scholarly journals Who Decides?

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivy Anderson ◽  
Mel DeSart ◽  
Lee Cheng Ean ◽  
Remi Gaillard ◽  
Susan Gibbons ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
The Future ◽  
Global Coordination ◽  
The One ◽  
Publishing Practices

Tied to [the] question of who should decide the future of open access, who should have the power to make changes to scholarly publishing practices? Do these powers flow from publishers, institutions, tenure committees, funding agencies, authors, or all of the above? All of the above? None of the above? What are the pros, cons, and consequences of different institutions and interest groups developing and implementing their own solutions (even the one-off variety)? Is federal oversight needed? Global coordination (through an organization like UNESCO)?

scholarly journals Report from the "Who Decides?" Workgroup

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivy Anderson ◽  
Mel DeSart ◽  
Lee Cheng Ean ◽  
Remi Gaillard ◽  
Susan Gibbons ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
The Future ◽  
Global Coordination ◽  
The One ◽  
The Way ◽  
Publishing Practices

Who decides the future of open access, or, rather, who has the power to make decisions that can affect the future of open access? We believe that large scale, transformative, and inclusive progress on these questions can transpire when several entities, each with different complementary powers, convene to collaborate on win-win solutions. We offer three examples of such possible scenarios: the way scholars are evaluated, the way some innovations in scholarly publishing can be nurtured, and the way global cooperation can transform existing journals to open access.OSI2016 Workgroup QuestionTied to [the] question of who should decide the future of open access, who should have the power to make changes to scholarly publishing practices? Do these powers flow from publishers, institutions, tenure committees, funding agencies, authors, or all of the above? All of the above? None of the above? What are the pros, cons, and consequences of different institutions and interest groups developing and implementing their own solutions (even the one-off variety)? Is federal oversight needed? Global coordination (through an organization like UNESCO)?

scholarly journals Recent developments in scholarly publishing to improve research practices in the life sciences

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
pp. 775-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Eglen ◽  
Ross Mounce ◽  
Laurent Gatto ◽  
Adrian M. Currie ◽  
Yvonne Nobis
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Working Environment ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Dissemination Of Research ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Rapid Dissemination

We outline recent developments in scholarly publishing that we think will improve the working environment and career prospects for life scientists. Most prominently, we discuss two key developments. (1) Life scientists are now embracing a preprint culture leading to rapid dissemination of research findings. (2) We outline steps to overcome the reproducibility crisis. We also briefly describe other innovations in scholarly publishing, along with changes to open access mandates from funding agencies.

scholarly journals The Story of Precision Nanomedicine

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lajos P Balogh
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Present State ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Publishing Practices

The story of the journal "Precision Nanomedicine" started back in December 2015 when the contract of the Editor-in-chief of "Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology, and Medicine" was not renewed by Elsevier without any justification. While it was fully within the legal rights of the publisher to make that decision, they failed to consult with the NNBM editorial board. Elsevier also rejected a collective letter signed by 74 board members and editors requesting the reversal of the decision and served up the usual excuses. This was not the first instance of a publisher acting without the input of an editorial board or completely disregarding sicentists' opinion [1] [2], [3], and the reaction was also similar. In 2015, almost all associate editors and more than 60 editorial board members of the journal Lingua resigned in protest [3]. Similar to the mutiny by Lingua's editors, we also set out to launch our own open-access journal[2] to promote all progressive and rational aspects of nanomedicine including theory and practice while exercising good publishing practices (for a deeper analysis of the present state of scholarly publishing see the opinion paper in this issue).

scholarly journals The four pillars of scholarly publishing: The future and a foundation

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarrett E.K. Byrnes ◽  
Edward Baskerville ◽  
Bruce Caron ◽  
Cameron Neylon ◽  
Carol Tenopir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Paradigm Shifts ◽  
The Future

