2010 SC Environment Presentation


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • SSRN -- Social Science Research Network PMC – PubMed Central RePEc -- Research Papers in Economics arXiv – (nearly 600,000 e-prints in physics and related subjects) PEA Soup -- A blog dedicated to p hilosophy, e thics, and a cademia
  • I heard someone say once in a presentation that the best place to start is sometimes with the conclusion. Since I have only about 20-25 minutes to describe the scholarly communication process, I agree that it might be better to start with the end. So, in conclusion, it is librarians that help faculty and staff be successful in the scholarly communication arena and it is each of you that can best help them find that needle in the haystack of information sources.
  • Yesterday, I heard a transplant surgeon talk about his beginning research in the role of tcells in the immunological process and he said that he began by talking to colleagues and finding that right research mentor. When he was talking to the seasoned researcher, that researcher told him to make a ven diagram visualize the overlap of their individual strengths. The speaker said that he had to look up what a ven diagram was. That really hit me because while I had a hard time distinguishing his illustrations of dendritic cells from a poorly made over easy egg, I certainly know what a Ven Diagram is. So, what you see and hear and understand does depend on where you’re standing. Which gets us to looking at the stakeholders in this process and what they are looking for from the scholarly communication environment.
  • We going to look at what each of the major players; authors, publishers, libraries, and readers, and look at what they are expecting from the scientific publishing process. It is authors that begin the process and we will start with them. These are not necessarily attributes that would apply to all authors in all disciplines. There will be differences, between authors, between disciplines, between institutions, and more. I think it is interesting and profitable to start with this brief look at what the main players in the scholarly communication arena are looking for from the process. Since, in our future discussions with faculty, we may advocate for changes in their publishing behavior, it is a good idea to at least think about what they are looking for from the publishing process.
  • Of course, the next major player in the process is the publishers. Commercial Publishers have traditionally been the driving force of the scientific publishing process. These attributes will also vary greatly between commercial and society publishers, between different commercial publishers and more.
  • You know all of this already but it is often a surprise to faculty and researchers that there are particular things that we are looking for from the scientific publishing process as well. In talking to them, it seems as if their view of us is as passive participants that renew and pay for the status quo unless budget constraints force us to look at cancellations. Our cries of “We Can’t Afford This” is one of the few things they hear.
  • And Finally, we can’t forget the readers or users of the published information. For most faculty and researchers, they play duel roles in this process as both producers and consumers of the “information product.” It is with the readers needs in mind that drive much of the librarians requests of the publishing process.
  • Each of these can be Think about how each of these can be desci
  • The high costs of academic STM journals coupled with the zero or low budget increases of libraries. Costs of journals to libraries has increased by over 9% per year on average while some of the largest commercial publishers, such as Elsevier, are enjoying annual profits of over 37% for their STM publishing accounts. What was once a simply choice of whether to resubscribe to a print journal has become far more complex……. Print only, online only, print-online, bundles, consortial… Large bundles of journals have resulted in libraries subscribing to unwanted titles at inflated prices. Access is print, online, free online total, free online for first 12 months, free online after 6 months, free online for developing countries. It may be in PDF or HTML or other format. I know we’ve each handled questions about the access we might have electronically for a single title. The answers are frequently not easy. We may have aggregator access for a period of time, the access may be selective, and other access points have different years of coverage. Concerns over the long-term access to electronic journal content. One of the important issues for scientists, researchers, and other authors is the prestige of a title and how that impacts tenure. The culture of the university and the academic community forces researchers and faculty to publish in key prestige journals for tenure and promotion. Licensing restrictions inhibit use of electronic journals in traditional library services (ILL, reserves, course packs, etc). Copyright transfer agreements limit use by authors to their work. Not understanding the adage that: You Own Your Work Until You Transfer Your Rights. Consolidation and mergers among commercial publishers have resulted in less competitive pricing. Society publishers are often not challenging the dominance of commercial publishers. The current market structure does not operate in the long-term interests of the research community. The current process of submission, peer-review, editing and more is very slow. Estimates are that the average time for the publishing process is 18 months. I’m not suggesting that this is a solvable problem. I’m just pointing out that it is one of the issues that is discussed in the scholarly communication process and that it is a concern. Now lets look at some details about concerns of journal prices.
  • Much of the focus of discussions on scholarly communication revolves around publishing and money. Dollars and ballooning amounts of scholarly output are the driving force behind the change in the scholarly communication environment but it is the available technology that makes it possible.
