AILA ReN Colloquium: Current research on global scholarly publishing: Peer review, writing, and pedagogies

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-146
Author(s):  
Mary Jane Curry ◽  
David Hanauer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scholarly Publishing

scholarly journals Indigenous Knowledges and Scholarly Publishing

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-40
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Boyd
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Sound Source ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
White Male ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Intended Purpose ◽  
Peer Reviewers

At its core, academic knowledge production is predicated on Western notions of knowledge historically grounded in a Euro-American, White, male worldview. As a component of academic knowledge production, scholarly publishing shares the same basis of Whiteness. It excludes knowledge that doesn’t conform to White, Western notions of knowledge, forces conformity to (and therefore reinforcement of) a Western standard of writing/knowledge, and leads to a reverence of peer-reviewed literature as the only sound source of knowledge. As a tool of scholarly publishing and the editorial process, blind peer review, though perhaps well-intentioned, is fraught with problems, especially for BIPOC researchers and writers, because it fails in its intended purpose to drastically reduce or eliminate bias and racism in the peer review and editorial processes; shields peer reviewers and editors against accusations of bias, racism, or conflicts of interest; and robs BIPOC, and particularly Indigenous, writers and researchers from having the opportunity to develop relationships with those that are reviewing and publishing their work.

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

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

>> See video of presentation (28 min.) The primary goal of scholarly communication is improving human knowledge and sharing is the key to achieve this goal: sharing ideas, sharing methodologies, sharing of results, sharing data, information and knowledge. Although the concept of sharing applies to all phases of scholarly communication, most often the only visible part is the final publication, with the journal article as a most common type. The traditional characteristics of the present journals allow only limited possibilities for sharing the knowledge. Basic functions, registration, dissemination, certification, and storage, are still present but they are no more effective in the network environment. Registration is too slow, there are various barriers to dissemination, certification system has many shortcomings, and used formats are not suitable for the long term preservation and storage. Although the journals today are digital and various powerful technologies are available, they are still focused on their unaltered printed versions. This presentation will discuss possible evolution of journal article to become more compliant with users' needs and to enable “the four R’s of openness” – reuse, redistribute, revise and remix (Hilton, Wiley, Stein, & Johnson, 2010).Several aspects of openness will be presented and discussed: open access, open data, open peer review, open authorship, and open formats. With digital technology which has become indispensable in the creation, collection, processing and storage of data in all scientific disciplines the way of conducting scientific research has changed and the concept of "data-driven science" has been introduced (Ware & Mabe, 2009). Sharing research data enhances the capabilities of reproducing the results, reuse maximizes the value of research, accelerating the advancement of science, ensuring transparency of scientific research, reducing the possibility of bias in the interpretation of results and increasing the credibility of published scientific knowledge. The open peer review can ensure full transparency of the entire process of assessment and help to solve many problems in the present scholarly publishing. Through the process of the open peer review each manuscript can be immediately accessible, reviewers can publicly demonstrate their expertise and could be rewarded, and readers can be encouraged to make comments and views and to become active part of the scholarly communication process. The trend to to describe the author's contribution is also present, which will certainly lead to a reduced number of “ghost”, "guest" and "honorary" authors, and will help to establish better standards for author’s identification.Various web technologies can be used also for the semantic enhancement of the article. One of the most important aspects of semantic publication is the inclusion of the research data, to make them available to the user as an active data that can be manipulated. It is possible to integrate data from external sources, or to merge the data from different resources (data fusion) (Shotton, 2012), so the reader can gain further understanding of the presented data. Additional options provide merging data from different articles, with the addition of the component of time. Other semantic enhancement can include enriched bibliography, interactive graphical presentations, hyperlinks to external resources, tagged text, etc.Instead of mostly static content, journals can offer readers dynamic content that includes multimedia, "living mathematics", “executable articles”, etc. Videos highlighting critical points in the research process, 3D representations of chemical compounds or art works, audio clips with the author's reflections and interviews, and animated simulations or models of ocean currents, tides, temperature and salinity structure, can became soon common part of every research article. The diversity of content and media, operating systems (GNU / Linux, Apple Mac OSX, Microsoft Windows), and software tools that are available to researchers, suggests the usage of the appropriate open formats. Different formats have their advantages and disadvantages and it would be necessary to make multiple formats available, some of which are suitable for "human" reading (including printing on paper), and some for machine reading that can be used by computers without human intervention. Characteristics and possibilities of several formats will be discussed, including XML as the most recommended format, which can enable granulate document structure as well as deliver semantics to the human reader or to the computer.Literature:Hilton, J. I., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The Four R’s of Openness and ALMS Analysis: Frameworks for Open Educational Resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 25(1), 37–44. doi:10.1080/02680510903482132Shotton, D. (2012). The Five Stars of Online Journal Articles - a Framework for Article Evaluation. D-Lib Magazine, 18(1/2), 1–16. doi:10.1045/january2012-shottonWare, M., & Mabe, M. (2009). The stm report (p. 68).

