scholarly journals Social Media and the Politics of Small Data: Post Publication Peer Review and Academic Value

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 3-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Blackman
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Academic Science ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Small Data ◽  
Media Impact ◽  
Digital Environments ◽  
The Impact

Academics across the sciences and humanities are increasingly being encouraged to use social media as a post-publication strategy to enhance and extend the impact of their articles and books. As well as various measures of social media impact, the turn towards publication outlets which are open access and free to use is contributing to anxieties over where, what and how to publish. This is all the more pernicious given the increasing measures of academic value that govern the academy, and the stresses, strains and hidden injuries that structure academic life. This article will debate these issues and their consequences for the humanities and social sciences by analysing the contours of a recent controversy in academic science publishing, which follows the after-lives of a highly cited journal article. This includes a discussion of the value and status of post-publication peer review, and the politics of open access publishing, of citation and the public communication of science within digital environments and archives.

Faculty Attitudes Towards Open Access Publishing, E-Print Servers and Institutional Repositories

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Wust
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Faculty Attitudes ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Teaching And Research ◽  
Institutional Repositories ◽  
Etude Qualitative

This qualitative study investigates how faculty gather information for teaching and research and their opinions on open access approaches to scholarly communication. Despite generally favorable reactions, a perceived lack of peer review and impact factors were among the most common reasons for not publishing through open-access forums.Cette étude qualitative examine comment les membres du corps professoral recueillent l’information pour l’enseignement et la recherche, et leurs opinions envers les approches de la communication scientifique à libre accès. Malgré des réactions généralement favorables, le manque perçu de révision par les pairs et les facteurs d’impact comptent parmi les motifs habituellement évoqués pour ne pas publier sur ces tribunes à libre accès. 

scholarly journals Determinants of Social Media Impact in Local Government

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 82-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohd Hisham Mohd Sharif ◽  
Indrit Troshani ◽  
Robyn Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Local Government ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
Limited Attention ◽  
Security Risks ◽  
Media Impact ◽  
The Public ◽  
Perceived Security ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Media Data

Limited attention has been directed towards understanding the impact of social media in the public sector, particularly in local government organisations. Although social media offer substantial benefits and opportunities to local government, research into the impact of social media remains scant. To address this gap, the authors draw on the technology, organisation, and environment (TOE) framework and propose a model of the determinants of social media impact in local government. The model is tested with data collected via a survey with 173 Australian local government organisations using social media. Data were analysed using the partial least squares-structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) technique. The results indicate that TOE factors including perceived benefits, perceived security risks, compatibility, and degree of formalisation are important predictors of social media impact in local government.

scholarly journals New approaches to peer review in the age of online, open-access publishing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie J Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Financial Burden ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
Peer Community

“Electronic publishing” can mean a variety of things, but for the dissemination of scientific results, there are two major categories: 1) materials that have not gone through peer-review, such as community-database entries, presentations from conferences, and manuscripts posted on preprint servers; and 2) materials that have gone through peer-review and are subsequently posted online. In the latter case, the process of peer-review is usually managed by a body of editors associated with a journal. If a manuscript is published by such a journal, the reader can be assured that it went through the peer-review process successfully. In the last decade or so, journals have started to abandon printed issues of peer-reviewed articles and are now publishing exclusively online; there have also been a proliferation of new online-only journals. Concurrently, there has been a shift towards open-access publishing, which, while making scientific studies more broadly available, has also transferred the financial burden from the reader or subscriber to the authors and funding agencies. Lastly, there has been a shift in how manuscripts on preprint servers are viewed, and it is increasingly common in many scientific fields for authors to post a finalized manuscript to a preprint server prior to submission to a journal. This talk will describe the “Peer Community In” (PCI) Project, which is a non-profit organization that was established in response to these major shifts in scientific publishing. The PCI Project is comprised of communities of researchers working in different fields (including paleontology), who peer review and recommend research articles publicly available on preprint servers. The goal is to promote rigorous scientific study by providing an alternative to traditional avenues for peer-reviewed publishing.

scholarly journals Predatory publishing in management research: A call for open peer review

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (5) ◽  
pp. 607-619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonhard Dobusch ◽  
Maximilian Heimstädt
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Governance Mechanism ◽  
Management Research ◽  
New Governance ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Predatory Publishing

Predatory journals have emerged as an unintended consequence of the Open Access paradigm. Predatory journals only supposedly or very superficially conduct peer review and accept manuscripts within days to skim off publication fees. In this provocation piece, we first explain how predatory journals exploit deficiencies of the traditional peer review process in times of Open Access publishing. We then explain two ways in which predatory journals may harm the management discipline: as an infrastructure for the dissemination of pseudo-science and as a vehicle to portray management research as pseudo-scientific. Analyzing data from a journal blacklist, we show that without the ability to validate their claims to conduct peer review, most of the 639 predatory management journals are quite difficult to demarcate from serious journals. To address this problem, we propose open peer review as a new governance mechanism for management journals. By making parts of their peer review process more transparent and inclusive, reputable journals can differentiate themselves from predatory journals and additionally contribute to a more developmental reviewing culture. Eventually, we discuss ways in which editors, reviewers, and authors can advocate reform of peer review.