  • I mentioned that non-profit or society publishers (which once dominated the market) are now a much smaller player in the scientific publishing industry. I think they continue to play a bigger role in the arts, humanities, and social sciences publishing but I am not sure on that. This also shows you how many total dollars are involved and at stake as changes may occur in the market.
  • This tells you what some of the biggest publishers are. If you remember from the last slide, the non-profits are about 32% of the market. This is approximately the “Other” portion of this chart. Through much consolidation, buyout, mergers, and acquisitions in the scientific publishing business these basically represent the largest publishers remaining.
  • I would argue that the
  • Stretching the boundaries of “journal” Journal of Visualized Experiments
  • Visualizing Cultures Stretching the potential of web for image-driven scholarship and learning
  • NCBI’s Entrez Genome Just one of many data sets on the web of genome sequences maps and more.
  • CES4Health Online scholarship of videos, manuals, curricula, and more
  • Scholarly Blog covering music and more (I looked and there was nothing said about someone who knows all the words to Brandy (you’re a fine girl).
  • Scarab that is indigenous to the Huachaca mountains in southern Arizona.
  • Are libraries playing the lead role in changing the environment of scholarly communication? No, I personally don’t think so. Are we having an impact on that change? Some, but I don’t think we are the major player in this process. Does that mean that we don’t have any role? It does not. We play a tremendously important role in that we assist our faculty and staff to be successful in the scholarly communication arena. If you remember the first definitions that we looked at, “people, procedures, and tools through which the results of research and scholarship are registered, evaluated, disseminated, and preserved”. As I said earlier, this seems to be somewhat of a librarian-centric definition but one that is still useful. It is the faculty and staff that are the major player in this process.
  • If you imagine that each drop of water in these falls as a piece of information, it probably seems to our patrons sometimes that they are on a small rubber raft at the base of the falls and this “flood” of information threatens to capsize them often.
  • Every hour of every day that you are here, it is all of you that find for the patrons that needle in the haystack of information that they are looking for. And, by the way, this haystack is just one of many haystacks that are publically accessible worldwide.
  • These are some of those benefits listed and I’m sure we could think of multiple others. Of course, we could find arguments in the literature that the current methods of scholarly publishing already can claim these benefits without having to change the system of publishing at all. As we talked about earlier, there are also many that believe that we won’t be able to realize these benefits to their full extent UNTIL there is a change in the system of scholarly communication and publishing.
  • My biggest concern (and maybe concern is too harsh) is that the open access models have tended to mimic the current publishing structure TOO much.
  • The NIH Public Access policy is designed to ensure that the results of NIH-funded research are made available for public access and use as soon as possible after publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The current policy, enacted on May 2, 2005, requests that NIH-funded researchers deposit a copy of their final manuscripts into PubMed Central (the NLM electronic repository) upon acceptance in a peer reviewed journal, to be made publicly available within 12 months of publication
  • These are opinions expressed in a paper by the Wellcome Trust which looked at the economic realities of scientific research publishing. In many ways, the research community relies on the collections of libraries for their access to information. Because of cost increases while at the same time experiencing zero budget increases, many libraries are cancelling journal titles in very large numbers. Nonprofit publishers, such as learned societies, professional associations, and university presses, publish nearly 44% of the over 21,000 current titles being published yet their influence in the market is small. Commercial publishers have tended not to have a philosophy that “information is a public good”. The advent of the Internet and the opportunities that the Internet would provide is not challenging the current practices of the commercial publishers.
  • Authors at some level think of publishing as an effort to enhance hiring, promotion and tenure possibilities, but most (if not all authors) think more broadly of the impact of their work on the body of scientific knowledge and the advance of research in their particular discipline. I think we could agree that the process of research communication can not and should not be eliminated. It plans a critical role and, one of the arguments that I’ll make lately, is that the role is being compromised by the current scholarly communication system and will be enhanced by the changes inherent in open access publishing models. But more about that later.
