EASE Journal Blog

B - Article evaluation: the five stars

2012-02-01T10:43:00.005Z

Shotton D. The Five Stars of Online Journal Articles - a framework for article evaluation. D-Lib Magazine Epub January/February 2012;18(1/2)
(doi: 10.1045/january2012-shotton)

The author proposes five factors - peer review, open access, enriched content, available datasets and machine-readable metadata - and a five-point scale for each of them, by which an online journal article can be evaluated. These five stars are complementary and provide a conceptual framework by which to judge the degree to which any article achieves or falls short of the ideal. They could be useful to authors, editors, and publishers.

B - Retraction index

2012-01-31T14:44:00.002Z

Fang FC, Casadevall A, Morrison RP. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity 2011;79(10):3855-3859
(doi: 10.1128/IAI.05661-11)

To determine whether journals differ in frequency of retracted articles and whether there is a relationship between retraction frequency and journal impact factor, the authors carried out a PubMed search among 17 journals. Using a novel measure, the "Retraction Index", they found that the frequency of retraction varies among journals and that it shows a strong correlation with the journal impact factor.

B - Influence of titles on citations

2012-01-31T14:15:00.002Z

Jamali H, Nikzad M. Article title type and its relation with the number of downloads and citations. Scientometrics 2011;88(2):653-661
(doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0412-z)

The authors wondered if the type of article title affect the number of citations and downloads an article receives. They found that articles with a question mark in their title tend to be downloaded more but cited less than descriptive or declarative titles. No significant correlation was found between title lenght and citation, whereas titles with colon tend to receive fewer downloads and citations.

B - Evaluating research: from informed peer-review to bibliometrics

2012-01-31T13:20:00.004Z

Abramo G, D'Angelo CA. Evaluating research: from informed peer-review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics 2011;87(3):499-514
(doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0352-7)

This article contrasts the peer-review and bibliometrics approaches in the conduct of national research assessment exercises. The comparison is conducted in terms of the essential parameters of any measurement system: accuracy, robustness, validity, functionality, time and costs. Empirical evidence shows that for the natural and formal sciences, the bibliometric methodology is by far preferable to peer-review.

B - New ways of making academic articles easier to read

2012-01-31T13:07:00.002Z

Hartley J. New ways of making academic articles easier to read. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 2011;12(1):141-158

This article focuses on more recent techniques in writing academic journal articles that might help authors when writing and revising text, and readers appreciate what they are saying. In particular, new approaches to the presentation of titles, abstracts, reader guidance, introductions, methods, results, tables, figures, and conclusions are discussed.

N - New journal from FEBS

2012-01-13T15:18:00.001Z

Another News Notes, another new open biology journal. The Federation of Biochemical Societies (FEBS) has launched a new 'open-access' journal called FEBS Open Bio. The journal, published by Elsevier, is open for new submissions and also for direct transfer of articles rejected by other FEBS publications (FEBS Letters, FEBS Journal and Molecular Oncology). All articles will be freely available on Elsevier's SciVerse ScienceDirect platform, although the usage rights are more limited than with other fully open-access journals.

N - Free access to UK research?

2012-01-13T15:07:00.001Z

The UK Government has published a report that calls for all publicly funded research to be made freely available. The report says: "Government will work with partners, including the publishing industry, to achieve free access to publicly-funded research as soon as possible and will set an example itself," Research councils will be required to ensure compliance with existing mandates to "deposit published articles or conference proceedings in an open access repository at or around the time of publication" and will investing £2 million (€2.4 million) to develop a 'Gateway to Research' website that could also include non-publicly funded research.

B - Refereeing academic articles

2012-01-04T15:02:00.003Z

Hartley J. Refereeing academic articles in the information age. British Journal of Educational Technology Epub 28 August 2011
(doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01211.x)

In this article some of the current practices used by editors, authors and referees when using electronic submission and publishing systems are discussed. The use of new technology for submitting papers to the refereeing process increases the possibilities for gathering, analysing and presenting summary data on these issues. Such data can also be used to clarify the roles played by editors, publishers, and referees. The author believes that refereeing should be open, i.e. correspondence between editors, referees and authors should be open and available, and not private.

B - Diversity, value and limitations of the journal impact factor

2012-01-04T14:22:00.003Z

Bornmann L, Marx W, Gasparyan AY et al. Diversity, value and limitations of the journal impact factor and alternative metrics. Rheumathology International ePub 23 December 2011
(doi: 10.1007/s00296-011-2276-1)

This article discusses misuses of the journal impact factor (JIF) to assess impact of separate journal articles and the effect of several manuscript versions on JIF. The interpretation of its values are valid for comparisons within, but not between certain journal sets or subject categories. JIF should not be used as a sole measure of a journal rank. Its limitations can be overcome by complementing it with new alternative journal metrics such as SCImago Journal Rank and the h-index. Examples of application of these new metrics in several subject categories are analyzed.

B - Publishers: Mobile Applications and Mobile Web Page

2012-01-04T08:25:00.002Z

Rodriguez TS. Publishers: Mobile Applications and Mobile Web Page. ETH Zuruch 2011.

Unpublished paper on services developed by 63 major publishers to distribute content using web 2 technologies. In recent years the technologies and systems for accessing the Web has evolved considerably. It is now common to see users accessing the web using smart phones, laptops, ipad or e-readers, etc.Publishers need to innovate and develop new ways to access content through web technologies. The paper presents and discusses some of the services developed by publishers.

http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:4525/eth-4525-01.pdf

B - Science editors' associations

2011-12-20T14:35:00.002Z

Gasparyan AY. Familiarizing with science editors' associations. Croatian Medical Journal 2011
(doi: 10.3325/cmj.2011.52.735)

The role of editors' associations is evolving to solve the numerous problems of efficient writing, editing, and publishing. This article presents activities carried out by some international science editors' associations, that include developing standards and guidelines of science writing, editing, indexing, research reporting, peer review, editorial independence, and other editorial policies. They also play a central role by facilitating distribution of information and networking, conducting research, and publishing periodical literature.

B - Effect of using report guidelines during peer review on final manuscript quality

2011-12-16T14:50:00.002Z

Cobo E, Cortés J, Ribera IM et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ 2011;343:d6783
(doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6783)

According to this study, additional reviews based on reporting guidelines (such as STROBE and CONSORT) result in a moderate improvement in manuscript quality. Nevertheless, authors in a mid-level medical journal have difficulties in adhering to high methodological standards at the latest research phases. To boost paper quality and impact, authors should be aware of future requirements of reporting guidelines at the very beginning of their study.

B - Improving categorization of Scopus database journals

2011-12-14T11:41:00.003Z

Gómez-Núñez AJ, Vargas-Quesada B, de Moya-Anegón F et al. Improving SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) subject classification through reference analysis. Scientometrics 2011;89:741-758
(doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0485-8)

This work introduces a proposal to improve the categorization of Scopus database journals included at the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal using reference analyisis of citing journals. This method represents a consistent and congruent new disciplinary structure, showing a solid performance in grouping journals at a higher level than categories - that is, aggregating journals into subject areas. It should be supplemented with additional techniques.

