scholarly journals Open Media Scholarship: The Case for Open Access in Media Studies

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jefferson Pooley
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Media Studies ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Popular Media ◽  
Research Traditions ◽  
Media And Communication ◽  
The Prestige

This commentary, after outlining the broader rationale for open access in scholarly publishing, makes three arguments to support the claim that media and communication scholars should be at the forefront of the open access movement: (1) The topics that we write about are inescapably multimedia, so our publishing platforms should be capable— at the very least—of embedding the objects that we study; (2) media studies, owing to their fragmentation and marginality, can sidestep the prestige “penalty” that drags down other disciplines’ open access efforts; and (3) our rich research traditions on popular media dynamics are begging to be applied (and perhaps rethought) in the context of scholarly communication.

scholarly journals Reason, Risk, and Reward: Models for Libraries and Other Stakeholders in an Evolving Scholarly Publishing Ecosystem

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Mangiafico ◽  
Kevin L. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Academic Libraries ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Core Values ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Scholarly Literature ◽  
The Past ◽  
Changing Practices

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.

scholarly journals Open-access mega-journals

2017 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Spezi ◽  
Simon Wakeling ◽  
Stephen Pinfield ◽  
Claire Creaser ◽  
Jenny Fry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Article Processing Charges ◽  
The Impact

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.

scholarly journals The four pillars of scholarly publishing: The future and a foundation

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarrett E.K. Byrnes ◽  
Edward Baskerville ◽  
Bruce Caron ◽  
Cameron Neylon ◽  
Carol Tenopir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Paradigm Shifts ◽  
The Future

With the rise of electronic publishing and the inherent paradigm shifts for so many other scientific endeavours, it is time to consider a change in the practices of scholarly publication in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. To facilitate the speed and quality of science, the future of scholarly communication will rest on four pillars - an ecosystem of scholarly products, immediate and open access, open peer review, and full recognition for participating in the process. These four pillars enable us to build better tools to facilitate the discovery of new relevant work for individual scientists, one of the greatest challenges of our time as we cope with the current deluge of scientific information. By incorporating these principles into future publication platforms, we argue that science and society will be better served than by remaining locked into a publication formula that arose in the 1600s. It has served its purpose admirably and well, but it is time to move forward. With the rise of the Internet, scholarly publishing has embraced electronic distribution. But the tools afforded by the Internet and other advancing technologies have profound implications for scholarly communication beyond just distribution. We argue that, to best serve science, the process of scholarly communication must embrace these advances and evolve. Here we consider the current state of the process in ecology and evolutionary biology and propose directions for change. We identify four pillars for the future of scientific communication: (1) an ecosystem of scholarly products; (2) immediate and open access; (3) open peer review; and (4) full recognition for participating in the process. These four pillars will guide the development of better tools and practices for discovering and sharing scientific knowledge in a modern networked world. Things were far different when the existing system arose in the 1600s, and though it has served its purpose admirably and well, it is time to move forward.

scholarly journals The four pillars of scholarly publishing: The future and a foundation

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarrett E.K. Byrnes ◽  
Edward Baskerville ◽  
Bruce Caron ◽  
Cameron Neylon ◽  
Carol Tenopir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Paradigm Shifts ◽  
The Future

With the rise of electronic publishing and the inherent paradigm shifts for so many other scientific endeavours, it is time to consider a change in the practices of scholarly publication in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. To facilitate the speed and quality of science, the future of scholarly communication will rest on four pillars - an ecosystem of scholarly products, immediate and open access, open peer review, and full recognition for participating in the process. These four pillars enable us to build better tools to facilitate the discovery of new relevant work for individual scientists, one of the greatest challenges of our time as we cope with the current deluge of scientific information. By incorporating these principles into future publication platforms, we argue that science and society will be better served than by remaining locked into a publication formula that arose in the 1600s. It has served its purpose admirably and well, but it is time to move forward. With the rise of the Internet, scholarly publishing has embraced electronic distribution. But the tools afforded by the Internet and other advancing technologies have profound implications for scholarly communication beyond just distribution. We argue that, to best serve science, the process of scholarly communication must embrace these advances and evolve. Here we consider the current state of the process in ecology and evolutionary biology and propose directions for change. We identify four pillars for the future of scientific communication: (1) an ecosystem of scholarly products; (2) immediate and open access; (3) open peer review; and (4) full recognition for participating in the process. These four pillars will guide the development of better tools and practices for discovering and sharing scientific knowledge in a modern networked world. Things were far different when the existing system arose in the 1600s, and though it has served its purpose admirably and well, it is time to move forward.

