Who are the self‐publishers?

This paper describes new research into the motivations, demographics, processes, and outcomes of self‐publishing authors of books. The findings challenge traditionally held notions about self‐publishing being a process undertaken by the untalented, as a last resort. The cohort studied emerges as highly educated, often well informed about the publishing process, and generally very positive about the self‐publishing experience. As the number of people self‐publishing continues to grow and associated technology progresses, a number of fundamental implications for stakeholders in both the non‐fiction and fiction publishing business pipelines are noted. With disintermediation now widespread, there will be increased pressure on the traditional industry to adapt its business models and focus on adding value. At the same time, opportunities in publishing services can be identified and the role of the author is significantly enhanced. Parallels between the cultures and processes of academic and self‐publishing authors are discussed; these will set the scene for future research.     

Scholarly journal publishing: where do we go from here?

The digitization of journal content and its availability online has revolutionized journal publishing in recent years, resulting in both opportunities and challenges for traditional journal publishers. The explosion of data and the emergence of new players such as Google, new business models like Open Access, and new content consumers and producers, for example, China are significantly changing the face of journal publishing. It is not yet clear what the impact of these changes will be but by continuing to collaborate with our existing stakeholders and building partnerships with these newcomers, as well as by maintaining and promoting the quality of our content, we can ensure our future growth and success.     

Citing data sources in the social sciences: do authors do it?

It is expected that authors will provide citations for all papers referenced in their writings. The necessity of providing citations for data is not so widely recognized. Proponents of the data‐sharing movement have advocated the citation of datasets in order to recognize contributions and enhance access. This study examines a sample of papers from the Inter‐University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) Bibliography of Data‐Related Literature that are based on secondary analysis of datasets available in the ICPSR data archive to determine the data citation practices of authors. The results indicate that many authors fail to cite the data used in secondary analysis studies. Possible reasons for the dismal state of data citation practices are considered, including the recent introduction of data into the scholarly record and its marginalization as an information format. Updating citation practices to include datasets will support data sharing and foster responsible scholarship.     

Journal publishing systems: outsource or in‐house?

This article describes a framework to help publishers decide whether they should develop and host their own proprietary online journal system, or whether they should outsource this activity. We also suggest a practical high‐level checklist for comparing journal systems.     

Peer choice – does reviewer self‐selection work?

The British Journal of Educational Technology (BJET) uses a novel system for obtaining referees by e‐mailing the abstracts of submissions to a panel of over 250 referees and allowing these individuals to choose which papers they would like to review. An analysis of 13 experienced referees showed that, of 473 reviews assessed, these referees were slightly more lenient than the editor and that electronic records provide useful data that can be mined in interesting ways.     

Why do authors publish in predatory journals?

This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK. Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency. Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals.     

Online scholarly publishing in China: Who? What? How?

This overview describes the general situation of online scholarly publishing in China from both the supply and demand points of view. Based on desk research, online survey, and face‐to‐face interviews, we identify scholars' perceptions as well as expectations of the current online publishing system. We offer some personal recommendations for change. We then provide a list of business models for stakeholders.     

“What is an author?” Contemporary publishing discourse and the author figure

Martin Amis’ novel The Information was published in paperback in May 1995. For a number of convergent reasons, the publication became, in itself, a major media event. In examining this occasion., the economic and cultural imperatives that shaped the marketing of The Information and the wider context of contemporary book publishing and its relation to other media, this paper problematises the relationship between cultural and economic value. It considers the discourse around what an author is “worth” in a late capitalist society of fiercely competitive consumer choice, and how the representation of an avowedly “literary” author is mobilised in the marketplace in ways that aim not to threaten to compromise the investment in the difference between literary and popular fiction.     

The studio model: Should publishing follow Hollywood’s approach to the creative process?

Publishers have long outsourced many parts of their operations. Should they go the whole way and outsource the whole of the process, becoming more like a Hollywood studio: “a bank with a sales force?” A number of senior publishers surveyed responded to this proposition. Positive and negative aspects of outsourcing can be tested, suggesting considerable benefits possible from increased outsourcing of creative talent.     

What does the British Library do for medical librarians?