B - Correlation between peer assessments and h index values

2011-12-14T10:50:00.005Z

Bornmann L, Schier H, Marz W et al. Does the h index for assessing single publications really work? A case study on papers published in chemistry. Scientometrics 2011;89:835-843
(doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0472-0)

The results from a study on the peer review process of the Angewandte Chemie International Edition showed a correlation between peer assessments and single publication h index values: after publication, manuscripts with positive ratings by the journal's reviewers showed on average higher h index values than manuscripts with negative ratings by reviewers.

B - Research assessment: comparison of peer review and bibliometrics rankings

2011-12-14T10:07:00.005Z

Abramo G., D'Angelo CA, Di Costa F. National research assessment exercises: a comparison of peer review and bibliometrics rankings. Scientometrics 2011;89:929-941
(doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0459-x)

There is unanimous agreement that resources for science should be assigned according to rigorous evaluation criteria. Some governments have already introduced bibliometric methodology in support or substitution for more traditional peer review. The aim of this work was to compare ranking lists of Italian universities obtained through peer review for the period 2001-2003, with those obtained from bibliometric simulations. The comparison showed great differences between the two methodologies, raising strong doubts about the peer review reliability.

B - Google's vision for books

2011-12-14T09:35:00.003Z

Barron P. The library of the future: Google's vision for books. Learned Publishing 2011:24:197-201
(doi: 10.1087/20110307)

Much of the world's most useful information is locked within books and it is stored offline. As a consequence, the vast majority of books ever written are not accessible to the majority of people. In this article the author, Google's Director of External Relations for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, points out some of the huge opportunities that lie ahead in the relationship between the Internet and the world of books. He discusses Google's vision of the power and value to society of its book digitization programme, Google Books, launched in 2004 with the aim of bringing as many as possible of the world's books online.

B - Access to scientific publications: the scientist's perspective

2011-12-06T14:56:00.003Z

Voronin Y, Myrzahmetov A, Bernstein A. Access to scientific publications: the scientist's perspective. PLoS One 2011;6(11):e27868
(doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027868)

This study used the field of HIV vaccine research as a barometer to measure the degree to which scientists have access to published research. This area of research - of critical importance for the developing countries - saw recent growth in the popularity of open access journals, but the exact impact of these changes is not yet clear. Institutional subscriptions continue to play an important role, however, subscriptions do not provide access to the full range of HIV vaccine research literature. A variety of other means to access literature are investigated, including emailing corresponding authors or joint affiliations.

B - Research ethics cases managed by COPE

2011-12-06T14:36:00.004Z

Foo JYA, Wilson SJ. An analysis on the research ethics cases managed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) between 1997 and 2010. Science and Engineering Ethics 2011, 29 April e-pub
(doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9273-3)

This article reviewed the outcomes of 408 cases, that the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) had investigated between 1997 and 2010 with respect to 7 distinct criteria. The results showed that the number of ethical implications per case had not changed significantly since 1997, and that the number of ethical cases, including research misconduct, was not diminishing.

B - UK scientific papers rank first in citations

2011-12-06T11:07:00.004Z

Marshall E, Travis J. U.K. Scientific papers rank first in citations. Science 2011, October 28;334:443

The UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills released a citation analysis that found that UK "attracts more citations per pound spent in overall research and development than any other country". A similar analysis for the period 1991 to 2010 by Thomson Reuters reported that UK produced 17% of the world's research papers with more than 500 citations and 20% of those with more than 1,000 citations. Today UK scientific papers have the greatest impact in the world and biological sciences are the strongest area of research. This performance surpassed even that of the United States, which has the world's best-funded research system.

B - Are journal editors an anachronism?

2011-12-06T10:48:00.006Z

Davis P. Have journal editors become anachronisms? Scholarly Kitchen blog 2011, 19 September
Are journal editors an anachronism? On the Guardian a recurring revolutionary theme has been recently reported: publishing must be taken back from editors and the institutions and returned to the people. In this blog post it is discussed why we still need editors and their journals, perhaps more than ever before. The information overload is a problem of quality signaling between authors and readers, and the role of editors is enhanced - not diminished - in mediating these signals. Journals should be then considered as mediators of quality signals and not as a mechanism to control the distribution of scientific research.
Thanks to Sylwia Ufnalska

B - How journals can prevent, detect and respond to misconduct

2011-12-06T10:27:00.003Z

Wager E. How journals can prevent, detect and respond to misconduct. Notfall+Rettungsmedizin German Interdisciplinary Journal of Emergency Medicine 2011, 30 October:1-3
(doi: 10.1007/s10049-011-1543-8)

Editors of science journals are sometimes reluctant to retract articles. Reasons may include concerns about litigation or about effects a retraction might have on the reputation of a journal. Editors should work to prevent and detect potential misconduct by educating researchers and authors about good practices. Journals policies and guidelines should also inform peer reviewers and editors about their responsibilities for ensuring the integrity of the process and of what is reported. Nowadays new tools are available for detecting various types of misconduct but all of them carry costs.

N - Wolters Kluwer acquires Medknow

2011-12-05T15:37:00.001Z

Medknow Publications, an open-access publisher based in Mumbai, India, has been acquired by Wolters Kluwer Health, the home of Lippincot, Williams & Wilkins, UpToDate and Ovid, and other brands. Medknow has built its reputation through alliances with professional societies, and Wolters Klower sees the acquisition as a way of increasing locally written content and incorporating open-access platforms into its business model.

B - Reproducible research in computational science

2011-12-05T13:22:00.003Z

Peng RD. Reproducible research in computational science. Science 2011;334(1226)
(doi: 10.1126/science.1213847)

Computational science has led to exciting new developments in many scientific areas. The availability of large public databases has allowed for researchers to make meaningful scientific contributions. Replication is the ultimate standard by which the value of scientific claims is assessed, particularly when full independent replication of a study is not feasible. However, there are some barriers to reproducible research, and the author proposes some steps to improve the current situation.

B- Making the journal abstract more concrete

2011-11-29T14:30:00.006Z

Hartley J. Making the journal abstract more concrete. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2011;43(1):110-115
(doi: 10.3138/jsp.43.1.110)

Abstracts in social science journals have been criticized in the past for being imprecise. They need to be more concrete. Readers need to know in which discipline a study has taken place, how many and what kinds of participants have been involved and what methodologies have been used. The author provides three examples of how abstracts could be improved.

B - Costs and benefits of transitions to gold open access

2011-11-25T14:59:00.003Z

Jubb M. Heading for the open road: costs and benefits of transitions in scholarly communications. Liber Quarterly 2011;21(1):102-104

This article reports on a study investigating the drivers, costs and benefits of potential ways to increase access to scholarly journals. A detailed and authorative analysis of how it could be achieved identifying five different scenarios over the next five years: gold and green open access, moves towards national licensing, publisher-led delayed open access, and transactional models. It then compares and evaluates benefits, costs, and risks for the UK. Policymakers should encourage the use of existing subject and institutional repositories (green infrastructure) and in parallel promote and facilitate a transition to gold open access.

