“ How to attack manuscripts like an editor or reviwer“
    “Pipeline” Model of Publishing 1



       Author                       Publisher                         Library    ...
Proportions of Article Output in SMT 2
                                               4% 2%



                           ...
 Building a collective knowledge base
     Communicating information
     Validating the quality of research
     Dist...
 20,000-25,000 peer-reviewed journals
    More than 1 Mio articles published
     annually
    80% of papers subject to...
    Average acceptance rate for journals is
        about 50%.
         › About 20% are rejected prior to peer review
   ...
Author



                                          Editor


                                                             ...
    “Single Blind” Reviews
          › the reviewer knows the identity of the author,
              but the reviewer‟s id...
    The lack of timely publication
          › Four to six months is fast for a scholarly
              journal; two year...
 Eliminating the tradition of blinding the
      reviewers‟ identities
     Making the full peer-review record public
  ...
 Serve to facilitate communication
      among scholars
     Provides at least the same level of
      quality control a...
    Paper format = subscription model
          › Individual subscriber
          › Institutional subscriptions
        ...
 Access to material via the
      Internet in such a way that the
      material is free for all users to
      read and ...
No. Of Peer-Reviewed OA Journals 13
             4500
             4000
             3500
             3000
             2...
 The desire to share information with
      fellow researchers
     Open access as a condition of a funding
      grant
...
    Changing the business model has proven to be
         much more difficult and time-consuming than
         envisaged ...
 Oxford University Press offers “Oxford
      Open” to 90 journals and 6 fully open
      access journals.
     Wiley-Bl...
    The Scholarly Kitchen is a moderated and
         independent blog
        Established in Feb 2008 by the
         S...
    Features of Google Scholar
         ›   Search
         ›   Find
         ›   Locate
         ›   Learn
       Ranki...
 Concerns about the definition of
      "scholarly" in determining inclusion or
      exclusion, and the currency of the
...
The future internet: Service Web 3.0
 The Web was designed as an information space,
     not only to be useful for human-human
     communication, but also th...
 Semantic     Web Technology involves
     asking people to make some extra
     effort, in repayment for which they will...
 Tools for publishing papers on the web will
     automatically help users to include more of
     this machine-readable ...
 The semantic web will facilitate the
     development of automated methods for
     helping users to understand the cont...
 The Semantic Web will allow users to
     create relationships that allow
     communication when the commonality
     o...
    “The very notion of a journal of medicine
        separate from a journal of bioinformatics,
        separate from th...
   Arnold, Kenneth. The Body in the Virtual Library: Rethinking Scholarly Communication.
    1995. < http://dx.doi.org/10...
Publish, Don't Perish - Scholarly Publishing Today
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Publish, Don't Perish - Scholarly Publishing Today

1,319 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,319
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
13
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
48
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Publish, Don't Perish - Scholarly Publishing Today