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

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

Objective – To identify and examine the factors of library publishing services that facilitate scholarly communication. Design – Analysis of library publishing service programs. Setting – North American research libraries. Subjects – Eight research libraries selected from the signatories for the Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE) Cornell University Library’s Center for Innovative Publishing; Dartmouth College Library’s Digital Publishing Program and Scholars Portal Project; MIT Libraries’ Office of Scholarly Publishing and Licensing; Columbia University Libraries’ Center for Digital Research and Scholarship; University of Michigan Library’s Scholarly Publishing Office; Duke University Library’s Office of Scholarly Communications; University of Calgary Libraries and Cultural Resources’ Centre for Scholarly Communication; and Simon Fraser University Library’s Scholarly Publishing. Methods – The authors used Roosendaal and Geurt’s (1997) four functions of scholarly communication to analyze and categorize library publishing services provided by libraries included in the study. The four functions of scholarly communication include registration, certification, awareness, and archiving. Main Results – Analysis of the registration functions provided by library publishing services in this study revealed three types of facilitating factors: intellectual property, licensing, and publishing. These include services such as repositories for digital scholarly work and research, ISBN/ISSN registration, and digital publishing. Analysis of archiving functions demonstrated that most programs in the study focus on repository-related services in support of digital content preservation of papers, datasets, technical reports, etc. Analysis of certification functions provided by these services exposed a focus on expert review and research support. These include services like professional assessment of information sources, consultation on appropriate literature and information-seeking tools, and writing or copyright advisory services. Analysis of awareness function showed search aids and knowledge-sharing platforms to be the main facilitating factors. These include services like metadata application, schema, and standards or scholarly portals enabling knowledge-sharing among scholars. Conclusion – This study identified several services offered by these library publishing programs which can be categorized as facilitators under Roosendaal and Geurt’s (1997) four functions of scholarly communication. The majority of the libraries in the study treated library publishing services as part of broader scholarly communication units or initiatives. Digital publishing (registration function) was offered by all programs analyzed in the study, while traditional peer-review services (certification function) were not. Widely adopted among programs in the study were the use of social networking tools (awareness function) and self-publishing (archiving function). The authors recommend developing services that facilitate peer review and assert the need to provide a knowledge-sharing mechanism within the academic community that facilitates the scholarly communication process.

scholarly journals Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview

F1000Research ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Ford
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Atmospheric Chemistry ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Stem Disciplines

Open peer review, peer review where authors' and reviewers' identities are disclosed to one another, is a growing trend in scholarly publishing. Through observation of four journals in STEM disciplines,PLoS One,Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics,PeerJ, andF1000Research, an observational overview is conducted. The overview relies on defined characteristics of open peer review. Results show that despite differing open peer review implementations, each journal retains editorial involvement in scholarly publishing. Further, the analysis shows that only one of these implementations is fully transparent in its peer review and decision making process. Finally, the overview contends that journals should clearly outline peer review and editorial processes in order to allow for open peer review to be better understood and adopted by authors, reviewers, editors, and readers of science communications.

