“Scholarly Communication at Work” Society for Scholarly Publishing Top Management Roundtable 3–4 October 1991 Cambridge, Massachusetts

1991 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 72-75
2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i172-i178
Author(s):  
Megan Senseney ◽  
Maria Bonn ◽  
Christoper Maden ◽  
Janet Swatscheno ◽  
LaTesha Velez ◽  
...  

Abstract Library-based publishing initiatives are on the rise in a rapidly diversifying scholarly publishing ecosystem. This article presents selected results from a US-based survey on the needs of humanities scholars in a contemporary publishing environment, emphasizing survey responses that shed light on key aspects of access for scholars seeking to publish: access to support services, access to content, and access to audience. Survey responses suggest a profile of the authors for whom libraries are poised to offer attractive publishing solutions: (1) those whose scholarship is not sufficiently represented in the print medium and (2) those who place a high value on the technological affordances provided by open-access digital scholarship to reach their intended audiences. Compared to other publishing models, situating support for scholarly communication in the research library creates opportunities for addressing challenges related to access and sustainability in the digital scholarly publishing.


Author(s):  
Jadranka Stojanovski

>> See video of presentation (28 min.) The primary goal of scholarly communication is improving human knowledge and sharing is the key to achieve this goal: sharing ideas, sharing methodologies, sharing of results, sharing data, information and knowledge. Although the concept of sharing applies to all phases of scholarly communication, most often the only visible part is the final publication, with the journal article as a most common type. The traditional characteristics of the present journals allow only limited possibilities for sharing the knowledge. Basic functions, registration, dissemination, certification, and storage, are still present but they are no more effective in the network environment. Registration is too slow, there are various barriers to dissemination, certification system has many shortcomings, and used formats are not suitable for the long term preservation and storage. Although the journals today are digital and various powerful technologies are available, they are still focused on their unaltered printed versions. This presentation will discuss possible evolution of journal article to become more compliant with users' needs and to enable “the four R’s of openness” – reuse, redistribute, revise and remix (Hilton, Wiley, Stein, & Johnson, 2010).Several aspects of openness will be presented and discussed: open access, open data, open peer review, open authorship, and open formats. With digital technology which has become indispensable in the creation, collection, processing and storage of data in all scientific disciplines the way of conducting scientific research has changed and the concept of "data-driven science" has been introduced (Ware & Mabe, 2009). Sharing research data enhances the capabilities of reproducing the results, reuse maximizes the value of research, accelerating the advancement of science, ensuring transparency of scientific research, reducing the possibility of bias in the interpretation of results and increasing the credibility of published scientific knowledge. The open peer review can ensure full transparency of the entire process of assessment and help to solve many problems in the present scholarly publishing. Through the process of the open peer review each manuscript can be immediately accessible, reviewers can publicly demonstrate their expertise and could be rewarded, and readers can be encouraged to make comments and views and to become active part of the scholarly communication process. The trend to to describe the author's contribution is also present, which will certainly lead to a reduced number of “ghost”, "guest" and "honorary" authors, and will help to establish better standards for author’s identification.Various web technologies can be used also for the semantic enhancement of the article. One of the most important aspects of semantic publication is the inclusion of the research data, to make them available to the user as an active data that can be manipulated. It is possible to integrate data from external sources, or to merge the data from different resources (data fusion) (Shotton, 2012), so the reader can gain further understanding of the presented data. Additional options provide merging data from different articles, with the addition of the component of time. Other semantic enhancement can include enriched bibliography, interactive graphical presentations, hyperlinks to external resources, tagged text, etc.Instead of mostly static content, journals can offer readers dynamic content that includes multimedia, "living mathematics", “executable articles”, etc. Videos highlighting critical points in the research process, 3D representations of chemical compounds or art works, audio clips with the author's reflections and interviews, and animated simulations or models of ocean currents, tides, temperature and salinity structure, can became soon common part of every research article. The diversity of content and media, operating systems (GNU / Linux, Apple Mac OSX, Microsoft Windows), and software tools that are available to researchers, suggests the usage of the appropriate open formats. Different formats have their advantages and disadvantages and it would be necessary to make multiple formats available, some of which are suitable for "human" reading (including printing on paper), and some for machine reading that can be used by computers without human intervention. Characteristics and possibilities of several formats will be discussed, including XML as the most recommended format, which can enable granulate document structure as well as deliver semantics to the human reader or to the computer.Literature:Hilton, J. I., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The Four R’s of Openness and ALMS Analysis: Frameworks for Open Educational Resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 25(1), 37–44. doi:10.1080/02680510903482132Shotton, D. (2012). The Five Stars of Online Journal Articles - a Framework for Article Evaluation. D-Lib Magazine, 18(1/2), 1–16. doi:10.1045/january2012-shottonWare, M., & Mabe, M. (2009). The stm report (p. 68).


Author(s):  
Rick Anderson

What is the difference between scholarly communication and scholarly publishing? As discussed in Chapter 2, scholars communicate with each other in a wide variety of ways, all of which exist on a spectrum of formality. At the informal end of the spectrum are the conversations...


