publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
Post on 04-Jun-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
1/29
How to attack manuscripts like an editor or reviwer
-
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
2/29
Pipeline Model of Publishing 1
Author Publisher Library User
1 Kahin, Brian. Institutional and Policy Issues in the Development of the Digital Library. 1995. . Web. 1 May 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.120http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.120 -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
3/29
64%
30%
4% 2%
Proportions of Article Output in SMT 2
Commercial Publishing Companies
Learned Societies
University Presses
Government Research Department
2 Professional Scholarly Publishing. Publishing Facts. 2010. . Web. 1 May 2010.
http://www.pspcentral.org/pubFacts/pubFacts_008.cfmhttp://www.pspcentral.org/pubFacts/pubFacts_008.cfmhttp://www.pspcentral.org/pubFacts/pubFacts_008.cfm -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
4/29
Building a collective knowledge base
Communicating information
Validating the quality of research Distributing rewards
Building scientific communities
3 Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age. 2007. . Web. 1 May 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107 -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
5/29
20,000-25,000 peer-reviewed journals
More than 1 Mio articles published
annually 80% of papers subject to peer review
were reviewed by 2 or more reviewers
Active reviewers referee an average of 8papers/year
4 Professional Scholarly Publishing. Publishing Facts. 2010. . Web. 1 May 2010.
http://www.pspcentral.org/pubFacts/pubFacts_008.cfmhttp://www.pspcentral.org/pubFacts/pubFacts_008.cfmhttp://www.pspcentral.org/pubFacts/pubFacts_008.cfm -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
6/29
-
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
7/29
Referee
Editor
Author
6 Peters, John. The Hundred Years War Started Today: An exploration of electronic peer review. 1995. . Web. 1 May 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.117http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.117 -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
8/29
Single Blind Reviews
the reviewer knows the identity of the author,but the reviewers identity is kept confidential
Double Blind Reviews
neither the reviewer nor the authors identitiesare disclosed to the other
Open Peer Reviews author and the reviewer are both aware of
each others identity at the time of the review
7 Peters, John. The Hundred Years War Started Today: An exploration of electronic peer review. 1995. . Web. 1 May 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.117http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.117 -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
9/29
The lack of timely publication
Four to six months is fast for a scholarly
journal; two years not uncommon The formulaic approach often adopted
by reviewers limits creativity
8 Peters, John. The Hundred Years War Started Today: An exploration of electronic peer review. 1995. . Web. 1 May 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.117http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.117 -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
10/29
Eliminating the tradition of blinding thereviewers identities
Making the full peer-review record public
BioMed Central Opening the review process to anyone who
wishes to provide comments Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence
(ETAI) Atmospheric Chemistry and Physcs
Treating publications as organic documentsthat evolve over time
9 Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age. 2007. . Web. 1 May 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107 -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
11/29
Serve to facilitate communicationamong scholars
Provides at least the same level ofquality control as traditional peer review
Fosters scientific communities
10 Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age. 2007. . Web. 1 May 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107 -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
12/29
Paper format = subscription model
Individual subscriber
Institutional subscriptions Online journals = big deals
License fees
Open Access = new funding models community service model
author-side payments
11 Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age. 2007. . Web. 1 May 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107 -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
13/29
-
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
14/29
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
30003500
4000
4500
2002 2009
No. Of Peer-Reviewed OA Journals 13
No. Of Peer-
Reviewed OA
Journals
13 Bjrk, Bo-Christer and Turid Hedlund. Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their BusinessModel to Open Access. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.102>. Web. 1 May 2010.
-
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
15/29
The desire to share information withfellow researchers
Open access as a condition of a fundinggrant
Article was rejected by Journals
Reservations about working with largeorganizations suspicions about theconcept of intellectual property
14 Esposito, Joseph J. Open Access 2.0: Access to Scholarly Publications Moves to a New Phase. 2009. . Web. 1 May 2010.
-
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
16/29
Changing the business model has proven to bemuch more difficult and time-consuming thanenvisaged 510 years ago (Book Help)
Industry with a few dominant publishers Customers (i.e. University libraries) have a
strong pressure to buy subscriptions andlicenses from all the leading publishers
For publishing researchers, prestige of thejournal often more important than OA
Author charges a new type of cost foruniversities or research funders
15 Bjrk, Bo-Christer and Turid Hedlund. Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their BusinessModel to Open Access. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.102>. Web. 1 May 2010.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFAWR6hzZekhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFAWR6hzZekhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFAWR6hzZek -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
17/29
Oxford University Press offers OxfordOpen to 90 journals and 6 fully openaccess journals.
Wiley-Blackwell offers Online Open,which covers almost all of their1,264journals.