  • 2010 SC Environment Presentation

    1. 1. The Changing Environment of Scholarly Communication & Publishing Julie Schneider Director, Ebling Library UW-Madison
    2. 2. Scholarly Communication Pre-Test <ul><li>What is a good source for information on publisher’s copyright and archiving policies? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Macbeth </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Romeo </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hamlet </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Iago </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Which of these groups have a public access policy? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wellcome Trust </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National Institutes of Health </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Medical Research Council </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Howard Hughes Medical Institute </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All of the above </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>None of the above </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Which of these disciplines has the highest average price per title and which discipline has the lowest average price per title? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Biology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Chemistry </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Health Sciences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Food Science </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Which one of these is not a repository? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SSRN </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PMC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PEA Soup </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>arXiv </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>RePEc </li></ul></ul><ul><li>All of the groups below are stakeholders in the scholarly communication process, name someone who is missing? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Universities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Foundations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Federal Agencies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scholarly Societies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Publishers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Libraries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tax-paying Public </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/71362960@N00/335350003/
    5. 5. What is Scholarly Communication? <ul><li>The authoring, publishing, dissemination, and reading of information produced for teaching, learning or research in whatever format, with the tools, measures and systems needed to provide access to and store these materials in perpetuity. </li></ul><ul><li>OR… Scholarly Communications is a system to manage the results of research and scholarly inquiry. </li></ul><ul><li>OR… Scholarly communication is the system of people, procedures, and tools through which the results of research and scholarship are registered, evaluated, disseminated, and preserved. </li></ul>
    6. 6. “ What you see and hear depends on a good deal on where you’re standing.” C.S. Lewis
    7. 7. Who are the Stakeholders? <ul><li>Publishers of all types </li></ul><ul><li>Authors </li></ul><ul><li>Researchers </li></ul><ul><li>Funding Agencies </li></ul><ul><li>Universities </li></ul><ul><li>Scholarly Societies </li></ul><ul><li>Libraries </li></ul><ul><li>Government </li></ul><ul><li>Taxpaying Public </li></ul>
    8. 8. What Authors are Looking For… <ul><li>Audience </li></ul><ul><li>Retention of rights to post pre-prints and post-prints to national, subject, or institutional repositories and to use the article for teaching purposes </li></ul><ul><li>To retain copyright of the article </li></ul><ul><li>Fair Peer-review services </li></ul><ul><li>Layout and editing services </li></ul><ul><li>Flexibility in article size </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to link to multimedia and/or datasets </li></ul><ul><li>Speedy publishing process </li></ul><ul><li>Wide-spread Dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Wide-spread Marketing </li></ul><ul><li>Prestige and Impact </li></ul><ul><li>New Journal Opportunities </li></ul>
    9. 9. What Publishers are Looking For… <ul><li>Reducing production and dissemination costs </li></ul><ul><li>Communicating findings </li></ul><ul><li>Preserving revenue over the long term </li></ul><ul><li>Retaining copyright to all materials they publish (thereby retaining a monopoly) </li></ul><ul><li>Acquire/maintain prestige & high impact factors </li></ul><ul><li>Remain answerable to business executives, shareholders, and members </li></ul><ul><li>Retaining their current market share </li></ul><ul><li>Remain cognizant of and respond to market changes when necessary </li></ul><ul><li>Satisfying customers </li></ul><ul><li>Maximizing Profits </li></ul>
    10. 10. What Libraries are Looking For… <ul><li>Retention of rights to post articles and supporting data to national, subject, or institutional repositories (we hope for this from authors) </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to use purchased articles in any format for resource sharing </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to use purchased articles in any format for Course Packs and E-Reserves </li></ul><ul><li>Provide access to ALL users </li></ul><ul><li>Reasonable pricing for print and electronic </li></ul><ul><li>Reasonable licensing provisions </li></ul><ul><li>Long term preservation of electronic format </li></ul><ul><li>Value added services such as user friendly formats of electronic versions and linkout capabilities </li></ul><ul><li>Customer service and support </li></ul>
