Cmps research school retreat pres by sutton
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Cmps research school retreat pres by sutton

on

  • 2,610 views

Presentation for a research school workshop on publishing strategies.

Presentation for a research school workshop on publishing strategies.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,610
Views on SlideShare
2,610
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Cmps research school retreat pres by sutton Cmps research school retreat pres by sutton Presentation Transcript

    • What happens to your articleafter submission?the Review Process, Ethics, PublishingContracts, Dissemination and Open AccessCaroline SuttonPublisher, Co-Action PublishingPresident, Open Access Scholarly Publisher’s Association (OASPA)with input from Helle Goldman, Editor-in-Chief, Polar ResearchShared under a CCBY license Lund University, CMPS Research School Retreat, Röstånga, 30 Aug. 2012
    • Many of these slides are based on awebinar presentation given by HelleGoldman and Caroline Sutton for APECS,Association of Polar Early Career Scientists.The video is available here:http://vimeo.com/39241330Thank you to Editor-in-Chief Helle Goldmanfor permission to use her contributions inthis presentation (slides 3-13). They havebeen modified from the original.
    • A bit about Co-Action Publishing Founded by three former executives from academic publishing industry Established as Swedish limited liability company in 2007 Founding Member Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, OASPA, current President Publish Open Access journals across disciplines, including Social Sciences and the Humanities, but primarily medicine Strong focus on quality of experience publishing authors have when working with us.
    • What happens to your ms afterit’s submitted(1) Ms is checked at editorial office.(2) Editor invites reviewers (usually 2-5) Editor identifies reviewers from: • people who have reviewed for the journal before • authors in the ms’s reference list • authors of relevant articles in ISI Web of Science • editor’s professional network • author’s suggestions (in cover letter or online submission form)
    • Tips1) Read all the instructions/guidelines2) Have your paper language edited if needed3) May suggest reviewers or be asked to suggest reviewers4) Anticipate what reviewers will say about your ms.K.A. Nicholas & W. Gordon 2011. A quick guide to writing a solidpeer review. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 92,233-234.
    • What happens to your ms after it’s submitted(6) Revised submission is evaluated.The revised ms will then be straight-accepted, straight-rejected ormore revisions will be asked for. Ms can go through several roundsof review/ revision. Depends on the journal’s editorial policy andmanpower.(7) If accepted, you will probably be required to sign some kind ofpublishing agreement.(8) Paper is edited, copyedited, styled to layout, differentformats generated, metadata added,(9) You will receive proofs that you are usually expected to turnaround quickly with your corrections. You may or may not get tosee/correct revised proofs – practice varies.(10) Published – and sent to database and indexing services, preserved, etc.
    • Understand your publishing agreement Read your agreement with care. Make sure you understand what the agreement permits you to do with the various versions of the article. In doubt? Get clarification from the publishers! Librarians are also very knowledgeable about this! If you’re the corresponding author, ensure your co- authors have read and understood the terms of the agreement. If you’re not the corr. author, make sure you’ve read and understood the agreement. Make sure you understand your university’s and/or funder’s policies.
    • What happens to your ms afterit’s submitted(3) Reviewers send in their reviews.(4) Editor assesses the reviews.(5) Editor makes decision • Straight reject • Rejected, but paper can be resubmitted: a radical overhaul might salvage the paper. Editor isn’t confident you can pull it off but is willing to give you a chance. • Conditional acceptance: paper needs major or minor revisions; editor is fairly sure you can handle it but can’t commit to publishing it yet. • Straight accept. No changes needed. Rare!
    • Understand your publishing agreement• Submitted Manuscript under Review (SMuR), also known asAuthor’s Original Version or "preprint".• Accepted Manuscript (AM), also known as "postprint". Not yetedited, copyedited or laid out.• Version of Record (VoR) or Definitive Work: fixed version ofjournal article. The final, corrected, laid-out version (may or maynot include page numbers). Includes "early release" article that’sformally identified as having been published before the compilationof a volume issue – as long as it’s citable via a permanentidentifier. Doesn’t include "early release” article that’s stillundergoing copyediting, proof correction, layout changes. Source: NISO/ALPSP Journal Article Versions Technical Working Group 2008. Journal article versions (JAV): recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group. NISO- RP-8-2008. Baltimore: National Information Standards Organization. Available at www.niso.org/publications/rp/RP-8-2008.pdf
    • Understand your publishing agreement Most publishers’ agreements allow authors to do the following with Submitted (SMuR) and Accepted (AM) ("preprints" & "postprints”): • pass around to colleagues • use in course packs • post on personal/institutional website/repository – often after a waiting ("embargo") period, e.g., 2 yearsSource: S. Morris 2009. Journal authors’ rights: perception and reality. PRC Summary Paper 5. London: Publishing ResearchConsortium. Available at http://www.publishingresearch.net/author_rights.htm
    • Understand your publishingagreementMost publishers’ agreements allow authors to do thefollowing with the final published PDF (VoR) of theirarticles:• e-mail to colleagues• use in course packs Most publishers (> 90%) do not allow authors to post final published PDF on personal/institutional website/repositories.* Source: Morris 2009.*Most authors think this is permitted.Check: SHERPA/RoMEO http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ forPublisher copyright policies and self-archivingLibrarians are also knowledgeable here!
