scholarly journals New directions in scholarly publishing: journal articles beyond the present

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jadranka Stojanovski
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Communication Process ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
And Storage

>> 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).

scholarly journals Several Factors of Library Publishing Services Facilitate Scholarly Communication Functions

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 108
Author(s):  
Leslie Bussert
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Digital Publishing ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Communication Process ◽  
Research Libraries ◽  
Facilitating Factors ◽  
Publishing Services

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.

scholarly journals Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication and Scientific Publishing

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Bishnu Bahadur Khatri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

Peer review in scholarly communication and scientific publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In the growing interest of scholarly research and publication, this paper tries to discuss about peer review process and its different types to communicate the early career researchers and academics.This paper has used the published and unpublished documents for information collection. It reveals that peer review places the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of scientific publishing. It is the system used to assess the quality of scientific research before it is published. Therefore, it concludes that peer review is used to advancing and testing scientific knowledgeas a quality control mechanism forscientists, publishers and the public.

Writing the Abstract and Title

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marin S Robinson ◽  
Fredricka L Stoller ◽  
Molly Constanza-Robinson ◽  
James K Jones
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Writing Process ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Research Topic ◽  
Science Content ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Topic Importance ◽  
Fine Tune

This chapter addresses how to write abstracts and titles for journal articles. Both the abstract and title provide succinct, informative (not descriptive) summaries of the research. To this end, they are usually written in the final stages of the writing process. After completing this chapter, you should be able to do the following: ■ Write a concise and informative abstract ■ Write a concise and informative title As you work through the chapter, you will write an abstract and title for your own paper. The Writing on Your Own tasks throughout the chapter will guide you step by step as you do the following: 7A Read titles and abstracts 7B Prepare to write 7C Write your abstract 7D Write your title 7E Practice peer review 7F Fine-tune your abstract and title When compared to the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections of a journal article, the title and abstract are quite short; the title usually has fewer than 20 words, and many journals limit the abstract to fewer than 200 words. Despite their brevity (and perhaps because of it), the title and abstract are the most widely read sections of the journal article and thus are viewed by many as the most important sections of the journal article. As you read the title and abstract in excerpt 7A, consider the following: a. Read the title. Which of the following are included: research topic, importance, gap statement, procedures, instrumentation, results, interpretations, citations, conclusions? b. The abstract contains six sentences (107 words). Briefly state the purpose of each sentence. Based on these purposes, propose a move structure for the abstract. c. Are there any sentences in the abstract that do not include science content? Explain. d. Based only on the title and abstract, who are the intended audiences for this article (including subdisciplines of chemistry)? Give reasons for your choices.

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.

ViewpointRuminations on peer review in the time of social change

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keren Dali
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Personal Experience ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Journal Editor ◽  
Communication Process ◽  
Cumulative Impact ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Published Research

PurposeThis viewpoint article looks at several approaches to peer review that become detrimental to the scholarly process and disadvantage diverse voices in the scholarly conversation.Design/methodology/approachAs a viewpoint article, the piece relies on published research and the author's personal experience as an author and a journal editor.FindingsThe article focuses on the manuscript structure; manuscript length expectations; and several immediately obvious effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the scholarly communication process.Originality/valueThe article addresses the aforementioned aspects of peer review with a goal of contemplating their cumulative impact on the state of diversity in scholarly communication and suggests possible ways of rethinking the situation.

scholarly journals Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Mayo-Wilson ◽  
Meredith L. Phillips ◽  
Avonne E. Connor ◽  
Kelly J. Vander Ley ◽  
Kevin Naaman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Research Report ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Press Releases ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Abstract Background The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly “Final Research Reports” of all funded projects. PCORI peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI’s Methodology Standards and principles of ethical scientific communication. During the peer review process, reviewers and editors seek to ensure that results are presented objectively and interpreted appropriately, e.g., free of spin. Methods Two independent raters assessed PCORI peer review feedback sent to authors. We calculated the proportion of reports in which spin was identified during peer review, and the types of spin identified. We included reports submitted by April 2018 with at least one associated journal article. The same raters then assessed whether authors addressed reviewers’ comments about spin. The raters also assessed whether spin identified during PCORI peer review was present in related journal articles. Results We included 64 PCORI-funded projects. Peer reviewers or editors identified spin in 55/64 (86%) submitted research reports. Types of spin included reporting bias (46/55; 84%), inappropriate interpretation (40/55; 73%), inappropriate extrapolation of results (15/55; 27%), and inappropriate attribution of causality (5/55; 9%). Authors addressed comments about spin related to 47/55 (85%) of the reports. Of 110 associated journal articles, PCORI comments about spin were potentially applicable to 44/110 (40%) articles, of which 27/44 (61%) contained the same spin that was identified in the PCORI research report. The proportion of articles with spin was similar for articles accepted before and after PCORI peer review (63% vs 58%). Discussion Just as spin is common in journal articles and press releases, we found that most reports submitted to PCORI included spin. While most spin was mitigated during the funder’s peer review process, we found no evidence that review of PCORI reports influenced spin in journal articles. Funders could explore interventions aimed at reducing spin in published articles of studies they support.

Primary Research Data and Scholarly Communication

2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
David Martinsen
Keyword(s):  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Primary Research ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Interest In Research ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Published Research ◽  
Economic Considerations

AbstractOne of the questions that scholarly publishers have faced as a result of the increasing interest in research data is the relationship of journal articles to the research data behind those articles. From the 1970s forward, journals in the physical sciences published research data in the form of supplemental materials. Due to economic considerations and the sheer volume of data, this supplemental material was generally distributed in microform. In the late 1990s, some publishers began experimenting with digital distribution of research data. By the early 2000s, the volume of research data being submitted was causing problems for editors and reviewers. This tension was captured well in an editorial by Emilie Marcus in Cell in 2009. [

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.

Writing the Results Section

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marin S Robinson ◽  
Fredricka L Stoller ◽  
Molly Constanza-Robinson ◽  
James K Jones
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
The Other ◽  
Word Choice ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Fully Integrated ◽  
The Third ◽  
Fine Tune ◽  
Unbroken Chain

This chapter focuses on the Results section of the journal article. The Results section makes use of both text and graphics to highlight the essential findings of a study and to tell the story of scientific discovery. In this chapter we focus on writing the text; we refer you to chapter 16 for information on formatting graphics. After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following: ■ Distinguish between the description and interpretation of data ■ Organize and present your results in a clear, logical manner ■ Refer appropriately to a figure or graph in the text ■ Use appropriate tense, voice, and word choice ■ Prepare a properly formatted figure and table As you work through the chapter, you will write a Results section for your own paper. The Writing on Your Own tasks throughout the chapter will guide you step by step as you do the following: 4A Read the literature and review your results 4B Organize your results 4C Prepare figures and/or tables 4D Tell the story of scientific discovery 4E Practice peer review 4F Fine-tune your Results section The purpose of a Results section (the third section in the standard IMRD format) is to present the most essential data collected during a research project. A well-written Results section guides the reader’s attention back and forth between text and graphics while highlighting important features of the data and telling the story of scientific discovery. Months (possibly years) of accumulated knowledge and wisdom, and countless pages of data, are distilled into only a few pages; hence, only the essential threads of the story are included in the Results section. In many journal articles, the Results section is actually a combined Results and Discussion (R&D) section. Combined R&D sections are preferred by many scientists who want to present and discuss results in an unbroken chain of thought. The combination is often more concise because less time is spent reminding the reader which results are being discussed. Combined R&D sections are not all alike; rather, they fall on a continuum with fully separated R&D sections at one end and fully integrated R&D sections at the other.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document