B - Performance of scientific peer reviewers

2011-11-25T14:16:00.001Z

Callaham M, McCulloch C. Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2011;57(2):141-148

Editors at the Annals of Emerging Medicine rated the quality of every review performed by journal's reviewers during a 14-year longitudinal study. Results demonstrated slow but steady deterioration of most peer reviewers' performance on validated quality scores for article assessment over the years. This performance is consistent with studies of performance over time in disciplines other than medicine. The findings should persuade editors of the need to track reviewer quality, directing reviews to the upper tier of reviewers and avoiding the lowest.

B - Peer reviews: make them public

2011-11-25T14:04:00.005Z

Mietchen D. Peer reviews: make them public. Nature 2011;473(452)
(doi:10.1038/473452b)

A public-review policy would help editors and increase a journal's reputation, particularly if others in the field publicly shared their own relevant observations. Public reviews, including those of rejected manuscripts, would also provide an incentive for authors to submit their work only when it is ready, helping to lower rejection rates.

Thanks to Valerie Matarese

B - Peer review accuracy: cooperation between referees and authors

2011-11-25T13:28:00.002Z

Leek JT, Taub MA, Pineda FJ. Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy. PLoS ONE 2011;6(11):e26895
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026895

Researchers from John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health published results of a peer review simulation game designed to test the effects of open vs. closed review on reviewer accuracy.
Through both theoretical modeling and their game, played by a small community of scientists over cloud computing, they found that reviewers spend more time, are more collaborative and more accurate when review is open than when they work anonymously. Cooperative peer reviewing behaviour can lead to a higher review accuracy.

B - Public access and use of health research: a NIH study

2011-11-25T11:35:00.005Z

O'Keeffe J, Willinsky J, Maggio L. Public access and use of health research: an exploratory study of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy using interviews and surveys of health personnel. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2011;13(4):e97
doi:10.2196/jmir.1827

In 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy mandated open access for publications resulting from NIH funding. This study measured current use, interest, and barriers among health personnel of research to establish the potential impact of NIH Policy on health care quality and outcomes. The results of the study showed expectation for a positive impact.

B - The virtues of correct citation

2011-11-25T10:58:00.008Z

Mertens S, Baethge C. The virtues of correct citation: careful referencing is important but is often neglected even in peer reviewed articles. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 2011;108(33):550-552 doi:10.3238/arztebl.2011.0550

References in scientific publications often contain errors, such as their choice and placing. The following mistakes can appear: the source does not support the statement (quotation error); the reference citation is placed in such a way that it is not clear which statement it relates to; the bibliographic data are incomplete or wrong (citation errors). The authors carried out a small pilot study of references in Deutsches Ärtzeblatt, which results indicated an error rate in references of around 20%, on the basis of a conservative estimate. It would be helpful to describe how the authors selected the references they have used, if there were inclusion and exclusion criteria, which databases were searched and so on.
Thanks to James Hartley.

B - Integration of data and publications

2011-11-25T10:04:00.005Z

Reilly S, Schallier W, Schrimpf S. et al. Report on integration of data and publications. Alliance for Permanent Access. ODE Project 2011, 17 oct.

As part of the ODE (Opportunities for Data Exchange) project the report presents current opinions from numerous sources to reveal opportunities for supporting a more connected and integrated scholarly record. Four perspectives are considered, those of researchers, publishers, and libraries & data enters. It examines how scholarly journals handle the increasing amount of data alongside the article by considering different publishing models (peer reviewed articles, supplementary files, etc.). The report identifies clear opportunities for all stakeholders to directly enable a more joined up and vital scholarly record of modern research.

B - Misconducts in publication of biomedical articles

2011-11-24T13:24:00.003Z

Varghese T. Misconducts in the publication of biomedical articles. Calicut Medical Journal 2011;9(2):e1

Many articles appearing in biomedical journals are done and published solely for academic advancement. According to the author, the editor of the Calicut Medical Journal, medical journal editors face many types of misconducts, the most common of them is plagiarism. Nowadays most of journals use specialised softwares to detect plagiarism: these softwares compare the submitted article with huge depositories of published literature to look for evidence of similarity.

B - Why animal research needs to improve

2011-11-24T10:29:00.003Z

Macleod M. Why animal research needs to improve. Nature 2011;477:511
doi:10.1038/477511a

Scant attention is usually given by authors, reviewers, and editors to the basic aspects related to the design of experiments, that use animals to model human diseases. In the face of pressures to reduce the number of animals used, researchers often do studies that are too small to detect a significant effect, and also tend to publish only positive results. Then, rules need to be changed: if publication in high-impact journals continues to be a yardstick, then the review process must do much more to assess bias.

N - ORCID progress

2011-11-07T16:12:00.000Z

The ORCID (open researcher and contributor ID) project has raised sufficient funds from its 44 founding organisations to start the first phase of development, under the interim leadership of CrossRef's Geoffrey Bilder. The project will use Thomson Reuters' ResearcherID code under a royalty-free perpetual license, and further funds are being sought.

N - EC consults on scientific information

2011-11-07T16:10:00.002Z

In September, the European Commission completed a consultation on scientific information in the digital age. The EC will set out its plans for open access to publications and data in the context of research projects funded by the Union budget, including detail specific actions for individual member states. You can follow progress on the EC website.

N - Proofreading tips

2011-11-07T15:02:00.000Z

The New York Times reports that it seems to be getting plenty of feedback from its readers about typos and gaffes, and its Times Topics blog presents a handy list of proofreading tips, "culled from years of journalism tip sheets."

N - Journal ranking

2011-11-07T14:52:00.000Z

Faculty of 1000, the post-publication peer review service, has been looking at a new alternative to the journal impact factor. The F1000 Journal Rankings are based on the evaluations provided by the site's contributors. The approach is based on qualitative judgements and uses an algorithm developed collaboratively. The biggest problem seems to be whether to permit evaluations by editors of articles in their own journals.

N - Apps for libraries

2011-11-07T14:07:00.001Z

The Apps for Library Ideas Challenge was set up by Elsevier under the banner "Know what your users need but not how to build it?" and sought innovative application ideas from libraries using Elsevier's SciVerse platform. Ten finalists were selected, including determining the number of authors, vocabulary mapping, journal abbreviation translation, and supported search.

Update (08/11/11):
The winners were announced on 3 November. The top prizes went to Journals/Conferences @ Your Fingertips, a way of delivering the top 20 journal or conferences relating to search results, proposed by Low Ke Khoon of the National University of Singapore, and JTOCs 2 Go, a customisable table of contents notification service proposed by Andrea Szwajcer from the University of Manitoba, Canada.

N - More calls for access to data

2011-11-07T14:02:00.000Z

An article in PLoS ONE by John Ioannidis and colleagues noted that that not enough journals have policies on data availability, and that authors don't adhere to policies that are in place. The article was the focus of a news story in Nature, which also addressed the need for better standards and incentives to share, both of which could address the question of why scientists don't share more. Focusing on clinical data, The Cochrane Collaboration issued a statement calling for free access to all data from clinical trials, to avoid selective reporting and ultimately reducing risks for patients.