scholarly journals Interview: Kathleen Fitzpatrick on Open Scholarship, Humanities Commons, and more

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen Sondervan ◽  
Jefferson Pooley
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Media Studies ◽  
Digital Humanities ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Modern Language Association ◽  
Planned Obsolescence ◽  
Modern Language

This interview with Kathleen Fitzpatrick is the second installment in the new interview series of Open Access in Media Studies—in which we ask researchers and librarians about their work in, and thinking about, open access in media studies. Fitzpatrick hardly needs an introduction, given her seminal role in a variety of open access and scholarly communication projects. Last year she joined Michigan State as Director of Digital Humanities and Professor of English. Before, she served as Director of Scholarly Communication of the Modern Language Association, where she helped shepherd the open access, open source network Humanities Commons. She co-founded the innovative scholarly communication initiative MediaCommons, and is author of Planned Obsolescence (2011) and The Anxiety of Obsolescence (2006). Follow her thoughts at @kfitz and her website.

scholarly journals Fake Archives: Doppelgängers and the Search for Openness in Scholarly Communication Platforms

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Delfanti
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scholarly Publishing

viXra.org is a preprint repository that mimics the design, logo, structure and functioning of arXiv.org, the open access website that collects articles from physics, mathematics and other quantitative sciences before or regardless of their submission and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Launched in 2009 as an answer to the role of arXiv as the dominant platform for scholarly publishing in some areas, viXra is an ironic copycat version of the “official” website, of which it spells the name backwards.

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 Presenter: Werner Paulus, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster. Publishing A High-quality, Non-commercial Neuropathology Journal Without a Publisher: The First Nine Months

2021 ◽  
Vol 48 (s2) ◽  
pp. S11-S11
Author(s):  
Marta Margeta ◽  
Peter Gould ◽  
Lili-Naz Hazrati ◽  
Veronica Hirsch-Reinshagen ◽  
Werner Paulus
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Driving Forces ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Website Design ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
List Type ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Commercial Publishing

Scholarly communication faces increasing economical and ethical challenges, including pricing policies and overbearing behavior of commercial publishing houses. Based on the hypothesis that a diamond open access neuropathology journal of a high scientific and technical quality can be run entirely by neuropathologists, we launched Free Neuropathology (FNP; freeneuropathology.org) in January 2020. Classical publisher activities, such as copyediting, layout, website maintenance, and journal promotion, are undertaken by neuropathologists and neuroscientists using free open access software. The journal is free for both readers and authors, and papers are published under a Creative Commons BY SA licence, where copyright remains with the authors. Based on 26 articles published by August 2020, it takes FNP 11.1 days from submission to first, and 19.9 days to final, decision. High-quality copyediting, layout, and online publishing in the final format is accomplished in only 8 days. Absence of a commercial publisher enables prioritization of democratic and scientifically-driven decisions on editorial structure, website design, journal promotion, paper formatting, special article series, and number of accepted papers. This new model of journal publishing, which returns the control of scholarly communication to scientists, will be of interest to neuropathologists and wider scientific community alike.Learning ObjectivesSummarize the current state and driving forces behind commercial and non-commercial scientific publishing in neuropathology.Describe the advantages and challenges of a non-commercial publishing platform for neuropathology.

scholarly journals Researchers' perspectives on open access scholarly communication in Tanzanian public universities

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
F.W. Dulle ◽  
M.K. Minishi-Majanja
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Public Universities ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Institutional Repositories ◽  
Recognition Quality ◽  
Dissemination Of Research ◽  
Research Findings

This research explored the awareness, usage and perspectives of Tanzanian researchers on open access as a mode of scholarly communication. A survey questionnaire targeted 544 respondents selected through stratified random sampling from a population of 1088 university researchers of the six public universities in Tanzania. With a response rate of 73%, the data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences. The study reveals that the majority of the researchers were aware of and were positive towards open access. Findings further indicate that the majority of researchers in Tanzanian public universities used open access outlets more to access scholarly content than to disseminate their own research findings. It seems that most of these researchers would support open access publishing more if issues of recognition, quality and ownership were resolved. Thus many of them supported the idea of establishing institutional repositories at their respective universities as a way of improving the dissemination of local content. The study recommends that public universities and other research institutions in the country should consider establishing institutional repositories, with appropriate quality assurance measures, to improve the dissemination of research output emanating from these institutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document