scholarly journals Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on Publons

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lin Zhang ◽  
Yuanyuan Shang ◽  
Ying HUANG ◽  
Gunnar Sivertsen
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Gender Representation ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Gender Balance ◽  
Research Fields ◽  
Almost All ◽  
The Relationship

Peer review of scientific manuscripts before publication is essential in scholarly publishing, and most active researchers hold relationships with a number of journals as both an author and a reviewer. There have been several studies focusing on gender balance in academic research and authorship, but fewer studies on our role as reviewers. Publons is a commercial website run by Clarivate Analytics that allows researchers to track and verify their peer review activities and be recognized for it. The platform features over 2 million researchers and 6.9 million reviews for more than 5,000 partnered journals, listing the most active reviewers as “top reviewers”. Our study focuses on gender representation in this ‘top reviewer’ group while also looking at the countries, regions and research fields they represent, as well as the relationship between their roles as authors and reviewers. The results show that male reviewers dominate in almost all countries, regions, and research fields. Male reviewers generally contribute to review work more frequently than females; however, female reviewers write longer reviews. The correlations between reviewing activity and research activity are generally weak overall and within specific research fields. This may reflect that active reviewers are not necessarily the most productive researchers in their fields. What clearly emerges from our results is the need for more concern over gender representation in the quality assurance and gatekeeping functions of scholarly publishing.

scholarly journals Report on Grouped Peer Review of Scholarly Journals in History, Philosophy and Politics

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
South African ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Scholarly Publication ◽  
Detailed Report ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Assurance Process

The peer review report entitled Report on Grouped Peer Review of Scholarly Journals in History, Philosophy and Politics is the eleventh in a series of discipline-grouped evaluations of South African scholarly journals. This is part of a scholarly assurance process initiated by the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf). The process is centered on multi-perspective, discipline-based evaluation panels appointed by the Academy Council on the recommendation of the Academy’s Committee on Scholarly Publishing in South Africa (CSPiSA). This detailed report presents the peer review panel’s consolidated consensus reports on each journal and provides the panel’s recommendations in respect of DHET accreditation, inclusion on the SciELO SA platform and suggestions for improvement in general. The main purpose of the ASSAf review process for journals is to improve the scholarly publication in the country that is consonant with traditional scholarly practices.

scholarly journals Open-access mega-journals

2017 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Spezi ◽  
Simon Wakeling ◽  
Stephen Pinfield ◽  
Claire Creaser ◽  
Jenny Fry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Article Processing Charges ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific “soundness” and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.

scholarly journals Volume 7, Issue 1 2016

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy Creagh ◽  
John Clarke ◽  
Karen Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Student Success ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Creative Commons

Welcome to Volume 7 of Student Success.  This editorial has two parts: The first part maintains the “doing things differently” tradition, making readers aware by chronicling the publishing of the journal in an open access (OA) forum.  Future editorials will briefly discuss other aspects and issues pertaining to the new scholarly publishing landscape that this journal adheres to, such as:  Creative Commons Licencing; ORCID IDs; considerations of new peer review models and importantly; measuring research impact in OA publishing.    The second part presents the usual editorial summary of the content of this issue.

scholarly journals Reviewer Acknowledgement

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Kopp
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Crucial Role ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Sport Science

The practice of peer review is to ensure the research published in Current Issues in Sport Science (CISS) is of the highest standard. Peer review lies at the heart of scholarly publishing and is utilized by all reputable journals. Our referees and section editors play a crucial role in developing the reputation of Current Issues in Sport Science (CISS) to a leading forum for original research in the field. Therefore, I would like to formally thank all who have so willingly and voluntarily contributed to the journal in 2018.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document