    11. 11. What Readers are Looking For… <ul><li>Immediate, 24/7 Access anywhere in the world </li></ul><ul><li>In a useable, electronic format </li></ul><ul><li>Want a print copy available to easily browse </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to copy, paste, and use images </li></ul><ul><li>Linked F rom indexes and databases and T o other journal articles & raw data </li></ul><ul><li>Common Interface for all journal titles and databases </li></ul><ul><li>Easily share articles and data with colleagues </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to link to multimedia and/or datasets </li></ul><ul><li>All the literature and data, all the time, indefinitely </li></ul>
    12. 12. Stages in the Scholarship Life Cycle <ul><li>Ideas </li></ul><ul><li>Funding </li></ul><ul><li>Research </li></ul><ul><li>Data </li></ul><ul><li>Analyze </li></ul><ul><li>Manuscript </li></ul><ul><li>Dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Peer Review </li></ul><ul><li>Copy edit </li></ul><ul><li>Dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Preservation </li></ul>
    13. 13. What Are Some of the Issues? <ul><li>Costs, Pricing Structures </li></ul><ul><li>Bundling – The “Big Deal” </li></ul><ul><li>Access Models </li></ul><ul><li>Preservation – Long-term access </li></ul><ul><li>Prestige/Impact/Quality </li></ul><ul><li>Copyright/Licensing </li></ul><ul><li>Publishers </li></ul><ul><li>Publishing Process </li></ul><ul><li>Equitable distribution </li></ul><ul><li>Information as a “Public Good” </li></ul><ul><li>Too Much Information </li></ul>
    14. 14. Scholarly Publishing Numbers <ul><li>24,000 Peer Reviewed Journals </li></ul><ul><li>1,300,000 Peer Reviewed Articles </li></ul><ul><li>1,200 Publishers </li></ul>
    15. 15. SOURCE: LJ PERIODICALS PRICE SURVEY 2008 1,034 Agriculture 1,086 Geography 1,213 General Science 1,311 Zoology 1,330 Health Sciences 1,411 Math & Computer Science $1,491 Botany 1,521 Geology 1,554 Food Science 1,671 Astronomy 1,776 Technology 1,810 Biology 1,919 Engineering 3,103 Physics $3,490 Chemistry Average Price Per Title Discipline
    16. 16. Commercialization of STM Publishing STM Publishing Market -- $16.1 Billion Source: Industry Trends, Size and Players in the Scientific, Technical & Medical (STM) Market . Outsell, Inc., Nov. 2002.
    17. 17. Mergers of STM Publishers <ul><li>5.8 Billion </li></ul><ul><li>Elsevier </li></ul><ul><li>Kluwer </li></ul><ul><li>Springer </li></ul><ul><li>ACS </li></ul><ul><li>Wiley-Blackwell </li></ul>10.3 Billion 1,195 Publishers
    18. 18. Non-Profit vs. Commercial 62% citations 38% citations 9% $ 91% dollars
    19. 19. Outcomes (from the changes in the scholarly communication environment or the current economic market?) <ul><li>Libraries </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Journal Cancellations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fewer Book Purchases </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Forming Consortia </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shifting Subscription to Individual Article Purchases </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Publishers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bundling Journals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requiring Multi-Year Contracts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Acquisitions & Mergers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Raising Prices </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. Stages in the Scholarship Life Cycle <ul><li>Ideas </li></ul><ul><li>Funding </li></ul><ul><li>Research </li></ul><ul><li>Data </li></ul><ul><li>Analyze </li></ul><ul><li>Manuscript </li></ul><ul><li>Dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Peer Review </li></ul><ul><li>Copy edit </li></ul><ul><li>Dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Preservation </li></ul>
    21. 21. Stages in the Scholarship Life Cycle <ul><li>Ideas </li></ul><ul><li>Funding </li></ul><ul><li>Research </li></ul><ul><li>Data </li></ul><ul><li>Analyze </li></ul><ul><li>Manuscript </li></ul><ul><li>Post to Blog or Wiki </li></ul><ul><li>Colleagues Comment </li></ul><ul><li>Rework Manuscript </li></ul><ul><li>Email out to Colleagues & Present at Conference </li></ul><ul><li>Upload to Personal Webpage & Institutional Repository </li></ul>
    22. 22. Use of Digital Scholarly Resources Source: Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication: Results of an Investigation Conducted by Ithaka Strategic Services for the Association of Research Libraries http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0012.105
    23. 23. What Change is Happening in the Environment <ul><li>New Models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Blogs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wikis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scientific Networking Communities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Open Access Journals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hybrid Models </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Repositories </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pre-print & Working Paper Archives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data Sources </li></ul></ul><ul><li>New Tools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Online Environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Software </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Computing Power </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Storage Capabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Deep Linking </li></ul></ul><ul><li>New Pressures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Governmental Pressure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pressure from Funders </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Culture shifts in Communication </li></ul></ul>
