This article gives an overview of the project, some of the thinking behind it, and how it has developed.     

参考文献与编辑的学术鉴审

文献资料是科研工作的一个基础和起点,也是评价科研成果的一个参照系。从参考文献的角度对学术文稿进行鉴审,是编辑总体鉴审的一个重要方面。通过查阅文献原文和(或)分析文献的文题、发表时间、所涉学科的分布,以及文献观点在文稿中的具体作用等,可以从一个侧面为编辑的学术鉴审提供重要参考依据。     

Modeling scholarly book literature

Recent technology provides the means to gauge the declining ability of the nation's research libraries to maintain fairly comprehensive book collections in the face of the extraordinary growth and price inflation of scholarly publishing since the 1970s. An application of this technology is presented here in the form of a model of total book publication output and the aggregate holdings of 71 research libraries in a selected field, general sociology, for the period 1979–88. The usefulness of such modeling is discussed in terms of generating knowledge that, while low on precision, has broad reliability and relevance.     

Challenges to scholarly publishing

Conclusion Threats to professional and scholarly publishers abound since publishing is at a strategic inflection point. The inability of users to identity quality information, the advent of new technologies and services, and the fact that users want a variety of experiences all threaten your well-being. However, focusing on marketing, editorial, reputation, and by partnering effectively, publishers can avail themselves of the marketing opportunities presented, ironically enough, by the very threats themselves.     

Universality of scholarly impact metrics

Given the growing use of impact metrics in the evaluation of scholars, journals, academic institutions, and even countries, there is a critical need for means to compare scientific impact across disciplinary boundaries. Unfortunately, citation-based metrics are strongly biased by diverse field sizes and publication and citation practices. As a result, we have witnessed an explosion in the number of newly proposed metrics that claim to be “universal.” However, there is currently no way to objectively assess whether a normalized metric can actually compensate for disciplinary bias. We introduce a new method to assess the universality of any scholarly impact metric, and apply it to evaluate a number of established metrics. We also define a very simple new metric h_s, which proves to be universal, thus allowing to compare the impact of scholars across scientific disciplines. These results move us closer to a formal methodology in the measure of scholarly impact.     

学术期刊贯彻百家争鸣方针的探讨

人们对于真理的探索与认识是永无穷尽的。在探索真理的过程中,其认识经常是并非一致的,且对这些认识的正确与否,一时又常常难以作出判断。作为开展学术交流的学术期刊来说,对这些不同的认识,只能发表,通过讨论和实践去解决。这就是必须实行百家争鸣方针的根本原因,也是科学发展的客观需要。《地质学报》等刊物对不同学派或观点平等相待,都给予发表文章的机会,使各抒已见,自由探讨;对有争议的学术问题,都可以在刊物上讨论。因此,学术上比较自由、活跃,各方面也比较满意,从而促进了科学的繁荣与发展。     

关于"馆员学者化"问题的思考

本文探讨了“馆员学者化”的内涵和导向错误及形成这种观点的成因，分析了馆员应具备的知识结构，提出了“学科馆员”才是馆员努力发展的方向，才是提高文献信息服务水平的必由之路。     

Perceived value of scholarly articles

When faced with an abundance of articles, readers must weigh the relative importance of various characteristics to select which articles to read. Over 400 researchers in 12 countries responded to a questionnaire that asked them to rank seven article characteristics and rate 16 article profiles. After article topic, the next most highly ranked characteristics were online accessibility and source of article. Conjoint analysis revealed the highest rated profiles to be (i) article written by a top‐tier author, in a top peer‐reviewed journal, available online at no personal cost to the reader; and (ii) article written by a top‐tier author, in a peer‐reviewed journal not in the top tier, available online at no personal cost to the reader. There were significant differences in characteristic rankings by discipline and geographic location.     

Editing an African scholarly journal

African scholarly publishing faces multiple challenges in a vast continent where scholars themselves are handicapped by poor facilities and often find it difficult to publish in scholarly journals abroad. The Journal of Social Development in Africa attempts to meet these challenges by offering a dedicated service to scholars, improved reviewing practices, marketing on the Internet, expanding email communication, and by attempting to collaborate and network with similar publishers in Africa and abroad.     

The transformation of scholarly communication

Recent debate on the reform of scholarly communication has focused on access issues. Although important, access is only one dimension in which the scholarly process can be transformed. Scholars are embracing highly collaborative and data‐intensive standards of practice influenced by powerful computing and network technologies. This dramatic transformation of scholarship demands a natively digital, network‐based scholarly communication system that is able to capture the scholarly record, make it accessible, and preserve it over time. I will offer a technological perspective on how these demands might be met.     

Institutional repositories and scholarly publishing

The institutional repository (IR), an open Web‐based archive of scholarly material produced by the members of a defined institution, has come to the fore following the launch of DSpace at MIT at the end of 2002. Here we review recent developments in IRs and explore the impact their expansion may have on scholarly publishing.     

许倬云先生治学谈

2006年5—6月，许倬云先生作为南京大学人文社会科学高级研究院特聘的首位讲座教授，在南京大学进行了为期一个月的学术交流活动。 6月13日上午，许先生再次和南京大学信息管理系教授、人文社会科学研究院研究员徐雁先生门下的研究生进行了一次关于治学和人生座谈。以下内容以此次座谈为核心，同时综合组织了许先生著作中的一些观点。 座谈结束后，大家纷纷拿出许先生新近在大陆出版的书请他签名：我曾在他的《从历史看管理》一书中读到这样的一段文字，深得吾心：“历史是看变化的，从变化之中我们会学得一些对变化的认识，并且转换成一种智慧。至于是否能真正转变成智慧，当然要看自己的努力、悟性和造化。有了这些智慧，做人做事就会明白一点，看许多事情不会那么死心眼，老盯着一个角度看。这是我学历史的目的。”遂将其中的第一句抄在一张便条纸上，贴在书中，准备请他题录在扉页上。不过许先生写字不甚方便，遂作罢，只请他在扉页和便条上各签上姓名。之后，许先生和大家合影留念。     

也谈学术期刊的分级问题

文章从学术期刊质量的内涵入手 ,分析了学术期刊分级的意义。并从分级依据、不同专业期刊质量并行定级、分级原则包括要素、期刊的优胜劣汰等方面反驳了反对分级论者 ,从而提出了学术期刊分级的一种方法———主成分分析法