Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained

In July 2015, Wiley surveyed over 170,000 researchers in order to explore peer reviewing experience; attitudes towards recognition and reward for reviewers; and training requirements. The survey received 2,982 usable responses (a response rate of 1.7%). Respondents from all markets indicated similar levels of review activity. However, analysis of reviewer and corresponding author data suggests that US researchers in fact bear a disproportionate burden of review, while Chinese authors publish twice as much as they review. Results show that while reviewers choose to review in order to give back to the community, there is more perceived benefit in interacting with the community of a top‐ranking journal than a low‐ranking one. The majority of peer review training received by respondents has come either in the form of journal guidelines or informally as advice from supervisors or colleagues. Seventy‐seven per cent show an interest in receiving further reviewer training. Reviewers strongly believe that reviewing is inadequately acknowledged at present and should carry more weight in their institutions' evaluation process. Respondents value recognition initiatives related to receiving feedback from the journal over monetary rewards and payment in kind. Questions raised include how to evenly expand the reviewer pool, provide training throughout the researcher career arc, and deliver consistent evaluation and recognition for reviewers.     

Reasons and strategies for reviewers＇ rejection or delay of manuscript review

专家审稿时间是期刊出版周期的一个重要部分;然而由于特定原因,个别专家拒绝或延迟审稿的现象时有发生,这常常会延长期刊的出版周期。该文对其原因进行调查和分析,并且有针对性地提出了解决问题的对策,主要包括选择合适的审稿专家、加强与审稿专家的联系以及加大期刊的宣传。     

Evidence‐based practice: triumph of style over substance?

This feature examines the success of evidence-based practice (EBP) and the associated Cochrane Collaboration. It seeks to identify critical success factors associated with the way that both initiatives have been marketed. The simplicity of the original message used by each initiative allowed for subsequent assimilation of nuances and variants. Two implications for health librarians are highlighted; recognition that EBP is simply the embodiment of one world view and that many others may make a useful contribution and the need to craft a simple message capturing the unique selling points of the profession. To create a unique contribution health librarians require a detailed picture from market research of user information needs.     

‘Héloïse’: towards a co‐ordinated ecosystem approach for the archiving of scientific publications?

With the continued development of open access policies, it is important to promote consensus‐building projects with the various stakeholders. This article gives an account of how such collaboration has facilitated the construction of the project Héloïse. This project is a French information service dedicated to describing the policies of French publishers on the self‐archiving of scientific publications. Héloïse represents a real tool of mediation whose development involved much debate between publishers and research stakeholders. This article seeks to demonstrate that the development of trust between the actors involved in the project was a major component of its success.     

Science Centers at 40: Middle‐aged Maturity or Mid‐life Crisis?

Abstract Science centers are maturing in an era in which learning has become acutely individualized, self‐empowered, and selective. The science center movement is now faced with a new educational environment that it can either embrace or ignore. What does it mean to be an institution in this deinstitutionalized world?     

Peer reviewers＇ responsibilities and fulfillment for sci-tech journals： a case study of China Mechanical Engineering

结合《中国机械工程》工作实践,阐述审稿专家负有判断内容是否达标、保障审稿流程快捷运行及协助编辑部做好相关工作的职责。介绍保障审稿专家队伍长期、健康地履行其职责的经验,如使审稿专家正确认识、理解其职责成为高素质的审稿人,提供友好的审稿平台,开展专家审稿培训,尊重专家的劳动,开展多种形式的沟通。     

Access for all? A survey of health librarians in the north‐west of England on provision of information to patients

This study examined the role that health librarians could play in helping patients to find information. A questionnaire survey was sent out to 50 health librarians in the north-west of England. It examined the following: the type of library and users, access to information for patients, librarians' attitudes to provision of information to patients and their knowledge of other sources available to their users. Ninety-seven per cent of librarians said that they could recommend quality information sources to patients, but many suggested that there were practical problems in allowing patients to use health libraries due to lack of appropriate resources, facilities and funding. Advantages of health library involvement in patient information include having a local point of contact for patients and the ability of librarians to find, evaluate and organize good-quality resources. However, health library staff may not have enough time to answer enquiries from the public and may lack training in dealing with patients. Innovation, especially in developing on-line services, could offer a way to provide a service without overloading the physical requirements of a library. Librarians could also collaborate with other staff to improve patient information.     

Is Google Scholar useful for the evaluation of non‐English scientific journals? The case of Chinese journals

This study determined how useful Google Scholar (GS) is for the evaluation of non‐English journals based on a sample of 150 Chinese journals listed in the Report on Chinese Academic Journals Evaluation of Research Center for Chinese Science Evaluation (2013–2014). This study investigated two disciplines: Library, Information & Documentation Science and Metallurgical Engineering & Technology. We collected data from GS and the Chongqing VIP database to evaluate GS as a citation database for Chinese journals on its resource coverage, journal ranking, and citation data. We found that GS covered 100% of the sample journals but indexed 22% more article records than the number of articles published. The ranking of Chinese journals by GS Metrics was not suitable to present a dependable ranking of Chinese journals. GS appeared suitable to provide an alternative source of Chinese citation data, even though there existed coverage problems, including article duplication and citation omission and potential duplication. The GS Metric average citation provided results highly correlated to traditional citation results, showing that it would be suitable for evaluating Chinese journals.     

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.     

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.     

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.

     

The “energy”; of form

Using Kenneth Burke's schema of the four kinds of form and examples from contemporary political discourse, this paper examines three kinds of energy (dynamos, energeia, ergon) during the formal process.     

合作·改革·创新——全国中小型公共图书馆联合会2010年研讨会在杭召开

5月10—14日,由中国图书馆学会、全国中小型公共图书馆联合会主办,杭州图书馆承办的全国中小型公共图书馆联合会2010年研讨会在杭州召开。浙江省文化厅副厅长陈瑶、文化部社图司图书馆处处长陈胜利、中国图书馆学会秘书长汤更生、杭州市图书馆事业基金会理事长曾东元、杭州市文化广电新闻出版局局长陈建一、浙江图书馆馆长朱海闵、全国中小型公共图书馆联合会会长郭斌出席了开幕式。     

Bridging the ‘Know‐Do Gap’: a role for health information professionals?

This feature briefly examines the development of knowledge translation, knowledge transfer and the knowledge broker role as constituting the next manifestation of the movement that brought us evidence based medicine and its derivatives. It examines the extent to which health information professionals currently meet the specification for a knowledge broker role. In doing so it assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the profession when ranged alongside the five components of the knowledge transfer process that is, problem identification; knowledge development and selection; analysis of context; knowledge transfer interventions; and knowledge utilization. Current deficiencies also lie in a need for political astuteness and awareness and in a lack of knowledge of the most significant models of behavioural change. The feature concludes by examining the potential for knowledge team approaches arguing that gains from a wider perspective that encompasses the entire knowledge process may be even more significant than the pooling of collective knowledge, skills and expertise.