Editors, authors, publishers - Who\'s who?

731 views

Published on

Adapted from a presentation on 15 March to a very interested audience in Basingstoke - loads of questions!

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
731
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Editors, authors, publishers - Who\'s who?

  1. 1. Editors, peer reviewers, authors, publishers: Who’s who? Chris Graf Wiley-Blackwell chris.graf@wiley.com +44 1865 476 393
  2. 2. • Editors • Peer reviewers • Editorial boards • Authors (loads on authors) • Publishers
  3. 3. Editors Objective Subjective    
  4. 4. Good enough?
  5. 5. Editors • Serve a journal‟s interests – Which depend on… • Most encourage enquiries • Editor‟s word is (nearly) always final
  6. 6. Peer reviewers Analysis (expand in comments to editor as required) 4 1 Rating (higher score=better) 3 2 (high) (low) 1. Relevance to practising clinician  2. Originality  3. Validity (hypothesis, study design, methods,  statistics) 4. Conclusion (reasonable? supported by results?)  5. Tables/figures (appropriate? informative?)  6. Writing clear and accurate (title, abstract, text)  7. Please enter your total score here 22
  7. 7. Editorial board • Advice • Direction • Network • Sometimes peer review • Sometimes authors • Sometimes…
  8. 8. Authors (1999) • 2,500/11,500 responded • What authors want – Motivations when authors publish – Considerations when choosing a journal Swan A. „What Authors Want‟: the ALPSP research study on the motivations and concerns of contributors to learned journals. Learned Publishing. 1999;12(3):170-172
  9. 9. Authors (1999): Motivations 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Tell peers Career Personal Funding Financial prestige reward Authors' first choice Authors' second choice Swan A. „What Authors Want‟: the ALPSP research study on the motivations and concerns of contributors to learned journals. Learned Publishing. 1999;12(3):170-172
  10. 10. Authors (1999): Choices 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Swan A. „What Authors Want‟: the ALPSP research study on the motivations and concerns of contributors to learned journals. Learned Publishing. 1999;12(3):170-172
  11. 11. Authors (2003): Online • 1,250 authors • Views on electronic publishing – Print more important than online – Speed through online not a priority – Peer-review process is the most valued – Followed by provision of citation-linking Swan A, Brown S. Authors and electronic publishing: what authors want from the new technology. Learned Publishing (2003)16,28–33
  12. 12. Authors (2004): Online • 3,787/107,500 responded • Views on electronic publishing – “many aspects of author behaviour are highly conservative” Ian Rowlands, Dave Nicholas and Paul Huntington. Scholarly communication in the digital environment: what do authors want? Learned Publishing (2004)17, 261–273
  13. 13. Authors (2005): Mismatch • “a big gap between the scholars‟ views on journal publishing… • … and journal publishers‟ views… … partly ascribed to a misunderstanding of the publishing process” Nicholas, D., Jamali, M., Hamid, R., Huntington, P. and Rowlands, I. In their very own words: Authors and scholarly journal publishing. Learned Publishing (2005)18:212–220.
  14. 14. Authors (2006) • 5,513 authors on issues relating to the scholarly communication system Ian Rowlands and Dave Nicholas. The changing scholarly communication landscape: an international survey of senior researchers Learned Publishing (2006), 19, 31–55
  15. 15. Authors (2006) Ian Rowlands and Dave Nicholas. The changing scholarly communication landscape: an international survey of senior researchers Learned Publishing (2006), 19, 31–55
  16. 16. Authors (2006) Ian Rowlands and Dave Nicholas. The changing scholarly communication landscape: an international survey of senior researchers Learned Publishing (2006), 19, 31–55
  17. 17. Authors (2008): Quality • 13 authors, focus groups • Perceptions of journal quality • Three most important attributes – Reputation – Time to publication – Readership John J. Regazzi, Selenay Aytac. Author perceptions of journal quality. Learned Publishing, (2008)21:225–235
  18. 18. Authors (2008): Quality John J. Regazzi, Selenay Aytac. Author perceptions of journal quality. Learned Publishing, (2008)21:225–235
  19. 19. Authors (2010): No change? • 160 interviewees, 45 institutions • Needs and practices – “[scholarly communication habits], which rely heavily on various forms of peer review, may override the perceived „opportunities‟ afforded by new technologies, including those falling into the Web 2.0 category” Harley Diane et al. (2010). Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines. UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education. http://escholarship.org/uc/cshe_fsc
  20. 20. Publishers • Run an editorial business • May publish under contract, may publish an “owned” journal • Line of independence between publisher and editor
  21. 21. Publishers • Care about – Brand, reputation – Their journal editors, Impact Factor, authors, readers and readership, ethics – What they publish, their products – Money
  22. 22. Publishers • Spot gaps – Some research is still hard to publish – Archives of Drug Information – Allows pharma to “publish the results of studies and make freely accessible to the public the results of research studies that would otherwise remain unavailable on-file”
  23. 23. Publishers • Make things happen – New author services, e.g. EXPEDITED – Slides, audio, video, Twitter, YouTube – Datasets? – Enhanced Articles
  24. 24. 1957
  25. 25. 2004
  26. 26. 2010
  27. 27. www.justgiving.co.uk/cyclemadagascar

×