Academic Publishing

2019 ◽  
pp. 258-273
Author(s):  
Samantha J. Rayner
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Communities Of Practice ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Printing Press ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Drivers Of Change ◽  
University Presses ◽  
Textbook Publishing ◽  
The Impact

This chapter on academic publishing covers the origins of the field; the impact of the two major drivers of change—the printing press and the Internet—on the spread of knowledge; Open Access; the monograph; university presses; academic libraries; commercial academic publishers; trade publishers and the cross-over book; peer review; journals; HE textbook publishing. It looks at all these areas through the lens of change, stressing the need for greater connectivity between the various communities of practice involved in the academic publishing field, and underlines the historic and existing collaborative and innovative strengths it contains.

scholarly journals Cost hurdles to open access publishing: A citizen scientist perspective

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenfa Ng
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Funding Agency ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Scientific Enterprise ◽  
New Research

Besides offering fun activities for non-scientists to explore the natural world through experiments, simulations or games, the evolving concept of citizen science is increasingly allowing some serious publication quality science to be published by the practitioners (citizen scientists) themselves. The latter is in contrast to the common perception of citizen science, where most citizen science projects such as Foldit are distribution of piecemeal segments of complex projects suitable for solution by individuals, and where the results are pooled together, or used to inform the design and direction of more complex research initiatives. Usually novices in science publishing but nonetheless aware of the importance of journal articles as the primary medium for communicating new research to the wider community (scientific and general public), citizen scientists do encounter significant challenges in science publication. One challenge is in navigating the lengthy and time-consuming peer review process of most journals. But, as benefactors of open access publishing where most journal articles are within pay walls inaccessible to citizen scientists without any research funding, open access publishing is one platform sought after or exist as an option for citizen scientists. Is the option open? Yes, at the preprint level where figshare, and PeerJ Preprints help provide an avenue for citizen scientists to have a published non peer reviewed article online, but no at the higher end “journal article” level where the manuscript needs to be peer reviewed. Even the biological sciences preprint server, bioRxiv, is closed to citizen scientists as publication on the server requires an institution affiliation with either a university or research institute. Most open access publishers (except eLife) charge a publication fee (in the thousands of dollars per article) to defray the cost of maintaining an online presence for a peer reviewed manuscript as well as those for copyediting during final stages of journal publication. This is a significant barrier to cost constrained citizen scientists who want to contribute to the scientific discourse. For the scientific enterprise, this represent a loss, whose magnitude or severity cannot be quantified since ideas help seed new research or entirely new fields. Thus, can we as a community provide citizen scientists worldwide a chance to publish open access peer reviewed articles without significant cost through a competitive publication fee subsidy scheme where each application is reviewed by the national science funding agency? If the above is possible, it would open up another area where ideas from citizen scientists could percolate into the scientific mainstream, where, as always, vibrancy and diversity of ideas power science forward.

scholarly journals New approaches to peer review in the age of online, open-access publishing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie J Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Financial Burden ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
Peer Community

“Electronic publishing” can mean a variety of things, but for the dissemination of scientific results, there are two major categories: 1) materials that have not gone through peer-review, such as community-database entries, presentations from conferences, and manuscripts posted on preprint servers; and 2) materials that have gone through peer-review and are subsequently posted online. In the latter case, the process of peer-review is usually managed by a body of editors associated with a journal. If a manuscript is published by such a journal, the reader can be assured that it went through the peer-review process successfully. In the last decade or so, journals have started to abandon printed issues of peer-reviewed articles and are now publishing exclusively online; there have also been a proliferation of new online-only journals. Concurrently, there has been a shift towards open-access publishing, which, while making scientific studies more broadly available, has also transferred the financial burden from the reader or subscriber to the authors and funding agencies. Lastly, there has been a shift in how manuscripts on preprint servers are viewed, and it is increasingly common in many scientific fields for authors to post a finalized manuscript to a preprint server prior to submission to a journal. This talk will describe the “Peer Community In” (PCI) Project, which is a non-profit organization that was established in response to these major shifts in scientific publishing. The PCI Project is comprised of communities of researchers working in different fields (including paleontology), who peer review and recommend research articles publicly available on preprint servers. The goal is to promote rigorous scientific study by providing an alternative to traditional avenues for peer-reviewed publishing.

scholarly journals Peer reviewing – a responsibility and a power of the university?

