The future of academic publishing: Revolution or evolution?

Key points

• Concerns about a crisis in monograph publishing date back to at least the 1990s, and for traditional journal publishing at least a decade.
• Two key trends behind concerns over book and journal models are pressures on funding and the emergence of open access.
• Despite predictions of a revolution, the academic publishing sector has proved remarkably resilient in adapting to market changes.
• Whilst showing some support for ‘open science’, even early career researchers remain committed to traditional publishing models.
• The growth in scholarly collaboration networks and in sharing across traditional boundaries is the more likely disrupter of traditional publishing.

     

Non-Anglophone Reader Perceptions of a ‘Periphery’ Journal

This questionnaire-based case study investigated non-Anglophone readers’ perceptions of a ‘periphery’ online English language teaching journal. Findings showed respondents (n = 37) regarded its policy of publishing ‘alternative voice’ non-standard academic papers as acceptable. Although seen as a research conduit for and by new periphery academics, some requested impact factor indexing whilst recognizing the journal’s qualitative features. Contrasted with studies showing conservative perceptions by journal reviewers on academic writing, non-Anglophone readers were more open-minded to non-standard language use. It is argued then that the findings and methodology from this small-scale study may resonate with other studies into new online periphery journals.     

An integrated paradigm shift to deal with ‘predatory publishing’

The issue of ‘predatory publishing’, and indeed unscholarly publishing practices, affects all academics and librarians around the globe. However, there are some flaws in arguments and analyses made in several papers published on this topic, in particular those that have relied heavily on the blacklists that were established by Jeffrey Beall. While Beall advanced the discussion on ‘predatory publishing’, relying entirely on his blacklists to assess a journal for publishing a paper is problematic. This is because several of the criteria underlying those blacklists were insufficiently specific, excessively broad, arbitrary with no scientific validation, or incorrect identifiers of predatory behavior. The validity of those criteria has been deconstructed in more detail in this paper. From a total of 55 criteria in Beall's last/latest 2015 set of criteria, we suggest maintaining nine, eliminating 24, and correcting the remaining 22. While recognizing that this exercise involves a measure of subjectivity, it needs to advance in order to arrive – in a future exercise – at a more sensitive set of criteria. Fortified criteria alone, or the use of blacklists and whitelists, cannot combat ‘predatory publishing’, and an overhaul of rewards-based academic publishing is needed, supported by a set of reliable criteria-based guidance system.     

Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals’

Key points

• The term ‘predatory journal’ hides a wide range of scholarly publishing misconduct.
• The term ‘predatory journal’ unhelpfully bundles misconduct with poor quality.
• The term ‘predatory journal’ blinds us to important possibilities, needs, and questions arising in the developing scholarly landscape.
• The current scholarly publishing environment cannot rely on such a simplified classification of journals into predatory or not.

     

The role of academic journal publications in the UK Research Assessment Exercise

This article explores the evolution of the role of academic journal articles submitted to the UK's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). By reviewing their role, it is possible to see how the changes from quantitative to qualitative assessment (and the resulting problems surrounding the definition of ‘quality’ journals) has impacted both on the journals selected by academics for publishing their research and the assessment of them. Although only one part of RAE submissions, the listing of published research outputs provides the primary evidence for research quality to most RAE panels, and is a significant driver of the final grade awarded, and thus the funding received by submitting institutions. The RAE, being a peer‐reviewed assessment exercise, mirrors in some ways the peer‐review process immured within scholarly publication. The developing role of journal publications as a vehicle for academic research output is examined via the chronology of the RAE, before assessing the current situation in which published journal output formed almost 70% of all output assessed by RAE panels in the latest exercise. The impact of this increased importance of academic journals in the assessment process is considered not only for academics but also for the wider community, i.e. publishers and libraries.     

Is open access affordable? Why current models do not work and why we need internet‐era transformation of scholarly communications

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.     