2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 108
Author(s):  
Leslie Bussert

Objective – To identify and examine the factors of library publishing services that facilitate scholarly communication. Design – Analysis of library publishing service programs. Setting – North American research libraries. Subjects – Eight research libraries selected from the signatories for the Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE) Cornell University Library’s Center for Innovative Publishing; Dartmouth College Library’s Digital Publishing Program and Scholars Portal Project; MIT Libraries’ Office of Scholarly Publishing and Licensing; Columbia University Libraries’ Center for Digital Research and Scholarship; University of Michigan Library’s Scholarly Publishing Office; Duke University Library’s Office of Scholarly Communications; University of Calgary Libraries and Cultural Resources’ Centre for Scholarly Communication; and Simon Fraser University Library’s Scholarly Publishing. Methods – The authors used Roosendaal and Geurt’s (1997) four functions of scholarly communication to analyze and categorize library publishing services provided by libraries included in the study. The four functions of scholarly communication include registration, certification, awareness, and archiving. Main Results – Analysis of the registration functions provided by library publishing services in this study revealed three types of facilitating factors: intellectual property, licensing, and publishing. These include services such as repositories for digital scholarly work and research, ISBN/ISSN registration, and digital publishing. Analysis of archiving functions demonstrated that most programs in the study focus on repository-related services in support of digital content preservation of papers, datasets, technical reports, etc. Analysis of certification functions provided by these services exposed a focus on expert review and research support. These include services like professional assessment of information sources, consultation on appropriate literature and information-seeking tools, and writing or copyright advisory services. Analysis of awareness function showed search aids and knowledge-sharing platforms to be the main facilitating factors. These include services like metadata application, schema, and standards or scholarly portals enabling knowledge-sharing among scholars. Conclusion – This study identified several services offered by these library publishing programs which can be categorized as facilitators under Roosendaal and Geurt’s (1997) four functions of scholarly communication. The majority of the libraries in the study treated library publishing services as part of broader scholarly communication units or initiatives. Digital publishing (registration function) was offered by all programs analyzed in the study, while traditional peer-review services (certification function) were not. Widely adopted among programs in the study were the use of social networking tools (awareness function) and self-publishing (archiving function). The authors recommend developing services that facilitate peer review and assert the need to provide a knowledge-sharing mechanism within the academic community that facilitates the scholarly communication process.


2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Mangiafico ◽  
Kevin L. Smith

Scholarly publishing, and scholarly communication more generally, are based on patterns established over many decades and even centuries. Some of these patterns are clearly valuable and intimately related to core values of the academy, but others were based on the exigencies of the past, and new opportunities have brought into question whether it makes sense to persist in supporting old models. New technologies and new publishing models raise the question of how we should fund and operate scholarly publishing and scholarly communication in the future, moving away from a scarcity model based on the exchange of physical goods that restricts access to scholarly literature unless a market-based exchange takes place. This essay describes emerging models that attempt to shift scholarly communication to a more open-access and mission-based approach and that try to retain control of scholarship by academics and the institutions and scholarly societies that support them. It explores changing practices for funding scholarly journals and changing services provided by academic libraries, changes instituted with the end goal of providing more access to more readers, stimulating new scholarship, and removing inefficiencies from a system ready for change.


2017 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Spezi ◽  
Simon Wakeling ◽  
Stephen Pinfield ◽  
Claire Creaser ◽  
Jenny Fry ◽  
...  

Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific “soundness” and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.


Author(s):  
Jonathan P Tennant ◽  
Harry Crane ◽  
Tom Crick ◽  
Jacinto Davila ◽  
Asura Enkhbayar ◽  
...  

The changing world of scholarly communication and the emergence of ‘Open Science’ or ‘Open Research’ has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly-debated topics. Yet, evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. The aim of this article is to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices and policies. We address preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, and the legitimacy of ‘global’ databases. The presented facts and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and may be used to inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Tennant

It is time for a new type of mandate. Plan S has catalysed all sorts of action, and confusion, in the world of scholarly publishing. But it lacks teeth. Instead of encouraging libraries and research institutes to continue to prop up a dysfunctional and out-dated system with taxpayer money, research funders should mandate institutes to create a fully open, modern, technical scholarly infrastructure. This would help to overcome so much of the inertia behind the adoption of open research practices, while simultaneously resolving outstanding issues with reliability, affordability, and functionality in scholarly communication.


2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 27-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Keck

Theological libraries and scholarly publishing in religion and theology operate within multiple overlapping contexts and economic markets: faith communities, theological education, scholars, libraries, and publishing. This paper will complete an analysis of available religious publishing and theological library purchasing trends in order to create a thicker description of the system of scholarly communication. Even allowing for degrees of uncertainty in the data presented, there remains a significant disconnect in the rising collective costs for publishing versus the declining expenditures among theological libraries. The trend appears to be that the average theological library is purchasing a declining portion of the scholarship. The evidence may suggest an increasingly unsustainable market.


1997 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
George B. Newby

Abstract: Activities scholars undertake to be viewed as productive and tenurable (publication in traditional media) are out of sync with the activities they must engage it to be well informed and well connected (participation in electronic communication forums). This work examines the challenges and provides a time line for the legitimization, codification, organization, and general maturation of electronic scholarly publishing. It is anticipated that the role of relatively unstructured, uncontrolled, and informal electronic scholarly communication will be of continued importance, yet will largely remain independent of efforts to create standards and protocols for electronic books, journals, and other transformed traditional media. Résumé: Les activités propices à faire avancer la carrière de chercheurs (à savoir la publication dans les médias traditionnels) ne sont pas les mêmes que celles leur permettant d'être bien informés et apparentés (à savoir la participation aux forums de communication électronique). Cet article examine les défis que présentent la légitimation, la codification, l'organisation et le développement général de l'édition savante électronique, et propose un calendrier pour surmonter ces défis. Il prévoit qu'une communication électronique relativement non-structurée, non-contrôlée et informelle continuera à avoir un rôle important, tout en échappant en grande partie aux efforts d'établir des standards et des protocoles pour livres et journaux électroniques ainsi que pour d'autres médias traditionnels transformés.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document