scholarly journals GAP – German Academic Publishers: A Network Approach to Scholarly Publishing

2004 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Braun
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Online Publishing ◽  
German Research Foundation ◽  
Publishing Process ◽  
Organizational Network ◽  
German Research ◽  
Online Management ◽  
Open Archives

Abstract: GAP — German Academic Publishers (www.gap-c.de) is a project funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) to create an infrastructure for a new model for academic publishing. One aim of the project is to create an organizational network of academic presses and other eligible academic publishing institutions, including a business plan to guarantee a sustainable “life” for GAP after funding expires. Another goal is to establish the necessary infrastructure for online publishing (including a peer-review process) and online management of persons, roles, and other elements of the publishing process. GAP will act as both data and service provider for the Open Archives Initiative. GAP’s most prominent aim is to make what is published through its channels available for free on the Internet. Résumé : German Academic Publishers (le GAP à www.gap-c.de) est un projet financé par le German Research Foundation (DFG) pour poser les fondements d’un nouveau modèle d’édition académique. Un des buts de ce projet est de créer un réseau organisationnel de presses et autres organismes œuvrant dans l’édition académique, ainsi qu’un plan d’affaires assurant une vie durable au GAP suivant la fin de son financement. Un autre but est d’établir une infrastructure permettant l’édition en ligne (y compris un processus d’évaluation par les pairs) et la gestion en ligne de personnes, rôles et autres composantes de l’édition. Le GAP agira ainsi en tant que fournisseur de services et de données pour l’Open Archives Initiative. Le premier but du GAP est d’offrir sur Internet un accès gratuit à tous les textes qu’il édite.

Reference Conundrum: The Broad Definition of Peer-Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Fullerton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
The Core ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Reference Interactions ◽  
Definition Of

For years, the gold-standard in academic publishing has been the peer-review process, and for the most part, peer-review remains a safeguard to authors publishing intentionally biased, misleading, and inaccurate information. Its purpose is to hold researchers accountable to the publishing standards of that field, including proper methodology, accurate literature reviews, etc. This presentation will establish the core tenants of peer-review, discuss if certain types of publications should be able to qualify as such, offer possible solutions, and discuss how this affects a librarian's reference interactions.

scholarly journals The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study

2020 ◽  
Vol 125 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maciej J. Mrowinski ◽  
Agata Fronczak ◽  
Piotr Fronczak ◽  
Olgica Nedic ◽  
Aleksandar Dekanski
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Insight Into

Abstract In this paper, we provide insight into the editorial process as seen from the perspective of journal editors. We study a dataset obtained from the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, which contains information about submitted and rejected manuscripts, in order to find differences between local (Serbian) and external (non-Serbian) submissions. We show that external submissions (mainly from India, Iran and China) constitute the majority of all submissions, while local submissions are in the minority. Most of submissions are rejected for technical reasons (e.g. wrong manuscript formatting or problems with images) and many users resubmit the same paper without making necessary corrections. Manuscripts with just one author are less likely to pass the technical check, which can be attributed to missing metadata. Articles from local authors are better prepared and require fewer resubmissions on average before they are accepted for peer review. The peer review process for local submissions takes less time than for external papers and local submissions are more likely to be accepted for publication. Also, while there are more men than women among external users, this trend is reversed for local users. In the combined group of local and external users, articles submitted by women are more likely to be published than articles submitted by men.

scholarly journals PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN THE PUBLISHING ENTERPRISE: FOCUS ON JOURNAL EDITORS

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-221
Author(s):  
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Case Scenario ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Peer Community