N - EMWA Journal changes

2011-11-07T13:57:00.000Z

The European Medical Writers Association's quarterly journal The Write Stuff will be re-launched in 2012 as Medical Writing. The newly branded journal will be published by Maney Publishing and will be available online via IngentaConnect.

N - Twitter styles

2011-11-07T13:43:00.000Z

Increasingly, the traditional journal article is only part of the mosaic of outputs that can relate to a research project. Researchers also blog, talk at conferences, share data online, contribute to guidelines or networks, and so on. All of these can be disseminated via Twitter. The London School of Economics and Political Sicence (LSE)'s Impact of Social Sciences blog includes useful guides to using Twitter for research projects and the different styles of tweeting.

N - OA search engine

2011-11-07T13:23:00.000Z

JISC, the UK organisation that promotes information technologies in academia, has developed a search engine for open access content. The engine, developed by the Open University’s Knowledge Media Institute, enables users to navigate papers held in British open access repositories. You can try the search at core.kmi.open.ac.uk. The system stores downloads of previous searches, enabling access even if the originating source is offline.

N - How to measure OA

2011-11-07T13:10:00.000Z

There's no shortage of facts and figures about the growth (or lack of growth, depending how you read the numbers) of open access publishing. A recent post on the Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics blog presets an impressive array of data and milestones. But the European Commission is looking for a more sustainable way of measuring OA. It has published a call for proposals for a study to develop a set of indicators to measure open access. The aim is for monitoring of the growth of open access literature from 2000 onwards within the European Research Area (ERA) and beyond. The EC sees OA as a key part of the "single market for research and innovation in which researchers, scientific knowledge and technology circulate freely."

N - DOI as URL

2011-11-07T13:02:00.000Z

CrossRef has announced a new format for the display of digital object indentifiers (DOIs). All organisations are now encouraged to use the URL format http://dx.doi.org/doi wherever a DOI appears. This makes DOIs more user-friendly, more appropriate for mobile devices and more easily machine-readable. To address concerns that the URL string is longer than the previous format, CrossRef also recommends that publishers consider using the ShortDOI service to shorten existing DOIs.

N - Edited news is good news

2011-11-07T12:10:00.000Z

Another boost for editors: readers prefer news articles that have been profesionally edited. The research, sponsored by the American Copy Editors Society (ACES), also found that readers were more concerned about professionalism and grammar than style or structure. Fred Vultee of Wayne State University, USA, presented the findings at the ACES annual conference and indicated that his future work will address the question of whether readers would stop visiting a website because of poor editing.

N - From MathML to MathJax

2011-11-07T12:06:00.000Z

Presenting mathematical formulae correctly has always been tricky for publishers, whatever the medium. It's especially difficult when you are delivering a range of mathematical content via multiple online platforms. An article in the October/November issue of Research Information reports on the development and progress of MathJax, a universal standard for online display of mathematical formulae. It enables all web browsers to display Mathematical Markup Language (MathML) more easily. Future plans include and enhanced interface and linewrapping of equations, as well as third-party contributions and integration with other software.

N - ALPSP awards

2011-11-07T12:00:00.001Z

The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP)'s Award for Contribution to Scholarly Publishing has gone this year to Cliff Morgan of John Wiley & Sons, in recognition his long-standing contributions to digital preservation, article metrics, article versioning, and many other projects. The best new journal award went to Chemical Science, published by RSC Publishing, with a highly-commended certificate going to Bioanalysis, published by Future Science. Publishing innovation was recognised with an award for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Better Life Index, an elegant, interactive tool that has increased accessibility of OECD's data sets.

N - Interoperability options

2011-11-07T11:48:00.001Z

The number of open access institutional repositories has been rising steadily, but the real value lies in the potential to create a linked network of these repositories. The Confederation of Open Access Repositories is addressing the inevitable technical and organisational challenges that may prevent interoperability, defined as "the ability for systems to communicate with each other and pass information back and forth in a usable format." COAR has published a paper and is inviting stakeholders to contribute ideas.

N - Data centres as curators

2011-11-07T11:47:00.001Z

There is much debate about mandatory versus optional policies for self-archiving or repository deposition. A new report from Research Information Network and JISC takes a step back and looks at the usage and impact of data centres in the UK. Data centres supply research data to the academic community, and may also collect, store and/or curate the data. The report focuses on the curatorial role, with its benefits of quality assurance, preservation and applicability.

N. Philosophical Transactions now online

2011-10-29T18:10:00.002+01:00

During the International Open Access Week (October 24-28) the Royal Society announced that its world-famous historical journal archive – which includes the first ever peer-reviewed scientific journal – has been made permanently free to access online

Around 60,000 historical scientific papers are accessible via a fully searchable online archive, with papers published more than 70 years ago now becoming freely available.

The Royal Society is the world’s oldest scientific publisher, with the first edition of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society appearing in 1665. Henry Oldenburg – Secretary of the Royal Society and first Editor of the publication – ensured that it was “licensed by the council of the society, being first reviewed by some of the members of the same”, thus making it the first ever peer-reviewed journal.
To know more

B - Ethical guidelines by professional societies

2011-10-10T14:43:00.005+01:00

Zigmond MJ. Making ethical guidelines matter. American Scientist 2011;99(4):296
(doi: 10.1511/2011.91.296)

Today more than 50 scientific societies have written guidelines on research ethics for their members. These societies are uniquely positioned to understand and develop effective codes of conduct for the specific segment of science that they represent. Research institutions can set standards only for the most basic and universal matters, such as plagiarism and fabrication of data. The example of guidelines issued by the American Society for Neuroscience (SfN) is provided illustrating how a professional society can go beyond guidelines alone to promote research integrity in other dynamic ways.

B - Do authors deliberately commit research fraud?

2011-10-10T13:59:00.002+01:00

Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? Journal of Medical Ethics 2011;37:113-117
(doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.038125)

A study was undertaken to test the "deliberate fraud" hypothesis that some authors deliberately commit research fraud. It is based on the presumption that authors producing fraudulent papers specifically target journals with a high impact factor, have other fraudulent publications, delay retracting the paper and collaborate with co-authors who also have other retractions for fraud. All 788 English language papers retracted from the PubMed database between 2000 and 2010 were evaluated. The results suggest that papers retracted because of data fabrication or falsification represent a deliberate effort to deceive.

B - Conflicts of interest for medical publishers and editors

2011-10-10T13:33:00.002+01:00

Desai SS, Shortell CK. Conflicts of interest for medical publishers and editors: protecting the integrity of scientific scholarship. Journal of Vascular Surgery 2011;54(3):59S-63S
(doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.05.111)

This article discusses the potential conflicts of interest between editors, contributing authors, the publisher, and advertisers in the medical publication process. Editors and publishers must be as responsible as authors to promote and protect the integrity of the scientific process. They should protect editorial independence, promote the use of a scientific arbitration board for serious disputes, promote transparency throughout all stages of publication, and take advantage of an effective legal framework

B - Reading scientific articles

2011-10-06T16:16:00.003+01:00

Lang TA. The illusion of certainty and the certainty of illusion: a caution when reading scientific articles. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2011;2(2):118-123

The article provides an example of the analyses needed to understand a single sentence in a scientific journal. In so doing, it raises several interesting issues of meaning, measurement, statistical analyses, and the form in which results are presented and interpreted. According to the author, most authors have never been taught how to communicate technical information in writing, and most journals do not have the time to edit a paper thoroughly.

