publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02

8/13/2019 publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02

1/29

How to attack manuscripts like an editor or reviwer


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


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


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.


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


6/29


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.


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



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



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



11/29

Serve to facilitate communicationamong scholars

Provides at least the same level ofquality control as traditional peer review

Fosters scientific communities



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



13/29


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.


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.


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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFAWR6hzZekhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFAWR6hzZekhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFAWR6hzZek


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

http://www.biomedcentral.com/http://www.biomedcentral.com/


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/


19/29


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.


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.


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


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


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.



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.



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



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



28/29


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.

publishdontperishwebversion-100509022651-phpapp02

Documents