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 The Problem with Peer Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bård Smedsrød ◽  
Erik Lieungh
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Individual Researcher ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Publishing Houses ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The University ◽  
Insight Into

In this episode professor at UIT - The Arctic University of Norway, Bård Smedsrød, gives us an insight into peer review. How does the system work today, and what's problematic with it? Smedsrød also offers some solutions and encourages Universities to be much more involved in the peer review process. The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh. You can also read Bård's latest paper on peer reviewing: Peer reviewing: a private affair between the individual researcher and the publishing houses, or responsibility of the university? This episode was first published 2 November 2018.

scholarly journals From Project to Customized Service

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Shaghayegh Abdolahzadeh ◽  
Peter G. Braun ◽  
Christina Elsenga ◽  
Marijke Folgering-van der Vliet ◽  
Babette Knauer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Publishing Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Work Pressure ◽  
Legal Guidelines ◽  
The University ◽  
Service Customization

The academic landscape of the Netherlands has been influenced in recent years by new governmental policies regarding open access and open science, national and European legal guidelines, developments in ICT, and changes in how researchers are assessed. The University of Groningen Library (UB) has seized the opportunity in these developments, providing research support in the domains of registration and archiving of research output, open access publishing, research data management, and research analytics. Increased efficiency in traditional library procedures and the introduction of project-based funding have provided staff capacity for these developments. Full-service customization, to meet the needs of researchers and alleviate their time and work pressure, lies at the heart of the UB's research support.

scholarly journals Teaching Open Science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helene N. Andreassen ◽  
Erik Lieungh
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Data Management ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Learning Support ◽  
Research Data Management ◽  
The University

In this episode, we are discussing how to teach open science to PhD students. Helene N. Andreassen, head of Library Teaching and Learning Support at the University Library of UiT the Arctic University of Norway shares her experiences with the integration of open science in a special, tailor-made course for PhD's that have just started their project. An interdisciplinary, discussion-based course, "Take Control of Your PhD Journey: From (P)reflection to Publishing" consists of a series of seminars on research data management, open access publishing and other subject matters pertaining to open science. First published online February 26, 2020.

What is Open Science?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stein Høydalsvik ◽  
Erik Lieungh
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Research Support ◽  
University Library ◽  
The World ◽  
The University

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.

Newfound Press: The digital imprint of the University of Tennessee Libraries

First Monday ◽  
2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda L. Phillips
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Conference Proceedings ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Library ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
University Of Tennessee ◽  
Digital Multimedia ◽  
Scholarly Publications ◽  
The University

The University of Tennessee Libraries launched its digital imprint, Newfound Press, in 2005 to develop a framework for making peer reviewed scholarly and specialized works available worldwide. Building on local digitization investments, Newfound Press has published two monographs, hosts a born–digital journal, and is experimenting with publishing conference proceedings as digital multimedia. Through Newfound Press, the University of Tennessee is promoting open access publishing while resolving issues such as finding sustainable funding, creating a process for peer review “on the fly,” and establishing credibility as a viable scholarly publications venue. If every research library were to provide similar services, access to scholarship could become more transparent than ever before.

scholarly journals Transparent and Cost Effective Digital Open Access Publishing. The peer review process: burden or blessing to universities?

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.B.R.K. Gupta Udatha
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Editorial Staff ◽  
Critical Assessment ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
The University

Watch the VIDEO of the presentation.As per the standard definition, "Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are not part of the editorial staff". The reviewers generally are the researchers employed in institutions where research is conducted, for example universities and other academic research institutions. Peer review has rarely been a focus of the university's management or administration. Peer review is initiated and managed by the publishers and the researchers employed by the universities are doing the peer reviewing work. A recent study at the University of Tromsø (UiT) showed that its researchers spent as much as 28000 hours each year on peer reviewing for journals or publishers. This shows that if the UiT were to employ and pay researchers in positions as reviewers, this would cost approximately € 1,783,000 per annum for the university. In other words, the invisible costs of peer review are extensive. In this presentation, an overview of the economics involved in the peer review process will be presented. An overview of our new publishing initiative “Open Communications Press” will also be presented, that aims to turn the peer review economic burden into a blessing.

scholarly journals Enhancing Open Access publishing @University of Groningen and @University Medical Center Groningen

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Braun ◽  
Ane Van der Leij ◽  
Giulia Trentacosti ◽  
Sjoukje Van der Werf ◽  
Alie Bijker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Academic Staff ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Publishing Services ◽  
The University ◽  
Access Services ◽  
Young Researchers

The University of Groningen (UG) and the University Medical Centre Groningen (UMCG) have committed themselves to the Dutch National Open Science Plan. In addition, external research funders are increasingly demanding that research articles are published open access (e.g. through Plan S). In 2018, 50% of UG/UMCG-scientific articles were published open access. However, have we used all options for publishing open access in venues chosen by researchers, thereby maintaining the researchers’ quality standards, and reducing the costs as much as possible? The answer is "no." To maximize the open access uptake, while making the workflow as smooth as possible for researchers, the University Library and Central Medical Library have started an Open Access Services (OAS) project with the following objectives: Implementation of services for the provision of practical information and advice for researchers Establish communication channels to increase the overall visibility of open access services and to issue regular updates on changes and innovations in scholarly communication and open science; Provide information on available options, costs, copyright, licences, re-use rights and funders’ requirements, pre-funded open access deals and submission workflows; Establishment of expert networks for the provision of strategic information and advice: open access ambassadors (academic staff and/or research policy officers) within faculties to multiply  and disseminate between the OAS project team and individual researchers, research committees and faculty boards; support staff (research policy officers, funding officers, financial controllers), e.g. to include open access budgeting in grant applications; open access experts to identify obstacles to publish open access, and advise to eliminate them and advocate for policy changes with regard to research evaluation practices. Establishment of an open access training programme for young researchers Create and implement a programme of regular presentations and tutorials for young researchers about publication strategies and open access; Development of optimal workflows for monitoring and registering open access uptake and expenditures Registration of open access expenditures, including cost of pre-funded deals, support for diamond OA initiatives, unnecessary paid APCs and reimbursed by funders (grant budgets). Identification of missed opportunities to publish open access using pre-funded read and publish deals and repair them retroactively whenever possible. Improvement of standards for the registration of open access publications in the university’s CRIS system. Organization of UG’s participation in the Taverne Amendment pilot project i.e. the implementation of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act. Provision of extra support for open access publishing services offered by the UG Press Professionalize and improve the publishing services offered, to support diamond open access initiatives, with special emphasis on the humanities and social sciences. We will present on the main outcomes of this project.

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 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document