B - Signs, symptoms and causes of plagiarism

2011-10-06T13:30:00.006+01:00

Shashok K. Authors, editors, and the signs, symptoms and causes of plagiarism. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia 2011;5(3):303-307
(doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.84107)

This article discusses how plagiarism is defined and suggests some possible causes for its increase in scientific literature. Nowadays there is some awareness that re-use of words in research articles by no English-mother tongue authors should be distinguished from intentional stealing other authors' ideas. Editors tend to consider any text duplication as a symptom of serious misconduct without considering the reasons why researchers do that. Practical advice is given to researchers on how to improve their writing and citing skills and thus avoid accusations of plagiarism.

B - Trends in Middle Eastern countries' science production

2011-10-06T12:58:00.003+01:00

Habibzadeh F. Geopolitical changes and trends in Middle Eastern countries' contributions to world science over the past three decades. Archives of Iranian Medicine 2011;14(5):310-311

It is not possible to study the Middle East science growth without considering its geopolitical changes. Despite a nearly constant tension over the past 3 decades, science production of this region has grown nearly four times faster than the world's pace. In particular Iran and Turkey had a fast scientific growth, followed by Cyprus, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. In the 1990s, in the aftermath of the Iraq-Iran war, Iran developed the necessary infrastructure for research and then allocated a larger budget to its research sector, with an astronomical scientific growth - mostly in medicine, agriculture, and nuclear technology.

B - Impact Factor and other metrics for evaluating science

2011-10-06T12:41:00.004+01:00

Solimini AG, Solimini R. Impact Factor and other metrics for evaluating science: essentials for public health practitioners. Italian Journal of Public Health 2011;8(1):96-103

The article reviews the most widely used metrics, highlighting the pros and cons of each of them. The rigide application of quantitative metrics to judge the quality of a journal, of a single publication or of a researcher suffers from many negative issues and is prone to many reasonable criticisms. A solution could be the use of a qualitative assessment by a panel review based on few but robust quantitative metrics.

B - Do we need eMinence-based bioethics?

2011-09-30T14:20:00.004+01:00

Petrini C. Pardon my asking: do we need eMinence-based bioethics? Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità 2011;47(3):243-244
(doi: 10.4415/ANN_ 11_03_01)

What kind of ethics is useful for researchers? Nowadays the proliferation of bioethic experts and the success of practical guidelines are a fact from which the author of this editorial draws the following conclusions: people find bioethics and guidelines helpful; expertise in ethics is most of all a matter of correct or true judgment; and experts should be able to communicate.

B - Impact of conflicts of interest on perceived credibility of research

2011-09-29T11:13:00.005+01:00

Lacasse JR, Leo J. Knowledge of ghostwriting anf financial conflicts-of-interest reduces the perceived credibility of biomedical research. BMC Research Notes 2011;4:27
(doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-27)

This study provides information on how practicing clinicians perceive research in which multiple conflicts of interest (COI) are disclosed. The authors developed two research vignettes presenting a fictional antidepressant medication study, one in which the authors had no COI and another in which there were multiple COI disclosed. Perceived credibility ratings were much lower in the COI group that is, increased disclosure of COI resulted in lower credibility ratings.

B - Legal remedies for medical ghostwriting

2011-09-28T14:32:00.006+01:00

Stern S, Lemmens T. Legal remedies for medical ghostwriting: imposing fraud liability on guest authors of ghostwritten articles. PLoS Med 2011;8(8):e1001070
(doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001070)

The article focuses on ghostwriting and guest authorship in industry-controlled research: several examples have revealed the use of ghostwriters to insert concealed marketing messages favourable to a company's product, and the recruitment of academics as "guest" authors despite not fulfilling authorship criteria. Medical journals, academic institutions, and professional disciplinary bodies have thus far failed to enforce effective sanctions. Given this failure, the authors suggest a firm legal response through the imposition of legal liability on guest authorship as fraud.

Thanks to Mariolina Salio

B - Innovation needs novel thinking

2011-09-22T11:24:00.002+01:00

Leshner AI. Innovation needs novel thinking. Science 2011;332(6033):1009
(doi: 10.1126/science.1208330)

Science, technology and innovation are critical drivers of economic growth and national well-being of a country. Investing in them has become a hope for many countries, both rich and poor. But innovation demands that novel ideas are pursued, and to attract them some long-held traditions and modes of operation need to be reexamined. Some issues are highlighted to foster innovation and economic success. Among them, the peer review process, the evaluation timeline and criteria for judging and rewarding performance, the increase in number of young researchers and diversity of scientific human resource pool.

B - Publishing cycle of biomedical journals

2011-09-22T11:13:00.002+01:00

Tagler J. Biomedical Publishing 101: an overview from the Chicago Collaborative. The Serials Librarian 2011; 60(1-4):114-123

The challenges and opportunities posed by the migration from print to digital were addressed. The author explored the role of publishers in the scholarly communication process, and the various roles and responsibilities of other different players in the scientific publishing chain.

B - Statistical and research design problems in psychology journals

2011-09-21T15:16:00.003+01:00

Harris A, Reeder R, Hyun J. Survey of editors and reviewers of high-impact psychology journals: statistical and research design problems in submitted manuscripts. The Journal of Psychology 2011;145(3):195-209

The authors surveyed 21 editors and reviewers from major psychology journals to identify and describe the statistical and design errors they encounter most often and to get their advice to prevent them. Three major areas were identified: problems with research design and reporting; inappropriate data analysis; and misinterpretation of results. Researchers should attend to these common issues to improve the scientific quality of their submitted manuscripts.

B - APS redifines length

2011-09-21T14:53:00.004+01:00

Sprouse G. Editorial: Redefining length. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research 2011;7(020001)
(doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.020001)

Authors often work hard to maximize the material presented within the constraints of the printed page, and this leads to frustration especially during the proof stage and, much important, to compromises that can be detrimental to the research itself. The APS Editor in Chief announces that in a effort to streamline the calculation of length, the APS journals will no longer use the printed page as the determining factor for length. Instead the journals will use word counts to determine length. This new method will be easier for authors to calculate in advance, keeping the quality of concise communication that is a virtue of letters and short papers.

Thanks to John Glen

B - Ethics authors don't follow guidelines

2011-09-21T14:47:00.004+01:00

Tarnow E. Ethics authors don't follow guidelines. APS News 2011;20(7):4

Ethics training at least in medical publication seems to lead to worse behaviour. Young researchers find out just how they are expected to behave, which turns out to be...unethically.

Thanks to John Glen

B - Online gamers solve a longstanding scientific problem

2011-09-21T14:17:00.004+01:00

Khatib F, DiMaio F, Cooper S et al. Crystal structure of a monomeric retroviral protease solved by protein folding game players. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 2011;online publ. September 18
(doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2119)

Fold.it is a multiplayer online game that allows players worldwide to solve complex protein-structure prediction problems. A 15-year-old AIDS problem was recently solved in just three weeks by a group of online gamers. They created a model of a protein that scientists haven't been able to model themselves, using a game-like structure. This result indicates a high potential for integrating video games into the real-world scientific process and for solving, if properly directed, a wide range of scientific problems.