Editors play a central role and form an essential link in the publication process. Consequently, they hold considerable influence as to how the literature is molded, and what eventually gets published. In addition to their standard editorial responsibilities, holding that amount of power, editors have extremely high responsibilities to declare any conflicts of interest (COIs) internal to, and external to, the peer review process, particularly those involving personal relationships and networks. This is because they also exist in the peer community, can be high-profile public figures, and form a very unique and restricted – in terms of size, membership and exclusivity – set of individuals. Consequently, editors need to declare their COIs openly, transparently, and publicly on their editor board profiles, and as part of their curriculum vitae. Without such declarations, the greater risk is that editors might have unregulated freedom to enforce their own individual or group biases, through hidden relationships and networks, including the possibility of hiding instances of favoritism, cronyism and nepotism. In the worst-case scenario, this might reflect editorial corruption. Hidden COIs in authors, which tend to be the focus of the academic publishing establishment, including in codes of conduct and ethical guidelines such as those by COPE and the ICMJE, tend to down-play editorial COIs, or restrict them to scrutiny during the peer review process. This opinion piece examines whether there is a systemic problem with under-reported editorial COIs, particularly personal and non-financial COIs, that extend beyond the peer review process and their editorial positions. Greater awareness, debate, and education of this issue are needed.

scholarly journals Journal retractions in oncology – a bibliometric study

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pan Pantziarka ◽  
Lydie Meheus
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Bibliometric Study ◽  
Focused Attention ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Publishing Process ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Time Period

Background. A number of recent high-profile cases have focused attention on scientific misconduct and other problematic issues with the peer review process. The retraction of journal publications is an important part of the scientific publishing process that serves to remove flawed articles, (including, but not limited to, fraudulent results), from the literature. To date there have been few formal studies of journal retractions in the area of oncology. Methods. This article outlines the results of a bibliometric study of journal retractions from 1983 to 2018. Results. Analysis shows that article lifetime – that is the time period from initial publication to ultimate retraction – has decreased in recent years. It also shows that retraction rate has also increased over the same period. The causes and context of these trends are discussed and reference made to the dangers of scientific misconduct in oncology.

scholarly journals When peril responds to plague: predatory journal engagement with COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan M. Allen
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Critical Areas ◽  
Information Intermediaries ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journal

PurposeThe academic community has warned that predatory journals may attempt to capitalize on the confusion caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to further publish low quality academic work, eroding the credibility of scholarly publishing.Design/methodology/approachThis article first chronicles the risks of predatory publishing, especially related to misinformation surrounding health research. Next, the author offers an empirical investigation of how predatory publishing has engaged with COVID-19, with an emphasis on journals related to virology, immunology and epidemiology as identified through Cabells' Predatory Reports, through a content analysis of publishers' websites and a comparison to a sample from DOAJ.FindingsThe empirical findings show that there were 162 titles related to these critical areas from journals listed on Cabells with a range of infractions, but most were defunct and only 39 had published on the pandemic. Compared to a DOAJ comparison group, the predatory journal websites were less likely to mention slowdowns to the peer review process related to the pandemic. Furthermore, another 284 predatory journals with COVID-19 engagement were uncovered from the initial exploration. These uncovered journals mostly centered on medical or biological science fields, while 42 titles came from other broader fields in social science, other STEM or humanities.Originality/valueThis study does not prove that predatory publications have released misinformation pertaining to COVID-19, but rather it exemplifies the potential within a complex academic publishing space. As these outlets have proven to be vectors of misleading science, libraries and the broader educational community need to stay vigilant as information intermediaries of online research.

scholarly journals Digital Technologies for Open and Equitable Sharing of Scholarly Knowledge in India

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moumita Koley ◽  
Suchiradipta Bhattacharjee ◽  
Suryesh K. Namdeo
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Dissemination Process ◽  
Financial Burdens ◽  
Predatory Publishers ◽  
Article Processing Charges ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Pdf Format

Commercial publishers demand exorbitant prices for the access of journal articles either through subscription or article processing charges. In this digital era, when the cost of publishing is negligible, and the peer review process is voluntary, it’s unreasonable to put such a high access barrier. Under these circumstances, the commercial publishers' oligopoly can be challenged using digital technologies. In this article, we have explored the idea of using next generation technologies for an accessible and equitable knowledge dissemination process. Such platforms will automate the processes of identification of reviewers, communicating reminders and feedback, assignment of new reviewers in case of no response within stipulated time, and so on. The review process and intervention of the editor will be done in a doubly blind process to ensure transparency reducing favouritism and predatory publishing. Finally, the article will be published in an open domain for anyone to read and reuse the content with proper attribution. Moreover, the manuscripts in their published form will be in an interactive form instead of a pdf format, with download options in various formats as well. The platform, integrated with India’s upcoming national STI observatory and INDSTA platform will be especially useful in making it an interactive repository of data and research evidence coming from all parts of the country. We believe the platform will be especially beneficial for young scholars and researchers in Tier II and Tier III institutions, and independent researchers who are most likely to fall prey to predatory publishers. This is a perspective paper on the possibilities of integrating advanced technologies in academic publishing to make research findings open access and reduce the financial burdens of publishing on authors, and to initiate a larger discussion on the technical details of the process.