    • Single-blind and double- blind review Single-blind review: the reviewers know who the author is, but the author doesn’t know who the reviewers are. Double-blind review: reviewers don’t know who the author is; author doesn’t know who the reviewers are.See following article and references therein: R. Snodgrass 2006. Single-versus double-blind reviewing: an analysis of the literature. SIGMODRecord 35, 8-21. Available online:http://www.sigmod.org/publications/sigmod-record/0609/index.html
    • Ethics • Salami slicing • Plagiarism/self-plagiarism • Duplicate publication • Fabricated data • AuthorshipiThenticate, a new plagiarism tool used by leading publishers.M. Roig. 2006. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: a guide toethical writing. Available online at:http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/Editorial. 2005. The cost of salami slicing. Nature Materials 4, 1. Available online at:http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v4/n1/full/nmat1305.htmlE. Wager & S. Kleinert 2010. Responsible research publication: international standards for authors.Available online at: http://publicationethics.org/international-standards-editors-and-authorsWashington University in St. Louis: Policy for authorship on scientific and scholarly publications.Available online at: http://wustl.edu/policies/authorship.html
    • Public Library ofScience OA lock
    • OPEN ACCESS = Free Access + Re-use 2 Routes to Open Access: Green (archiving) Gold (publishing)
    • The ”Green Road”  Achieving Open Access through the self archiving of peer- reviewed journal articles.  Different publishers have different policies on deposition of articles (as noted earlier in presentation)  List and policies available at SHERPA-RoMEO (www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo)  Institutional OA policies/mandatesThe ”Gold Road”Publish with an Open Access journal that provides: Immediate free access Re-use of content (CCBY license, or CCNC)Deposit final published article in repository
    • Creative CommonsLicenses enable re-userights  Attribution 3.0 (CCBY or CCAL) • Gaining momentum as a standard.  Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 (CCBY-NC) * Controversial due to lack of clarity over what is commercial use & ’double-dipping’. Read and learn about them here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
    • What does a CCBY license mean forauthors?You are welcome to post any version of your article – including thefinal PDF – anywhere you like, including institutional and otherrepositories.Your work can be re-used – in part or in whole – by others, as long asthey cite your work as the original source. This means widerdistribution.You can re-use your work in part or in whole, without askingpermission from the publisher.Open Access journals, that are machine readable, tend to experiencehigh levels of usage. For authors, this means a greater likelihood ofwork being read and cited.
    • A few Open Access myths
    • Myth 1: It is expensive to publish in an Open Accessjournal Truth: The most common fee is NO fee. Averages are lower than what tend to be cited, and a growing number of funds are supporting researchers. Study by Bo-Christer Björk and David Solomon shows that the average charge per article across disciplines is 906 USD. ‘A study of open access journals using article processing charges’, DOI: 10.1002/asi.22673 Paying for an Open Choice option on a subscription journal can be costly. When paying an APC do make sure that you know what you are paying for, i.e. that the article will be published under a CC license.
    • Myth 2: Open Access journals are not peer reviewed/publish low quality workTRUTH: Open Access journals ARE peer reviewed.Serious editors and publishers of Open Access journals are concerned withpublishing quality manuscripts.Reputable Open Access publishers have mechanisms in place to separateeditorial decisions and ability to pay.The emergence of many new actors within the publishing sector has createdconfusion. OASPA membership criteria and code of conduct can provide aguide to evaluating unfamiliar publishers: Credible editorial board listed with full names and affiliations  Any fees are easily identifiable  Licensing is clear and can be found on individual articles  Peer review process is clearly defined Business address listed  Complaints address listed Ownership information available Clean layout, appropriate use of language on website
    • Myth 3: Publishing your work Open Access is good forsociety but there are few benefits for youTRUTH: there are important advantages for youCitation advantage (See The Open Access Scholarly InformationSourcebook,http://www.openoasis.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=560&Itemid=391)General usage increases, and the number of points from which yourarticle can be accessed also increases.Greater visibility.Better rankings in Google Scholar.Practitioners and others outside of the research community can accessand use your work, leading to impact beyond citations.
    • How is Open Accessimpacting other areas of scholarly communications?
    • Article level metricsMackay DF, Nelson SM, Haw SJ, Pell JP (2012) PLoS Med 9(3): e1001175.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001175
    • Alternative measures ofimpacthttp://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
    • www.total-impact.org
    • http://scholar.google.com/citations
    • New Forms of Peer Open Peer Review Review Post publication reviewCommenting & ratingssystemsOthers The rise of ”mega journals”.Following PLoS One example,peer review only to addressscientific rigor, not potentialimportance or impact.
    • Open data and linking Some references: Science Commons Protocol for implementing: http://sciencecommons.org/projec ts/publishing/open-access-data- protocol/ List of data repositories: http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/ Data_repositoriesChallenges: OpenAIRE Plus:Requires adoption of new behavior for http://www.openaire.eu/most researchersDifficult to devise universal policies John Willbanks:across disciplines http://www.slideshare.net/wilbankLegal issues s/openphacts-wilbanksTechnical issues
    • Re-use to enhance scientific discoveryhttp://imageweb.zoo.ox.ac.uk/pub/2008/plospaper/latest/#top
    • THANK YOU!Caroline.Sutton@co-action.net