Thanks to Kate Whittaker

B - Retracted science and retracted index

2011-09-20T10:08:00.005+01:00

Fang FC, Casadevall A. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity 2011;79(10)
(doi: 10.1128/IAI.05661-11)

Overall, manuscript retraction appears to be occurring more frequently, although it is uncertain whether this is a result of increasing misconduct or simply increasing detection due to enhanced vigilance. The authors developed a novel measure, the "retraction index", by dividing the number of retractions by the total number of articles published by 17 journals ranging in impact factor 2.00 to 53.484 in the years 2001 to 2010. They found that the frequency of retraction varied among journals and showed a strong correlation with the journal impact factor.

B - Can a scientific retraction change public opinion?

2011-09-20T10:01:00.004+01:00

Harmon K. Impact factor: can a scientific retraction change public opinion? Scientific American March 4, 2010

The article discusses the effect that scientific retractions have on public opinion. After initial findings are published part of the readers will not change their mind even if the paper is retracted. The paper's influence on the public may last for awhile, despite a growing contrary evidence. The recent retraction of a key paper proposing a link between childhood vaccines and autism has widened the societal divide on this issue. The number of retractions have been increasing but they are just the tip of the iceberg: a study showed that about 2% of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once.

B - Quantifying effort in scientific publishing

2011-09-19T13:11:00.002+01:00

Winker K. In scientific publishing at the article level, effort matters more than journal impact factors. Bioessays 2011;33(6):400-402
(doi: 10.1002/bies.201100020)

Effort involved in producing a particular paper is difficult to quantify. Neverthanless, it and the number of authors are positively correlated with citation count: working hard and work effectively with others are the most important factors affecting number of citations. According to the author, effort - and how to measure it - should be incorporated into future bibliometric studies. Journal impact factor seems to be rather overrated when applied at an individualistic level, although its social aspects are very important affecting such tangibles as getting a job, a promotion, or a proposal funded

B - The k-index as an antidote against the h-index

2011-09-19T11:17:00.005+01:00

Molinié A, Bodenhausen G. The kinship or k-index as an antidote against the toxic effects of h-index. CHEMIA International Journal for Chemistry 2011;65(6):433-436
(doi: 10.2533/chimia.2011.433)

According to the authors, the current fashion of ranking people, papers and journals is anything but harmless. They suggest to measure the "fertility" of individual researchers - with respect to their ability to foster quality - in terms of kinship (the k-index) rather than through personalized indices (the h-index). Scientific production is nourished by the past and is conveyed for the future advancement. A chart of elective kinship, produced through the transmission of scientific theory, methodology, know-how, competence, and even culture, could be then realized.

Thanks to Penny Hubbard

B - Self-citation bias in psychological science

2011-09-19T10:14:00.003+01:00

Brysbaert M, Smith S. Self-enhancement in scientific research: the self-citation bias. Psychologica Belgica 2011;5(2):129-137

Self-enhancement and self-citation biases are well-documented phenomena in the social psychology field. The article examines the number of self-citations in articles published by four journals and the reasons why authors cite themselves. References in articles are not always included because they are essential to understand the argument or because they are the best source of information. Sometimes they are included because authors want to promote and praise themselves and their findings. Then, self-citations have more to do with self-promotion than with the advancement of science. It is not clear whether editors should take action about self-citations.

Thanks to James Hartley

B - Communicating uncertainties visually

2011-09-19T09:36:00.003+01:00

Spiegelhalter D, Pearson M, Short I. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Science 2011;333(6048):1393-1400
(doi: 10.1126/science.1191181)

Explanation of uncertainties presents a serious challenge, particularly to an audience with a wide range of scientific and mathematical expertise. In this review current practice for communicating uncertainties by means of graphic visualizations are examined, using examples drawn from sport, weather, climate, health, economics, and politics. The most suitable choice of visualization to illustrate uncertainty depends closely on the objectives of the presenter, the context of communication, and the audience. Useful recommendations are provided, although careful case studies are needed describing the development and evaluation of specific examples in a wide range of contexts.

B - Crafting a revision

2011-09-16T15:29:00.003+01:00

Editorial. Crafting a revision. Nature Neuroscience 2011;14:941
(doi: 10.1038/nn0811-941)

A thoughtful revision of a paper based on editorial and referee feedback does improve its quality. The process of revising a paper can sometimes be frustrating for the authors, editors and referees. Authors should be open to referee criticisms and should go through his comments point by point responding constructively and diplomatically to each point. Also noting that a referee has made critical mistakes or has requested unnecessary extensions, nonetheless authors should make any effort to improve the paper. Authors, editors and referees all benefit from a collaborative and collegial peer review process.

B - Evaluation of peer review system

2011-09-16T14:42:00.004+01:00

O'Dowd A. Peer review system needs thorough evaluation, MPs hear. BMJ 2011;342:d3046
(doi: 10.1136/bmj.d3046)

The UK parliamentary science and technology committee carried out an inquiry into the peer review process in science. Several medical and scientific journal editors appearing before the committee last May spoke of the many merits of the peer review system, but they raised some concerns about the variability of its quality and a lack of adequate evaluation to confirm its value. They agreed that the process should be improved. Another issue regarded whether the peer review process had a "conservative impact" on science and whether this was problem. The BMJ Group produced a written evidence to the parliamentary inquiry.

B - Reporting guidelines for health research: a review

2011-09-09T12:02:00.003+01:00

Moher D, Weeks L, Ocampo M et al. Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(7):718-742
(doi: 10.1016/j.clinepi.2010.09.013)

This review includes 81 reporting guidelines, most of which have been developed in the last 10 years. Fifty-eight percent of them are classified as new guidance. The authors believe that a more rigorous approach for developing reporting guidelines is needed. The results of the review indicate that guidelines developers provide little information about the guideline development process. Publishing better descriptions on how reporting guidelines were developed will allow potential users to assess the robustness of the provided recommendations. An assessment tool could also be developed to help authors and editors to create and evaluate specific reporting guidelines. Journal editors could be more confident in endorsing reporting guidelines that have followed these approaches.

B - Conflict of interest in oncology

2011-09-09T11:31:00.003+01:00

Kesselheim AS, Lee JL, Avorn J et al. Conflict of interest in oncology publications. A survey of disclosure policies and statements. Cancer 2011, epub 29 June
(doi: 10.1002/cncr.26237)

Because eliminating potential conflicts of interest is essentially impossible, nearly all biomedical journals require authors to disclose funding for their work, as well as other relevant relationships that they, their families, or their institutions might hold when an article is submitted for publication. The authors examined the disclosures related to conflict of interest accompanying papers published in major oncology journals to compare the nature of requested information with information provided. This analysis revealed a wide range of disclosure policies and practices: most but not all of the journals required some disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, but related standards and definitions varied considerably.