scholarly journals Evolution in the Correction of the Literature: Preprints, Manuscript Versioning, Error Amendment, and Retract and Replace

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaime Teixeira da Silva
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Group ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Value Systems ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
Transformative Process ◽  
Published Paper

Academic publishing is undergoing a highly transformative process, and many rules and value systems that were in place for years are being challenged in unprecedented forms leading to the evolution of novel ways of dealing with new pressures. One of the most important aspects of an integrated and valid academic literature is the ability to screen publications for errors during peer review to weed out mistakes, fraud and inconsistencies, such that the final published product represents a product that has value, intellectually, and otherwise. It is difficult to claim the existence of perfect manuscripts. The level of errors that exist in a manuscript will depend on the rigor of the research group and of the peer review process that was used to screen that paper. When errors slip into a final published paper, either through honest error or misconduct, and are not detected during peer review and editorial screening, but are spotted during post-publication peer review, an opportunity is created to set the record straight, and to correct it. To date, the most common forms of correcting the literature have been errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions. Despite this range of corrective measures, which represent artificially created corrals around pockets of imperfect literature, certain cases do not quite fit this mold, and new suggested measures for correcting the literature have been proposed, including manuscript versioning, amendments, partial retractions and retract and replace. In this commentary, a discussion of the evolving correction of the literature is provided, as are perspectives of the risks and benefits of such new measures to improve it.

scholarly journals Standardising Peer Review in Paleontology journals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Tennant
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Publishing Process ◽  
Review Articles ◽  
Quality Threshold ◽  
Published Research

The purpose of this operational checklist serves one primary purpose: For an article to 'pass' peer review, articles must satisfy a specific quality threshold based on standardised guidelines. Thus, the quality of the peer review process is simultaneously ensured through an open and technical standardisation process. This should be of interest to all stakeholders engaged in the publishing process, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publishers themselves, who all have a duty to uphold the integrity of the published research record. While it might initially increase the bureaucracy involved in publishing, ultimately it should save time and effort as it becomes more widely established as an embedded scholarly norm, with integrity a formative part of peer review culture.

The Case for a Technology Solution to the Ethics Crisis in Academic Publishing

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Keith Wright
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Technological Solution ◽  
Comprehensive Description ◽  
Proof Of Knowledge ◽  
Telecommunications Network ◽  
Minimum Requirements ◽  
Technology Solution

This article integrates existing theory from distributed computing and cryptology with gray literature from industry to provide a comprehensive description of the minimum requirements of a technological solution to the current ethics crisis in academic publishing. The paper argues that such a solution could significantly reduce the biases and misconduct that now exist in the academic peer review process. Theory suggests such a system could operate effectively as a distributed encrypted telecommunications network where nodes are anonymous, do not trust each other, with minimal central authority. To incentivize the academic community to join such a community, the paper proposes a new pseudo-cryptocurrency called litcoin (literature coin). This litcoin-based system would create economic scarcity based on proof of knowledge (POK), which is a synthesis of the proof of work (POW) mechanism used in bitcoin, and the proof of stake (POS) mechanism used in various altcoin communities.

scholarly journals Support for Good Peer Review in OJS-based Journals

Ravnetrykk ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aysa Ekanger ◽  
Solveig Enoksen
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Institutional Service ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Work Done

How can a library publishing service with limited resources help editorial teams of peer-reviewed journals in their work? This paper focuses on the technical aspects of the peer review workflow that, if set up and adhered to properly, can contribute to improving the standard of the peer review process – and to some degree also the quality of peer review. The discussion is based on the work done at Septentrio Academic Publishing, the institutional service provider for open access publishing at UiT The Arctic University of Norway.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document