  1. 1. “ How to attack manuscripts like an editor or reviwer“
  2. 2.  “Pipeline” Model of Publishing 1 Author Publisher Library User 1 Kahin, Brian. Institutional and Policy Issues in the Development of the Digital Library. 1995. <http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.120> . Web. 1 May 2010.
  3. 3. Proportions of Article Output in SMT 2 4% 2% 30% 64% Commercial Publishing Companies Learned Societies University Presses Government Research Department 2 Professional Scholarly Publishing. Publishing Facts. 2010. <http://www.pspcentral.org/pubFacts/pubFacts_008.cfm > . Web. 1 May 2010.
  4. 4.  Building a collective knowledge base  Communicating information  Validating the quality of research  Distributing rewards  Building scientific communities 3 Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age. 2007. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107>. Web. 1 May 2010.
  5. 5.  20,000-25,000 peer-reviewed journals  More than 1 Mio articles published annually  80% of papers subject to peer review were reviewed by 2 or more reviewers  Active reviewers referee an average of 8 papers/year 4 Professional Scholarly Publishing. Publishing Facts. 2010. <http://www.pspcentral.org/pubFacts/pubFacts_008.cfm > . Web. 1 May 2010.
  6. 6.  Average acceptance rate for journals is about 50%. › About 20% are rejected prior to peer review  poor quality (13%)  out of scope (8%)) › 30% are rejected following peer review.  Of the 50% accepted, 40% are accepted subject to revision. 5 Professional Scholarly Publishing. Publishing Facts. 2010. <http://www.pspcentral.org/pubFacts/pubFacts_008.cfm > . Web. 1 May 2010.
  7. 7. Author Editor Referee 6 Peters, John. The Hundred Years War Started Today: An exploration of electronic peer review. 1995. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.117>. Web. 1 May 2010.
  8. 8.  “Single Blind” Reviews › the reviewer knows the identity of the author, but the reviewer‟s identity is kept confidential  “Double Blind” Reviews › neither the reviewer nor the author‟s identities are disclosed to the other  “Open” Peer Reviews › author and the reviewer are both aware of each other‟s identity at the time of the review 7 Peters, John. The Hundred Years War Started Today: An exploration of electronic peer review. 1995. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.117>. Web. 1 May 2010.
  9. 9.  The lack of timely publication › Four to six months is fast for a scholarly journal; two years not uncommon  The formulaic approach often adopted by reviewers limits creativity 8 Peters, John. The Hundred Years War Started Today: An exploration of electronic peer review. 1995. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.117>. Web. 1 May 2010.
  10. 10.  Eliminating the tradition of blinding the reviewers‟ identities  Making the full peer-review record public › BioMed Central  Opening the review process to anyone who wishes to provide comments › Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (ETAI) › Atmospheric Chemistry and Physcs  Treating publications as organic documents that evolve over time 9 Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age. 2007. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107>. Web. 1 May 2010.
  11. 11.  Serve to facilitate communication among scholars  Provides at least the same level of quality control as traditional peer review  Fosters scientific communities 10 Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age. 2007. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107>. Web. 1 May 2010.
  12. 12.  Paper format = subscription model › Individual subscriber › Institutional subscriptions  Online journals = “big deals” › License fees  “Open Access” = new funding models › community service model › author-side payments 11 Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age. 2007. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107>. Web. 1 May 2010.
  13. 13.  Access to material via the Internet in such a way that the material is free for all users to read and use  A grass-roots movement of scientists advocating the publication of scientific journals openly on the Web started in the mid-1990s Open  The advantages of Open Access Access Logo 12 Björk, Bo-Christer and Turid Hedlund. Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their Business Model to Open Access. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.102>. Web. 1 May 2010.
  14. 14. No. Of Peer-Reviewed OA Journals 13 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 No. Of Peer- 2000 Reviewed OA 1500 Journals 1000 500 0 2002 2009 13 Björk, Bo-Christer and Turid Hedlund. Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their Business Model to Open Access. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.102>. Web. 1 May 2010.
  15. 15.  The desire to share information with fellow researchers  Open access as a condition of a funding grant  Article was rejected by Journals  Reservations about working with large organizations suspicions about the concept of intellectual property 14 Esposito, Joseph J. Open Access 2.0: Access to Scholarly Publications Moves to a New Phase. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.203>. Web. 1 May 2010.
  16. 16.  Changing the business model has proven to be much more difficult and time-consuming than envisaged 5–10 years ago (Book Help)  Industry with a few dominant publishers  Customers (i.e. University libraries) have a strong pressure to buy subscriptions and licenses from all the leading publishers  For publishing researchers, prestige of the journal often more important than OA  Author charges a new type of cost for universities or research funders 15 Björk, Bo-Christer and Turid Hedlund. Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their Business Model to Open Access. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.102>. Web. 1 May 2010.
  17. 17.  Oxford University Press offers “Oxford Open” to 90 journals and 6 fully open access journals.  Wiley-Blackwell offers Online Open, which covers almost all of their1,264 journals.  Springer offers Open Choice to all of its 1,470 peer-reviewed online journals and full open access to a number of them › BioMed Central 16 Björk, Bo-Christer and Turid Hedlund. Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their Business Model to Open Access. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.102>. Web. 1 May 2010.