B - The impact of free access to the scientific literature: a review

2011-09-09T10:04:00.005+01:00

Davis PM, Walters WH. The impact of free access to the scientific literature: a review of recent research. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2011;99(3):208-217
(doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.99.3.008)

The paper reviews the recent studies that evaluate the impact of free access (open access) on scholars, clinicians, and the general public in developed and developing countries. The review assesses impact in terms of reading, citation, and related forms of use. Authors consider factors such as journal reputation and the absence of publication fees when submitting their work. In contrast, free access is not a significant factor in their submission decisions. There is clear evidence that free access increases the number of article downloads, although its impact on article citations is not clear. Further research is needed to evaluate the effect of free access on the general public's use of the primary medical literature.

B - Authorship problems in small medical journals

2011-09-08T15:04:00.006+01:00

Marušić A. Problems of editors with authorship in small medical journals. The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2011;2(3):130-132

Authorship is a serious problem in smaller scientific communities . Many authors do not qualify for the standard authorship criteria set by the ICMJE and some editors as well cannot be familiar with them. Funding from a study carried out by the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) showed that contribution declaration forms, that authors fill out and send to journals, are to be considered not reliable as a way of assessing authorship. For this reason the CMJ decided to ask each manuscript author a single open-ended question: "Why do you think you deserve to be the author of this manuscript?" and to publish author's answer to this question without editing.

B - Authors' awareness toward OA repositories

2011-07-20T14:56:00.004+01:00

Creaser C, Fry J, Greenwood H et al. Authors' awareness and attitudes toward open access repositories. New Review of Academic Librarianship 2010;16(S1):145-161
(doi: 10.1080/13614533.2010.518851)

This article investigates the awareness of scholarly authors toward open access repositories and the factors that motivate their use. The research findings indicated that although there was a good understanding and appreciation of the ethos of open access in general, there were differences between authors from different disciplinary backgrounds in understanding validity of open access repositories and subsequent motivations for depositing articles in them.

B - How to search, write, prepare and publish scientific papers

2011-07-19T15:29:00.014+01:00

Masic I. How to search, write, prepare and publish the scientific papers in the biomedical journals. Acta Informatica Medica 2011;19(2):68-79
(doi: 10.5455/aim.2011.19.68-79)

The article is focused on the methodology of preparation, writing and publishing scientific papers in biomedical journals. In particular, scientific and professional journals currently published in Bosnia and Herzegovina are described, providing a comparative review on the number and structure of papers published in journals indexed in Medline. The author believes that it is necessary to increase quality standards in acceptance and reviewing of papers in the biomedical journals published in the country.

B - Incorporating open access into libraries

2011-07-19T15:18:00.002+01:00

Cryer E, Collins M. Incorporating open access into libraries. Serials Review 2011;37(2):103-107
(doi: 10.1016/j.serrev.2011.03.002)

Librarians can play a dinamic role in the development of the open access landscape by familiarizing themselves with government funding initiatives, institutional open access funds and policies, institutional repositories, and promoting and supporting open access publishing models. This article provides examples of how librarians can incorporate open access concepts into their pre-existing librarian roles.

B - A bioresource research impact factor

2011-07-19T13:17:00.004+01:00

Cambon-Thomsen A, Thorisson GA, Mabile L. for the BRIF workshop group. The role of a bioresource research impact factor as an incentive to share human bioresources. Nature Genetics 2011;43(6):503-504
(doi: 10.1038/ng.831)

Bioresources need to be easily accessible to facilitate advancement of research. A Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF) could promote the sharing of bioresources by creating a link between their initiators or implementers and the impact of the scientific research using them. A BRIF would make it possible to trace the quantitative use of a bioresource, the kind of research using it and the efforts behind establishing and maintaining it . Specific requirements for citing bioresources are lacking in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (URM) and should be then added. A BRIF working group has been recently set up.

B - Openly archiving raw research data

2011-07-18T15:31:00.004+01:00

Piwowar HA. Who shares? Who doesn't? Factors associated with openly archiving raw research data. PLoS ONE 2011;6(7):e18657
(doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018657)

Funders, publishers, societies, and individual research groups have developed tools, resources, and policies to encourage researchers to make their data publicly available. This article aims at investigating who openly shares raw research data, who doesn't, and which initiatives are correlated with high rates of data sharing. Considering a particular type of data - biological gene expression microarray intensity values - a large set of data sharing actions and associated variables have been collected and analyzed. Even in this field, with mature policies, repositories and standards, research data sharing levels are low and increasing slowly, and data is least available in areas where it could make the biggest impact.

B - n-index: a novel parameter

2011-07-06T13:36:00.002+01:00

Namazi MR, Fallahzadeh MK. n-index: A novel and easily-calculable parameter for comparison of researchers working in different scientific fields. Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology 2010;76(3):229-230
(doi:10.4103/0378-6323.62960)

A very simple and easily calculable index for comparison of researchers working in different fields is suggested. This is the n-index = researcher's h-index divided by the highest h-index of the journals of his/her major field of study (n is the first letter of Namazi, co-author of this article). This novel index can overcome the problem of unequal citations in different fields, as publications in certain disciplines are typically cited much more or much less than in others.

B - Biomedical journal editing

2011-07-05T09:56:00.002+01:00

Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Biomedical journal editing: elements of success. Croatian Medical Journal 2011;52(3):423-428
(doi: 10.3325/cmj.2011.52.423)

Scholarly journals are being increasingly recognized as educational tools. In view of recent trends in information flow, digitalization, and acceleration of publishing process - that may increase the rate of errors and mistakes - editors, authors, reviewers and publishers should closely consider every detail, from submission to publishing, to ensure a high quality of publications. Some relevant elements of success are discussed, such as qualified editorial team, internationalization of the peer review process, unique journal title, specific scope of interest, original content of articles, indexing in databases and wider journal visibility.

B - The role of advertising in financing OA journals

2011-06-23T16:33:00.002+01:00

Frantsvag JE. The role of advertising in financing open access journals. First Monday 15(3) - 1 March 2010

A survey was carried out to know how advertising actually works as a source of financing for OA journals, exploring both why journals do not employ it, and how it is employed. The results show that advertising is used to generate income only for some OA journals, and that there is a lack of knowledge about its possibilities. The use of advertising increases with the increased size of a publishers (in terms of the number of published journals) and with the increased size of a journals (in terms of published articles).

B - Author attitudes towards open access publishing

2011-06-23T14:24:00.004+01:00

Kenneway M. Author attitudes towards open access publishing. Intech 27 April 2011

According to a survey, conducted amongst a group of InTech's authors, they are generally favourably inclined towards open access (OA) being aware of the benefits of free access to their work after publication. As might be expected, most of the authors have concerns about cost and quality control of OA publications. OA publishers should then satisfy the demand from authors for a in-depth pre-publication peer review system, have a clear policy on peer review, and ensure transparency.