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bård Smedsrød ◽  
Eirik Reierth ◽  
Lars Moksness ◽  
Leif Longva
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Academic Freedom ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Publishing Houses ◽  
Commercial Publishing ◽  
The University ◽  
The Eu

Watch the VIDEO of the presentation.Journal coordinated peer reviewing, a hallmark of scholarly publishing, is also a pivotal part of other central academic processes, such as evaluation of research grant applications, and ranking of applicants for faculty/research positions. Hence, journal coordinated peer reviewing may be viewed as “the mother of academic peer reviewing”. On this background, it is astonishing that universities and other public R&D institutions take only a very limited interest in the management and policy shaping of this cornerstone of scholarly publishing.We suggest that the universities need to become more aware of the pivotal role of the peer reviewing jobs carried out by their professors and researchers. The peer reviewing should be viewed as a partial, in kind payment from the institutions involved to the journal publishers. The advantages of this are manifold: i) negotiating power that may lead to easier and quicker implementation of open access publishing and/or ii) reducing costs, in particular the unjustifiably high subscription and licensing rates set by the big commercial publishing houses; iii) better control of how scientific staff use their time for the good of the university; iv) managing a unified policy shaping of peer reviewing, reducing fraud and flaws. This will in turn increase quality of the research produced by the universities.    The EU has recently announced their goal of making all European scientific articles freely accessible by 2020. This announcement was made unanimously by the EU ministers responsible for research and innovation. The ministers have not announced what means to use in achieving their announced goal. We suggest a united approach whereby taking control of the peer review job could be an interesting road to follow. Such a unified international action among universities and grant agencies would be very beneficial in order to make the changes needed to establish peer reviewing as a truly academically based responsibility. The increasing international agreements and actions to implement open access publishing are indications that such changes are possible. By standing together universities will be able to break the economic grip that the big commercial publishing houses have on academic research.Some may argue that it is the right of each individual scientist to decide on the extent and for what journal to perform peer reviewing. However, if an employer for some reason limits the amount of time used to do peer reviewing for certain commercial publishing houses, it would not interfere with the academic freedom to do research and to choose freely where and how to publish. After all, work contracts include instructions on how to perform a certain amount of teaching, administration and research. The option of directing where to do or not to do peer review should not be very controversial.By taking control of and organizing peer reviewing universities would obtain a means to regain the academic freedom that was lost when commercial enterprises took over the society driven journals, introducing heavy paywalls. And it may facilitate a development towards an open science regime.

scholarly journals Using, Citing and Publishing Scholarly Content in the Digital Age: Case Study of Humanities Researchers

2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (1(105)) ◽  
pp. 7-19
Author(s):  
David Nicholas
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
International Study ◽  
Digital Age ◽  
Arts And Humanities ◽  
The Social ◽  
Academic Researchers ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Way

PURPOSE: The research upon which this article is largely based comes from a year-long international study of trustworthiness in scholarly Communications in the digital age, Essentially, the main thrust of the project was to determine the impact of the digital transition and the new products it has ushered in, such as open access publications and the social media, on academic researchers’ scholarly practices. This paper focuses and reflects further on the disciplinary differences of scholarly researchers when it comes to using, citing and publishing and, especially, whether arts and humanities researchers are any different in the way they think and behave to their counterparts in the sciences and social sciences. APPROACH/METHODS: An international survey of over 3650 academic researchers examined how trustworthiness is determined when making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing in the digital age. The survey asked respondents whether or not they agreed with comments and ąuotes about scholarly behaviour obtained from pre-survey focus groups and interviews. Data from focus groups, interviews and the published literature are also used to explain further the results of the survey. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In generał, it was found that traditional methods and criteria remain important across the board. That is, researchers have moved inexorably from a print-based system to a digital system, but have not significantly changed the way they decide what to trust, where to publish, what to cite or use. Social media outlets and (non-peer reviewed) open access publications are not fully trusted. However, there were some significant differences according to the discipline of the respondent and this papers focuses upon these differences by comparing the views and behaviour of arts and humanities researchers with those from other disciplines. The main findings were: a) journals and the metrics that surround them are clearly not so important to humanities scholars, but nevertheless still pretty important; b) humanities researchers take a lot more care about what they use and where content comes from; c) humanities researchers look slightly more favourably on the social media. Originality/value: As far as it is known this is the first comprehensive study of digital humanities researchers and their decisions on what they use and cite and where they choose to publish.

scholarly journals Determinants of Social Media Impact in Local Government

2018 ◽  
pp. 577-601
Author(s):  
Mohd Hisham Mohd Sharif ◽  
Indrit Troshani ◽  
Robyn Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Local Government ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
Limited Attention ◽  
Security Risks ◽  
Media Impact ◽  
The Public ◽  
Perceived Security ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Media Data

Limited attention has been directed towards understanding the impact of social media in the public sector, particularly in local government organisations. Although social media offer substantial benefits and opportunities to local government, research into the impact of social media remains scant. To address this gap, the authors draw on the technology, organisation, and environment (TOE) framework and propose a model of the determinants of social media impact in local government. The model is tested with data collected via a survey with 173 Australian local government organisations using social media. Data were analysed using the partial least squares-structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) technique. The results indicate that TOE factors including perceived benefits, perceived security risks, compatibility, and degree of formalisation are important predictors of social media impact in local government.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document