What Is Scholarly Publishing and How Does It Work?

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...

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).


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.


2021 ◽  
pp. 016555152110597
Author(s):  
Yunxue Cui ◽  
Zhichao Fang ◽  
Xianwen Wang

Social media has become an increasingly important channel of scholarly communication, especially for promoting the latest research outputs, so its role in facilitating access to academic texts is worth exploring. Based on 324 posts containing scholarly articles shared by journal Cell on Twitter and Facebook, this study compared the user engagement performance of articles posted on both platforms and examined the effect of such social media promotion and user engagement on article visiting. The user engagement performance of the articles was measured by retweets, shares, reactions, and likes, while click data tracked through bitly.com were used to indicate article visits. Statistical analysis, correlation analysis, and regression analysis were applied to explore and understand these data. For Cell, Facebook posts have a more significant influence than similar tweets in terms of volume. The user engagement on Facebook is 2.5~4 times as much as on Twitter. Moreover, the click metric of short links shows that Cell’s posts on Facebook directed twice as many visitors to the papers as posts on Twitter. However, the efficiency of the two platforms is approximate when the difference in the volume of followers is eliminated. The correlation and regression analysis suggested that user engagement positively affects the visiting of Cell’s papers. Both reactions and shares would affect the clicks of the short links to paper text. The results shed light on the implications of sharing scholarly articles on social media platforms for the promotion of article visits.


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.


First Monday ◽  
2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Evans Ochola ◽  
Dorothy M. Persson ◽  
Lisa A. Schumacher ◽  
Mitchell D. Lingo

This paper attempts to define Wikipedia in an information literacy context by providing an analysis of learning knowledge and Wikipedia’s structure. The distribution of learning in the digital information age is a core topic for scholarly communication. It is highly relevant to students, citizens and instructors in their roles as users of content and as creators of content. Even though it appears to be far removed from traditional publishing in the print world, many students, citizens and instructors use digital information tools to share aspects of their works in a way that is defined as publishing. Understanding the difference between information acquisition and learning knowledge are essential in educational settings.


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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-40
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Vitiello

The author critically examines the evolution of open access libraries from the TULIP project (1991) to more recent developments. At the same time, he emphasises the role of libraries as key agents of national book policies through Public Lending Rights. After having shown the difference between the scholarly communication and the book chains, both in printed and digital form, the author points to the position that libraries hold on the distribution segment of the chains and how they are unable to turn power relations among actors to their own advantage. If content if king, organisations distributing content are normally king-makers, as the example of STM publishers clearly shows. Nevertheless, fragmentation and the assumption that what is good for libraries is also good for users do not allow libraries to understand the needs of the different stakeholders present in the value chain and provide appropriate services to them. This aspect is emphasised further in the book trade, where libraries have been hesitant in realising the economic foundation of copyright regulations which consists of trading off “the costs of limiting access to a work against the benefits of providing incentives to create the work in the first place” (Landes & Posner). After having examined library copyright strategies both in the book trade and in scholarly communication with a thorough discussion on (e-)lending and controlled digital lending, the author claims that copyright regulations are not written in the sky but on a solid foundation of economic forces which shape the book and information chains. Libraries’ strategies should aim to reinforce their relevance in the distribution segment and demonstrate their ability to provide services to all actors in the value chain. This role should also impact on the normalisation of library-publisher relations.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document