Springer offers Open Choice to all of its1,470 peer-reviewed online journals andfull open access to a number of them BioMed Central
16 Bjrk, Bo-Christer and Turid Hedlund. Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their BusinessModel to Open Access. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.102>. Web. 1 May 2010.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/http://www.biomedcentral.com/ -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
18/29
The Scholarly Kitchen is a moderated andindependent blog
Established in Feb 2008 by theSociety for Scholarly Publishing to: Keep SSP members and interested parties aware of new
developments in publishing Point to research reports and projects Interpret the significance of relevant research in a
balanced way Suggest areas that need more input by identifying gaps in
knowledge Translate findings from related endeavors Attract the community of STM information experts
interested in these things and give them a place tocontribute
17 Scholarly Kitchen.About. . Web. 1 May 2010.
http://www.scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/abouthttp://www.scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/abouthttp://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/ -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
19/29
-
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
20/29
Features of Google Scholar Search Find
Locate Learn
Ranking system weighing the full text of each document,
where it was published who it was written by how often and how recently it has been cited in
other scholarly literature.
18 Google Scholar.About. . Web. 1 May 2010.
-
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
21/29
Concerns about the definition of"scholarly" in determining inclusion orexclusion, and the currency of thecontent
Not restricted to peer-reviewed content:too much or too little useful content
One opportunity open to GoogleScholar is to offer searches thatrecognize the context of the words usedin searching.
19 Friend, Frederick J. Google Scholar: Potentially Good for Users of Academic Information. 2007. . Web. 1 May 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0009.105http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0009.105 -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
22/29
The future internet: Service Web 3.0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=off08As3siM&playnext_from=TL&videos=3I4ab3FgNeYhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=off08As3siM&playnext_from=TL&videos=3I4ab3FgNeY -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
23/29
The Web was designed as an information space,not only to be useful for human-humancommunication, but also that machines wouldbe able to participate and help users
communicate with each other. Computers are better at handling carefully
structured and well-designed data, yet evenwhere information is derived from a databasewith well-defined meanings, the implications of
those data are not evident to a robot browsingthe web.
More information on the web needs to be in aform that machines can understand rather thansimply display.
20 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web. 2001.http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
24/29
Semantic Web Technology involvesasking people to make some extra
effort, in repayment for which they willget substantial new functionality
A new set of languages is now being
developed to make more webcontent accessible to machines.
21 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web. 2001.http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
25/29
Tools for publishing papers on the web willautomatically help users to include more ofthis machine-readable markup
Whereas current tools using XML (ExtensibleMarkup Language) can allow a user to assertgeneral descriptions the new languages willbe able to express more details
Papers that include this new markuplanguage will be found by new and bettersearch engines, and users will thus be able toissue significantly more precise queries.
22 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web. 2001.http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
26/29
The semantic web will facilitate thedevelopment of automated methods forhelping users to understand the content
produced by those in other scientificdisciplines On the semantic web, one will be able
to produce machine-readable content
that will provide a self-evolving translatorthat allows one group of scientists todirectly interact with the technical dataproduced by another
23 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web. 2001.http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
27/29
The Semantic Web will allow users tocreate relationships that allow
communication when the commonalityof concept has not (yet) led to acommonality of terms.
The semantic web will provide unifying
underlying technologies to allow theseconcepts to be progressively linked intoa universal web of knowledge
24 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web. 2001.http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm -
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
28/29
-
8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02
29/29
Arnold, Kenneth. The Body in the Virtual Library: Rethinking Scholarly Communication.1995. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.104>. Web. 1 May 2010.
Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web. 2001.http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May2010.
Bjrk, Bo-Christer and Turid Hedlund. Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers CouldChange Their Business Model to Open Access. 2009. . Web. 1 May 2010.
Esposito, Joseph J. Open Access 2.0: Access to Scholarly Publications Moves to a NewPhase. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.203>. Web. 1 May 2010.
Friend, Frederick J. Google Scholar: Potentially Good for Users of Academic Information.2007. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0009.105>. Web. 1 May 2010.
Kahin, Brian. Institutional and Policy Issues in the Development of the Digital Library. 1995. . Web. 1 May 2010.
Moxley, Joseph M. How to Attack Manuscripts like an editor or reviewer. 1992. Publish,dont perish: the scholars guide to academic writing and publishing. Print.
Nadasdy, Zoltan. Electronic Journal of Cognitive and Brain Science: A Truly All-ElectronicJournal: Let Democracy Replace Peer Review. 1997. . Web. 1 May 2010.
Peters, John. The Hundred Years War Started Today: An exploration of electronic peerreview. 1995. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.117>. Web. 1 May 2010.
Peters, Paul. Redefining Scholarly Publishing as a Service Industry. 2007. . Web. 1 May 2010.
Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age.
2007. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107>. Web. 1 May 2010.
top related