B - Free journals grow amid ongoing debate

2011-06-20T10:22:00.005+01:00

Kaiser J. Free journals grow amid ongoing debate. Science 2010;329(5994):896-898
(doi: 10.1126/science.329.5994.896)

The author writes on the many debates that rage about whether open access is speeding scientific progress. Some argue that academic researchers already have good access to the articles they need and critics suggest that the open access publishing model encourages mediocre work.
A reply to this article comes from Jacques Zimmer, a member of the editorial board of PLoS ONE (A positive review for PLoS ONE. Science 2010;330(6000):34). He says that most of the papers he handles are of high quality, and that its journal is serious and aims at rendering well-performed science accessible to everybody

B - The size distribution of open access publishers

2011-06-20T09:42:00.010+01:00

Frantsvag JE. The size distribution of open access publishers. First Monday 15(12) - 6 December 2010

Based on an analysis of the Directory of Open Access Journals, the study highlights that a large number of small publishers publish the majority of OA journals, and that 90% of these publishers publish only a single journal. These data are compared to similar data about toll access publishing. All these elements suggest that small-scale operation of OA publishing is economically inefficient and that it should be best organized in larger publishing institutions.

B - Economic implications of alternative publishing models

2011-06-20T09:26:00.002+01:00

Houghton JW, Oppenheim C. The economic implications of alternative publishing models. Prometheus 2010;28(1):41-54
(doi: 10.1080/08109021003676359)

The article focuses on the costs and potential benefits of three alternative models for scholarly publishing: subscription publishing, open access publishing and self-archiving. It summarizes the findings of a study undertaken for the UK Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). It concludes that more open access to findings from publicly funded research would have substantial benefits for research communication.

B - Development of OA journal publishing (1993-2009)

2011-06-17T15:16:00.002+01:00

Laakso M, Welling P, Bukvova H et al. The development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE 2011;6(6):e20961
(doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020961

Results of a study on the development of open access (OA) journals, registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), showed a very rapid growth in the period 1993-2009. Since 2000 the average annual growth rate has been 18% for the number of journals and 30% for the number of articles. The volume of OA published peer reviewed research articles has grown at a much faster rate than the increase in total volume of all peer reviewed research articles. Three major phases of OA development are suggested: the Pioneering years (1993-1999), the Innovation years (2000-2004), and the Consolidation years (2005-2009).

B - No-fault peer review charges

2011-06-16T13:50:00.002+01:00

Harnad S. No-fault peer review charges: the price of selectivity need not be access denied or delayed. D-Lib Magazine 2010;16(7/8)
(doi: 10.1045/july2010-harnad)

Funds to pay the costs of open access (OA) publishing are short and about 80% of journals are subscription-based. Paying to publish might inflate acceptance rates and lower quality standards. A solution could be that institutions, universities and funders mandate Green OA self-archiving of final peer-reviewed drafts by their authors. A "no-fault basis" peer review charge is also suggested: the author's institution or funder should pay for each round of referreing, regardless of outcome (acceptance, revision, or rejection). If the journal fee were not a publication fee but a referreing fee, the costs per accepted article would be much lower and it would discourage unrealistic submissions that take up the time of journals' referees.

B - New trends of institutional repositories

2011-06-16T13:15:00.002+01:00

Priti J. New trends and future applications/directions of institutional repositories in academic institutions. Library Review 2011;60(2):125-141
(doi: 10.1108/0024531111113078)

A review of the recently published literature about current trends and future applications of institutional repositories (IRs) including the benefits and obstacles of setting up an IR. They have been increasingly recognised as a vital tool for scholarly communication, institutional visibility and knowledge management. The report can be used to persuade different stakeholders at institutions, including management, about the value of open access (OA) and the importance of establishing OA institutional policies.

B - OA report in 2010

2011-06-16T11:37:00.003+01:00

André F, Creppy R, Barthet E et al. OA report in 2010. Madrid: FECYT; 2010

This report arises from the activities of the Southern European Libraries Link (SELL), which represents library consortia of six countries (France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey). One of its main goals is "to draw common policies towards information acquirement and provision". Experts in each country provided reports on the situation of open access to move towards common policies for open access to science. European countries have unique characteristics as regards participation in the scientific communication process: they use languages that are not the usual channel for scientific communication, they do not have a powerful publishing industry, they spend a smaller percentage of GDP on research and scientific data acquisition.

B - Open access publishing: what authors want

2011-06-16T10:54:00.002+01:00

Nariani R, Fernandez L. Open access publishing: what authors want. College & Research Libraries (accepted: June 5, 2011; anticipated publication date: March 2012)

The study wanted to ascertain whether authors were aware of library support for article processing fees and whether they are satisfied with open access (OA) publishing. Results indicate that authors are increasingly publishing in OA journals, appreciate library funding initiatives and believe that impact factor and readership are strong motivators for OA publishing. Sustainability of OA funds is then a major concern for many libraries. Specific recommendations for publishers are given, i.e. timely indexing in PubMed and other databases, promotion of OA articles through press releases and access to statistics on a regular basis.

B - Open peer review: sharing reviewers' signed reviews on the web

2011-06-10T18:16:00.003+01:00

van Rooyen S, Delamothe T and Evans SJW. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal 2010;341:c5729
(doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5729)

The results of the study suggests that telling peer reviewers that their signed reviews might be available on the BMJ's website had no important effect on review quality. However, it may reduce the number of willing reviewers and increase the amount of time taken to write a review. BMJ believes that the ethical arguments in favour of open peer review outweigh any disadvantage.

B - 10 lessons to get your paper published

2011-06-10T18:02:00.002+01:00

Hall PA. Getting your paper published: an editor's perspective (review). Annals of Saudi Medicine 2011;31(1):72-76
(doi: 10.4103/0256-4947.75782)

A short review based on a personal perspective on the issue of writing scientific papers in the biomedical field. It is based on the author's own experiences as a reviewer and an editor. By means of 10 simple lessons the problems and the pitfalls of getting a manuscript published are considered.

B - Open access to research

2011-06-10T17:42:00.002+01:00

Harnad S. Open access to research: changing researcher behavior through university and funder mandates. JEDEM Journal of Democracy and Open Government 2011;3(1):33-41

A somewhat conservative perspective on "edemocracy" as public access to scholarly and scientific research is presented. The author suggests to maximise the usage and impact of research carried out in research institutions by depositing final drafts in open access institutional repositories immediately upon acceptance for publication in order to have them freely accessible to all potential users webwide.

B - Access to knowledge in the age of intellectual property

2011-06-10T17:33:00.002+01:00

Krikorian G, Kapczynski A (Ed.). Access to knowledge in the age of intellectual property. New York: Zone Books;2010

In this volume, the editors have created the first anthology of the "access to knowledge" or "A2K" movement, mapping this emerging field of activism as a series of historical moments, strategies, and concepts. Intellectual property law has given rise to new debates and struggles over politics, economics, and freedom.

B - Mandates and open access

2011-06-10T17:08:00.003+01:00

Kennan MA. Learning to share: mandates and open access. Library Management 2011;32(4/5):302-318
doi: 10.1108/01435121111132301)

The paper's aim is to examine why open access (OA) is not practiced by all researchers, all the time, or more encouraged by library managers. It is suggested that sometimes a new actor such as a mandate or deposit policy is required, to assist library and repository managers and to encourage authors to look beyond their existing frames and embrace OA.