相似文献   

What can technology offer? Notes on technical developments for the non‐technical

The internet is assuming an all‐pervasive presence on television, radio, telephones and in the papers. Yet in what ways can value be added to existing content? What does the internet really offer in terms of technology and content management? It is suggested that publishers can use the internet to their advantage through the repurposing of content.     

Should authors suggest reviewers? A comparative study of the performance of author‐suggested and editor‐selected reviewers at a biological journal

To evaluate peer review of author‐suggested reviewers (Ra), this research compared them with editor‐selected reviewers (Re) using 1‐year data collected from Journal of Systematics and Evolution. The results indicated that (1) Ra responded more positively than Re, that is, accepted invitations to review more often, more likely to suggest alternative reviewers, and less likely to neglect a review invitation; (2) there was no statistically significant difference in timeliness between Ra and Re; (3) editors rated Re reviews of higher quality than Ra reviews, but the word count length of these reviews did not differ statistically; (4) Ra made more favourable publication recommendations than Re; and (5) Ra were more often based in the country of the authors than Re, and this correlated with the location effect on reviewer response and publication recommendations. These results suggest that authors should be encouraged to suggest reviewers. However, in terms of policy or procedure based on the results of this study, journals/editors should collect and consult at least one review from other sources than author suggested, and when reviewers nominated by authors are considered, priority should be given to those with different locations from the authors.     

What Do Distance Education Faculty Want from the Library?

Abstract

Much has been written on the importance of working with instructors teaching at a distance to provide library services to distant students and instructors. However, what distant instructors want and expect from the library has not been explored as directly, and definitely not on a large scale. Examining the small-scale studies that have been performed at various institutions, we can (1) identify what distance education faculty generally want from their library to supplement their instruction; (2) look at what services faculty would commonly like to see the library offer to their students; and (3) discover what further steps need to be taken to better understand the faculty we seek to serve.     

Sci‐Hub: The new and ultimate disruptor? View from the front

The Harbinger project was a 3‐year‐long international study of the changing attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers (ECRs). One of the aims of the project was to discover if ECRs were adopting disrupting platforms that, legitimately or illegitimately, promote openness and sharing. It has been alleged that such an adoption appeals to them as Millennials. More than 100 ECRs from seven countries were questioned annually, and questions about Sc‐Hub were raised as part of discussions about discovery and access. Interview data were supplemented by desk research and Google Trends statistics. It was found that Sci‐Hub use was increasing and that a quarter of the ECRs now use it, with French ECRs being the biggest users. However, Sci‐Hub is making little headway with ECRs from the UK, USA, Malaysia, and China, although in China's case, this can be explained by it being banned and the country having its own equivalent, www.91lib.com . Sci‐Hub is used as much for convenience as necessity; use is not connected to the strength of library provision and and it has been suggested that it represents a bigger threat to publishers than ResearchGate, whose star might be waning.     

The promise of post‐publication peer review: how do we get there from here?

• Post‐publication peer review (PPPR) has not achieved its promise and potential.
• Few articles receive PPPR – even those in high‐profile journals.
• PPPR is difficult to find and needs to be linked to the original article.
• Academics require recognition if they are to contribute their time to PPPR.
• Improving PPPR would improve the scholarly corpus.

     

Does the normalized citation impact of universities profit from certain properties of their published documents – such as the number of authors and the impact factor of the publishing journals? A multilevel modeling approach

Research evaluation based on bibliometrics is prevalent in modern science. However, the usefulness of citation counts for measuring research impact has been questioned for many years. Empirical studies have demonstrated that the probability of being cited might depend on many factors that are not related to the accepted conventions of scholarly publishing. The current study investigates the relationship between the performance of universities in terms of field-normalized citation impact (NCS) and four factors (FICs) with possible influences on the citation impact of single papers: journal impact factor (JIF), number of pages, number of authors, and number of cited references. The study is based on articles and reviews published by 49 German universities in 2000, 2005 and 2010. Multilevel regression models have been estimated, since multiple levels of data have been analyzed which are on the single paper and university level. The results point to weak relationships between NCSs and number of authors, number of cited references, number of pages, and JIF. Thus, the results demonstrate that there are similar effects of all FICs on NCSs in universities with high or low NCSs. Although other studies revealed that FICs might be effective on the single paper level, the results of this study demonstrate that they are not effective on the aggregated level (i.e., on the institutional NCSs level).