With the rise of electronic publishing and the inherent paradigm shifts for so many other scientific endeavours, it is time to consider a change in the practices of scholarly publication in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. To facilitate the speed and quality of science, the future of scholarly communication will rest on four pillars - an ecosystem of scholarly products, immediate and open access, open peer review, and full recognition for participating in the process. These four pillars enable us to build better tools to facilitate the discovery of new relevant work for individual scientists, one of the greatest challenges of our time as we cope with the current deluge of scientific information. By incorporating these principles into future publication platforms, we argue that science and society will be better served than by remaining locked into a publication formula that arose in the 1600s. It has served its purpose admirably and well, but it is time to move forward. With the rise of the Internet, scholarly publishing has embraced electronic distribution. But the tools afforded by the Internet and other advancing technologies have profound implications for scholarly communication beyond just distribution. We argue that, to best serve science, the process of scholarly communication must embrace these advances and evolve. Here we consider the current state of the process in ecology and evolutionary biology and propose directions for change. We identify four pillars for the future of scientific communication: (1) an ecosystem of scholarly products; (2) immediate and open access; (3) open peer review; and (4) full recognition for participating in the process. These four pillars will guide the development of better tools and practices for discovering and sharing scientific knowledge in a modern networked world. Things were far different when the existing system arose in the 1600s, and though it has served its purpose admirably and well, it is time to move forward.

scholarly journals The four pillars of scholarly publishing: The future and a foundation

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarrett E.K. Byrnes ◽  
Edward Baskerville ◽  
Bruce Caron ◽  
Cameron Neylon ◽  
Carol Tenopir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Paradigm Shifts ◽  
The Future

With the rise of electronic publishing and the inherent paradigm shifts for so many other scientific endeavours, it is time to consider a change in the practices of scholarly publication in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. To facilitate the speed and quality of science, the future of scholarly communication will rest on four pillars - an ecosystem of scholarly products, immediate and open access, open peer review, and full recognition for participating in the process. These four pillars enable us to build better tools to facilitate the discovery of new relevant work for individual scientists, one of the greatest challenges of our time as we cope with the current deluge of scientific information. By incorporating these principles into future publication platforms, we argue that science and society will be better served than by remaining locked into a publication formula that arose in the 1600s. It has served its purpose admirably and well, but it is time to move forward. With the rise of the Internet, scholarly publishing has embraced electronic distribution. But the tools afforded by the Internet and other advancing technologies have profound implications for scholarly communication beyond just distribution. We argue that, to best serve science, the process of scholarly communication must embrace these advances and evolve. Here we consider the current state of the process in ecology and evolutionary biology and propose directions for change. We identify four pillars for the future of scientific communication: (1) an ecosystem of scholarly products; (2) immediate and open access; (3) open peer review; and (4) full recognition for participating in the process. These four pillars will guide the development of better tools and practices for discovering and sharing scientific knowledge in a modern networked world. Things were far different when the existing system arose in the 1600s, and though it has served its purpose admirably and well, it is time to move forward.

An International Survey on the Current Use of Electroacupuncture

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Mayor ◽  
Mark Bovey
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
English Language ◽  
Everyday Practice ◽  
International Survey ◽  
Prior Training ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
The Future ◽  
And Training

Background Despite many research publications, it is unclear how widely electroacupuncture (EA) and related modalities are used in everyday practice. It is also uncertain who uses them, for what conditions, and with what results. We aimed to survey practitioners about their use of and training in EA. We also sought to determine how much the open-access English-language database at http://www.electroacupunctureknowledge.com (EAK) is used, or might be used in the future, if updated. Methods A survey was developed using several rounds of consultation with a focus group and others. Professional acupuncture membership organisations were contacted to assess their willingness to notify their members. The survey was tested before its launch. Results Thirty-four professional organisations agreed to participate, together with two research bodies and six UK training institutes. Potentially, around 50 000 professionals practising acupuncture knew about the survey, to which there were 768 responses. Data were analysed for respondent demographics. Around 70% used EA, but <25% used related electrotherapy modalities. Men were more likely than women to use more than one modality. Only around 7% of respondents used non-traditional acupuncture modalities without prior training. However, awareness and usage of the EAK database was low, although around 80% of respondents stated they might use the database in the future, primarily to improve clinical practice. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest survey on EA and related modalities ever conducted. As such, its results are likely to be of interest to acupuncture and other practitioners (whether or not they use EA), patients, policymakers, and funding agencies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document