国外数字学术出版初探

介绍4种国外数字学术出版模式,分别是虚拟图书馆模式、数字仓库模式、学术文集模式、学术社区模式,并分析各种模式的优点和弊端。指出数字学术出版模式处于发展变迁状态,其发展经验与前景为：数字学术出版市场主要集中于院校机构,而非个体消费者;数字学术出版物的发行并不会分流纸版书的销量;数字内容版权的不确定性、不透明性严重影响该领域的发展进程;学术期刊出版和学术专著出版有重叠领域,值得开发;出版商的生存和发展取决于所出版图书的价值和数字化系统开发。     

高校科技期刊的出版模式初探

根据高校科技期刊的编辑出版现状和新的出版形势,分析高校科技期刊的办刊优势与影响力,提出高校科技期刊出版的4种模式:学术与经营分离,基本维持现有体制,与校内出版单位整合,独立设置科技期刊出版单位.     

Stories and statistics from library‐led publishing

Library‐led publishing is one of the new approaches to journal publishing and open access that has grown tremendously in the last few years. A 2010 IMLS‐funded survey found that 55% of respondents – from US academic libraries of all different types and sizes – were already implementing or developing a publishing program. Library‐led publishing has garnered such momentum because, by offering low‐ or no‐cost publishing to university scholars, it addresses needs that traditional publishing has not been able to meet. This article presents a series of small case studies to illustrate different journals that have benefited from the library‐publishing model: (i) a journal that struggled to find an affordable publisher in its emerging field; (ii) a small society journal that could no longer afford to support itself in print; (iii) society publications that go beyond the traditional journal format; and (iv) a student journal with a revolving editorial board.     

Academic publishing career paths — initial research and observations

The job titles and career paths of people transitioning between academia and scholarly publishing, and of those who are progressing within their publishing careers, has been little studied and lacks accepted frameworks, ‘route‐maps’, and taxonomies. Much of the work done to date provides merely a ‘snapshot’ of the current demographics of the publishing workforce at particular moment, and tends not to offer insight into pathways, trajectories, or momentum. This preliminary survey, involving around 150 scholarly publishers, reveals insights into job titles, progressions, and transitions, and exposes some of the reasons for transitions between academia and publishing. The analysis suggests that these transitions and career paths can be systematically studied and documented, for use both by individuals considering their own careers, and by planners and managers in academic institutions and scholarly publishing organizations.     

芝加哥大学出版社学术期刊出版特色探析

关注芝加哥大学出版社的精品办刊理念,从芝加哥大学出版社学术期刊概况、期刊特点、期刊部组织架构、出版社与其他机构合作出版并提供期刊出版服务等方面探析其学术期刊出版特色。     

Beyond online preprints: formalization of open initiatives in China

A growing number of online journals and academic platforms are adopting light peer review or ‘publish then filter’ models of scholarly communication. These approaches have the advantage of enabling instant exchanges of knowledge between academics and are part of a wider search for alternatives to traditional peer review and certification processes in scholarly publishing. However, establishing credibility and identifying the correct balance between communication and scholarly rigour remains an important challenge for digital communication platforms targeting academic communities. This paper looks at a highly influential, government‐backed, open publishing platform in China: Science Paper Online, which is using transparent post‐publication peer‐review processes to encourage innovation and address systemic problems in China's traditional academic publishing system. There can be little doubt that the Chinese academic publishing landscape differs in important ways from counterparts in the United States and Western Europe. However, this article suggests that developments in China also provide important lessons about the potential of digital technology and government policy to facilitate a large‐scale shift towards more open and networked models of scholarly communication.     

大学出版社学术期刊集群化运营模式研究——以清华大学出版社期刊中心为例

针对出版单位的学术期刊集群模式发展特点,根据清华大学出版社的期刊集群化建设实践,总结出学术期刊集群建设具有的普遍优势,包括办刊资源共享、人员共用、集中管理、统一制度建设、统一宣传发布平台建设等,分析大学出版社开展学术期刊集群化建设的特殊优势,包括兼具学科优势和管理优势、书刊互动、“产学研”一体化等.提出了清华大学出版社学术期刊集群的未来发展建议.     

