scholarly journals Indonesia’s publication: Some facts that you might have missed

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dasapta Erwin Irawan

This article shows the current state of Indonesian open access scientific publishing as of 30 Nov 2017. The date is important because it's keep on progressing.--- Last week, after my article was announced as the winner of OpenCon London 2017, I was contacted by AuthorAid and offered to write a guest post. It was a very overwhelming situation, since I plunged myself in the world of open science 3 years ago. Then when I was starting to draft the blog post, there were slight changes about what topic should I be raising. Whether it should be about exploring my journey in open science or the successful rate of submission of the INArxiv preprint server that I had started since 17 Aug 2017 with some colleagues. After a long thought, I choose to cover the strength of Indonesia’s publication by looking at some facts that must have been missed by many, including Indonesian academia and rule makers.

Author(s):  
Alan Kelly

This chapter reviews the development of the modern scientific paper, from the sixteenth century forward, and explores the ways in which scientific information has been disseminated in the past. Great scientific advances of the past are discussed in the context of how they were first published, or otherwise brought to the attention of the broader scientific community, and the modern scientific publishing sector is explored. The types and categories of scientific journals are discussed, along with an overview of current publishing trends, such as the exponential increase in number of journals, changes in the ways in which researchers access the literature, and in particular the emergence and current state of open access journals. In addition, various ways in which journals are ranked are discussed, and key trends in such lists over the last ten years or so explored.


SAGE Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 215824401987104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abbas Ghanbari Baghestan ◽  
Hadi Khaniki ◽  
Abdolhosein Kalantari ◽  
Mehrnoosh Akhtari-Zavare ◽  
Elaheh Farahmand ◽  
...  

This study diachronically investigates the trend of the “open access” in the Web of Science (WoS) category of “communication.” To evaluate the trend, data were collected from 184 categories of WoS from 1980 to 2017. A total of 87,997,893 documents were obtained, of which 95,304 (0.10%) were in the category of “communication.” In average, 4.24% of the documents in all 184 categories were open access. While in communication, it was 3.29%, which ranked communication 116 out of 184. An Open Access Index (OAI) was developed to predict the trend of open access in communication. Based on the OAI, communication needs 77 years to fully reach open access, which undeniably can be considered as “crisis in scientific publishing” in this field. Given this stunning information, it is the time for a global call for “open access” by communication scholars across the world. Future research should investigate whether the current business models of publications in communication scholarships are encouraging open access or pose unnecessary restrictions on knowledge development.


Author(s):  
Barbara J. Crawford

Academics and librarians around the world are raising concern about the current state of scholarly journal publishing in that the majority of journals are under the control of five multinational commercial journal publishing companies. Some are advocating for scholars to take back control of scholarly communication, particularly because it is the academics who are supplying and managing most of the content for journals. Open access publishing is one option, but the question of sustainability in funding streams raises concerns. Also the roles of scholarly societies, academic association, and universities in looking for stability in nonprofit journal publishing are discussed.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlyn A. Hall ◽  
Sheila M. Saia ◽  
Andrea L. Popp ◽  
Nilay Dogulu ◽  
Stanislaus J. Schymanski ◽  
...  

Abstract. Open, accessible, reusable, and reproducible hydrologic research can have a significant impact on the scientific community and broader society. While more individuals and organizations within the hydrology community are embracing open science practices, technical (e.g., limited coding experience), resource (e.g., open access fees), and social (e.g., fear of being scooped) challenges remain. Furthermore, there are a growing number of constantly evolving open science tools, resources, and initiatives that can seem overwhelming. These challenges and the ever-evolving nature of the open science landscape may seem insurmountable for hydrologists interested in pursuing open science. Therefore, we propose general Open Hydrology Principles to guide individual and community progress toward open science for research and education and the Open Hydrology Practical Guide to improve the accessibility of currently available tools and approaches. We aim to inform and empower hydrologists as they transition to open, accessible, reusable, and reproducible research. We discuss the benefits as well as common open science challenges and how hydrologists can overcome them. The Open Hydrology Principles and Open Hydrology Practical Guide reflect our knowledge of the current state of open hydrology; we recognize that recommendations and suggestions will evolve and expand with emerging open science infrastructures, workflows, and research experiences. Therefore, we encourage hydrologists all over the globe to join in and help advance open science by contributing to the living version of this document and by sharing open hydrology resources in the community-supported repository (https://open-hydrology.github.io).