    24. 30. How can Librarians Help? <ul><li>Provide information on open access or non-traditional journal titles for faculty and staff to publish in </li></ul><ul><li>Explain the terms (and outcome) of a copyright transfer agreement </li></ul><ul><li>Assist a department with uploading their papers, data, images, video, etc to MINDS@UW (where possible) </li></ul><ul><li>Help faculty and staff develop new online spaces for sharing scholarly output in support of research, teaching, learning …. </li></ul><ul><li>Let faculty and staff know about public access mandates and assist with compliance </li></ul><ul><li>Build subject portals that point to the non-traditional materials </li></ul><ul><li>???????? </li></ul>
    25. 31. Source : http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_frank/526508553/ Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/skycaptaintwo/81303741/
    26. 32. Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/71362960@N00/335350003/
    27. 33. Questions? Julie Schneider [email_address]
    28. 34. Open <ul><li>Open Access </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Public Access </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Open Data </li></ul><ul><li>Open Source </li></ul><ul><li>Open Education </li></ul><ul><li>Open Standards </li></ul><ul><li>Open Systems – combination of some or all of the above </li></ul>
    29. 35. Open Access <ul><li>By “open access” to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public Internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the Internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited. </li></ul>
    30. 36. Benefits of Open Access <ul><li>Accelerates research </li></ul><ul><li>Enriches education </li></ul><ul><li>Increases dissemination of an author’s work </li></ul><ul><li>Provides access for less-developed nations </li></ul><ul><li>May reduce dissemination costs by removing print </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitates archiving </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitates data-mining and linkages </li></ul><ul><li>Revitalizes non-English language scholarship </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitates Access to the general public </li></ul>
    31. 37. Open Access Concerns (real or imagined) <ul><li>Loss or decrease in quality of Peer Review </li></ul><ul><li>Accuracy & Accessibility of Archives </li></ul><ul><li>Sustainability of OA Journals </li></ul><ul><li>Upheaval in Hiring, Tenure, & Promotion Processes </li></ul><ul><li>Research in Developing Countries will suffer </li></ul><ul><li>Lower paid researchers in US won’t be able to afford to publish </li></ul><ul><li>Demise of Society Publishers/Publications </li></ul><ul><li>University budgets won’t be able to handle author fees </li></ul><ul><li>Create more difficulties in linking, indexing, providing access points </li></ul>
    32. 38. NIH Public Access Policy Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 Division G, Title II, Section 218 SEC. 218. The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.
    33. 39. Future Public Access in the U.S.? <ul><li>Federal Research Public Access Act </li></ul><ul><ul><li>S. 1373 – Introduced June 25, 2009; Referred to Committee </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The bill would provide for federal agencies, with research funding in excess of $100 million, to develop free online public access policies related to research conducted by employees of that agency or from funds administered by that agency. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>OSTP – Request for Public Comment on Public Access to Federally-Funded Research </li></ul><ul><li>Learning Opportunities with Creation of Open Source Textbooks (LOW COST) Act of 2009 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>H.R. 1464 – Introduced March 12, 2009; Referred to Committee </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The bill required each federal agency that expends more than $10 million in a fiscal year on scientific education and outreach to use at least 2% of such funds for collaboration on the development and implementation of open source materials as an educational outreach effort. </li></ul></ul>
    34. 40. Implications of Current Publishing Practices on the Research Community <ul><li>The current market structure does not operate in the long-term interests of the research community. </li></ul><ul><li>Commercial publishers are dominant though many top journals are published by not-for-profit organizations. </li></ul><ul><li>The “public good” element of scientific work means market solutions are inefficient. </li></ul><ul><li>Electronic publishing is not currently challenging the dominance of commercial publishers. </li></ul>
    35. 41. Goals of Scholarly Communication <ul><li>Fosters scientific rigor . Publication in refereed journals adds status to the research information, and to the source of the information, since the inclusion of an article is the result of scrutiny by experts in the field who signify that the research information is significant and the data have passed their critical evaluation. </li></ul><ul><li>Validates research strategies . Acceptance by experts indicates that the research information is original, useful, and provides valuable new knowledge. </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitates replication of research studies and generalizability of results . Journal articles generally provide in-depth and complex information that may serve as a basis upon which other researchers may conduct similar research or directly apply the research information to real world situations. </li></ul><ul><li>Improves accountability . Publishing in refereed journals has been the classical means by which academicians account for their research activities to their institutions. Journal publishing can provide accountability to stakeholders who review the researcher’s publications to determine whether they are a credible source of information. </li></ul>