No such thing as a mature journal

This article looks at the general idea of developing journals by adding value. It focuses in particular on the notion of the ‘mature journal’ – possibly a mythical beast, but one which most publishing houses will have at least one of (even if they don't know it yet). The article touches on some run‐of‐the‐mill journal issues such as obesity, sex, and death, but will hopefully also throw new light on a corner of the publishing world previously thought of as ‘dull’.     

Space Case: Moving from a Physical to a Virtual Journal Collection

Journal publishing has evolved and changed considerably over the years, leaving many libraries to grapple with analyzing and identifying the purpose and scope of these collections. After numerous discussions and an analysis of how the current print journal collection was being used, Kraemer Family Library at the University of Colorado–Colorado Springs decided to withdraw over 50% of the library’s print journal holdings in order to create a collaborative space for students. This article begins with an overview of journal publishing as it relates to academic libraries and the impact of electronic serials on the scope and purpose of a print journal collection. It then highlights the steps used to complete the project, and communication goals and methods employed to keep library staff members, faculty on campus, and other constituents aware of the changes taking place in the library.     

The Research Assessment Exercise: its effect on scholarly journal publishing

The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) plays a major part in academic life in the UK. One of its chief measures of ‘research performance’ relates to the publication of articles in refereed scholarly journals. This paper examines the effect of the RAE on the journal publishing system, looking at the communities of authors, editors, and publishers.     

Anonymous review as strategic ritual: examining the rise of anonymous review among mainland Chinese communication journals

The validity of academic knowledge largely rests on the reviewing procedures employed in scholarly publishing that shape and produce it. Drawing on fieldwork and in-depth interviews with journal editors and researchers, the paper aims to give an account of the rise of anonymous review among communication journals in mainland China, which has been modeled after western (especially the US) practice and added to, instead of replacing, the existing editor-leading three-stage reviewing approach. The paper examines the way by which journals articulate the ‘international convention,’ the negotiation between the emerging practice and the old institutional environment, and its implication for the legitimacy of journal publication. This paper contends that the cross-societal imitation of anonymous (peer) review is an attempt to obtain procedural legitimacy when the official legitimacy falls into crisis. Ideally, it functions as a ‘strategic ritual’ which lays a general foundation for journal organizations to claim credibility and provides resources for gatekeepers to defend their cultural authority and shield them against criticism or unfavorable requests. But in reality, the extent of adoption and implementation of anonymous review is largely restricted and reconfigured by the real institutional environment (i.e., the danwei system) in which it takes shape.     

提升网络学术期刊传播能力的实践与思考

为提升网络学术期刊的传播能力,提高网络学术期刊的发行质量,针对网络学术期刊的特点,围绕其发行与传播环境,并结合对2015年我国SCI收录期刊的实证分析,提出提升网络学术期刊传播能力的对策。网络学术期刊传播能力的提升,需要编辑树立互联网思维,需要建立健全多渠道的发行途径,重视标识符的使用以及重视挖掘语义出版等新出版模式。学术期刊的发展应顺应时代潮流,新元素和新出版模式的使用将成为网络学术期刊发展的必然趋势。     

Academic Journals Plagued by Bogus Impact Factors

The current status of academic publishing is worrying. Cybercriminals are now targeting academic audiences, making it necessary to inform both editors and authors about such issues. The latest involves bogus impact factors, which are challenging scholarly publishing. Legitimate impact factors are used by authors and editors to get a general idea of the audience, if any, for a particular piece or journal. The bogus metrics only add confusion in support of the cybercrimes of their initiators. In this paper, we discuss bogus impact factors, victim countries, and try to clarify the phenomena for both authors and editors.