Author(s):  
Valentyna Kovalenko ◽  
Maiia Marienko ◽  
Mariia Shyshkina ◽  
Alisa Sukhikh

The Budapest Open Access Initiative and the Berlin Declaration are analyzed. The main provisions of the policy of the international movement for open access are given. One of the priorities of science development in Ukraine is integration into the European Research Area. 6 priorities of integration of Ukrainian science into the European Research Area are described. A survey of mathematics teachers of advanced training courses of Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University and students of the National University of Life and Environmental Sciences in 2020-2021 academic year were conducted. The current state of the use of cloud-oriented systems of open science is clarified. The main factors to be considered for further implementation of these systems in teacher education and their ICT competence increase are identified.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stein Høydalsvik ◽  
Erik Lieungh

What is Open Science and why do we need it? And can Open Access publishing deliver the same quality as traditional subscription-based journals do? This episode's guest is Stein Høydalsvik, senior adviser for publishing and research support at the University Library at UIT – The Arctic University in Tromsø, Norway. And in this episode of the podcast, he’ll give us an introduction to the world of open science. This episode was first published 26 September 2018.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlyn Hall ◽  
Sheila Saia ◽  
Andrea Popp ◽  
Stan Schymanski ◽  
Niels Drost ◽  
...  

<p>To have lasting impact on the scientific community and broader society, hydrologic research must be open, accessible, reusable, and reproducible. With so many different perspectives on and constant evolution of open science approaches and technologies, it can be overwhelming for hydrologists to start down the path towards or grow one’s own push for open research. Open hydrology practices are becoming more widely embraced by members of the community and key organizations, yet, technical (e.g., limited coding experience), resource (e.g., open access fees), and social barriers (e.g., fear of being scooped) still exist. These barriers may seem insurmountable without practical suggestions on how to proceed. Here, we propose the Open Hydrology Principles to guide individual and community progress toward open science. To increase accessibility and make the Open Hydrology Principles more tangible and actionable, we also present the Open Hydrology Practical Guidelines. Our aim is to help hydrologists transition from closed, inaccessible, not reusable, and not reproducible ways of conducting scientific work to open hydrology and empower researchers by providing information and resources to equitably grow the openness of hydrological sciences. We provide the first version of a practical open hydrology resource that may evolve with open science infrastructures, workflows, and research experiences. We discuss some of the benefits of open science and common reservations to open science, and how hydrologists can pursue an appropriate level of openness in the presence of barriers. Further, we highlight how the practice of open hydrology can be expanded. The Open Hydrology Principles, Practical Guide, and additional resources reflect our knowledge of the current state of open hydrology and we recognize that recommendations and suggestions will evolve. Therefore, we encourage hydrologists all over the globe to join the open science conversation by contributing to the living version of this document and sharing open hydrology resources at the community-supported repository at open-hydrology.github.io.</p>


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen Bosman

<p>There is growing consensus that making our research process and outputs more open is necessary to increase transparency, efficiency, reproducibility and relevance of research. With that we should be better able to contribute to answering important questions and overcoming grand challenges. Despite considerable attention for open science, including citizen science, there is no overall baseline showing the current state of openness in our field. This presentation shows results from research that quantitatively charts the adoption of open practices across the geosciences, mostly globally and across the full research workflow. They range from setting research priorities, collaboration with global south researchers and researchers in other disciplines, sharing code and data, sharing posters online, sharing early versions of papers as preprints, publishing open access, opening up peer review, using open licenses when sharing, to engaging with potential stakeholders of research outcomes and reaching out to the wider public. The assessment uses scientometric data, publication data, data from sharing platforms and journals, altmetrics data, and mining of abstracts and other outputs, aiming to address the breadth of open science practices. The resulting images show that open science application is not marginal anymore, but at the same time certainly not mainstream. It also shows that limited sharing, limited use of open licenses and limited use of permanent IDs makes this type of assessment very hard. Insights derived from the study are relevant inputs in science policy discussions on data requirements, open access, researcher training and involvement of societal partners.</p>


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego A. Forero ◽  
Walter H. Curioso ◽  
George P. Patrinos

AbstractThere has been an important global interest in Open Science, which include open data and methods, in addition to open access publications. It has been proposed that public availability of raw data increases the value and the possibility of confirmation of scientific findings, in addition to the potential of reducing research waste. Availability of raw data in open repositories facilitates the adequate development of meta-analysis and the cumulative evaluation of evidence for specific topics. In this commentary, we discuss key elements about data sharing in open repositories and we invite researchers around the world to deposit their data in them.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Ale Ebrahim

This study diachronically investigates the trend of the “open access” in the Web of Science (WoS) category of “communication.” To evaluate the trend, data were collected from 184 categories of WoS from 1980 to 2017. A total of 87,997,893 documents were obtained, of which 95,304 (0.10%) were in the category of “communication.” In average, 4.24% of the documents in all 184 categories were open access. While in communication, it was 3.29%, which ranked communication 116 out of 184. An Open Access Index (OAI) was developed to predict the trend of open access in communication. Based on the OAI, communication needs 77 years to fully reach open access, which undeniably can be considered as “crisis in scientific publishing” in this field. Given this stunning information, it is the time for a global call for “open access” by communication scholars across the world. Future research should investigate whether the current business models of publications in communication scholarships are encouraging open access or pose unnecessary restrictions on knowledge development.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document