  18. 18.  The Scholarly Kitchen is a moderated and independent blog  Established in Feb 2008 by the Society for Scholarly Publishing to: › Keep SSP members and interested parties aware of new developments in publishing › Point to research reports and projects › Interpret the significance of relevant research in a balanced way › Suggest areas that need more input by identifying gaps in knowledge › Translate findings from related endeavors › Attract the community of STM information experts interested in these things and give them a place to contribute 17 Scholarly Kitchen. About. . <http://www.scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about> Web. 1 May 2010.
  19. 19.  Features of Google Scholar › Search › Find › Locate › Learn  Ranking system › weighing the full text of each document, › where it was published › who it was written by › how often and how recently it has been cited in other scholarly literature. 18 Google Scholar. About. . <http://www.scholarl.google.com/about> Web. 1 May 2010.
  20. 20.  Concerns about the definition of "scholarly" in determining inclusion or exclusion, and the currency of the content  Not restricted to peer-reviewed content: too much or too little useful content  One opportunity open to Google Scholar is to offer searches that recognize the context of the words used in searching. 19 Friend, Frederick J. Google Scholar: Potentially Good for Users of Academic Information. 2007. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0009.105>. Web. 1 May 2010.
  21. 21. The future internet: Service Web 3.0
  22. 22.  The Web was designed as an information space, not only to be useful for human-human communication, but also that machines would be able to participate and help users communicate with each other.  Computers are better at handling carefully structured and well-designed data, yet even where information is derived from a database with well-defined meanings, the implications of those data are not evident to a robot browsing the web.  More information on the web needs to be in a form that machines can „understand‟ rather than simply display. 20 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web’. 2001. http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
  23. 23.  Semantic Web Technology involves asking people to make some extra effort, in repayment for which they will get substantial new functionality  A new set of languages is now being developed to make more web content accessible to machines. 21 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web’. 2001. http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
  24. 24.  Tools for publishing papers on the web will automatically help users to include more of this machine-readable markup  Whereas current tools using XML (Extensible Markup Language) can allow a user to assert general descriptions the new languages will be able to express more details  Papers that include this new markup language will be found by new and better search engines, and users will thus be able to issue significantly more precise queries. 22 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web’. 2001. http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
  25. 25.  The semantic web will facilitate the development of automated methods for helping users to understand the content produced by those in other scientific disciplines  On the semantic web, one will be able to produce machine-readable content that will provide a self-evolving translator that allows one group of scientists to directly interact with the technical data produced by another 23 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web’. 2001. http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
  26. 26.  The Semantic Web will allow users to create relationships that allow communication when the commonality of concept has not (yet) led to a commonality of terms.  The semantic web will provide unifying underlying technologies to allow these concepts to be progressively linked into a universal web of knowledge 24 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web’. 2001. http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
  27. 27.  “The very notion of a journal of medicine separate from a journal of bioinformatics, separate from the writings of physicists, chemists, psychologists will someday become as out of date as the print journal is becoming to our graduate students. “  “Does this sound like a crazy science-fiction dream? A decade ago, who would have believed a web of text, conveyed by computer, would challenge a 200-year-old tradition of academic publishing?” 'Tim Berners-Lee & James Hendler 25 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web’. 2001. http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
  28. 28.  Arnold, Kenneth. The Body in the Virtual Library: Rethinking Scholarly Communication. 1995. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.104>. Web. 1 May 2010.  Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web’. 2001. http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010.  Björk, Bo-Christer and Turid Hedlund. Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their Business Model to Open Access. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.102>. Web. 1 May 2010.  Esposito, Joseph J. Open Access 2.0: Access to Scholarly Publications Moves to a New Phase. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.203>. Web. 1 May 2010.  Friend, Frederick J. Google Scholar: Potentially Good for Users of Academic Information. 2007. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0009.105>. Web. 1 May 2010.  Kahin, Brian. Institutional and Policy Issues in the Development of the Digital Library. 1995. <http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.120> . Web. 1 May 2010.  Moxley, Joseph M. How to Attack Manuscripts like an editor or reviewer. 1992. Publish, don‟t perish: the scholar‟s guide to academic writing and publishing. Print.  Nadasdy, Zoltan. Electronic Journal of Cognitive and Brain Science: A Truly All-Electronic Journal: Let Democracy Replace Peer Review. 1997. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0003.103>. Web. 1 May 2010.  Peters, John. The Hundred Years War Started Today: An exploration of electronic peer review. 1995. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.117>. Web. 1 May 2010.  Peters, Paul. Redefining Scholarly Publishing as a Service Industry. 2007. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.309>. Web. 1 May 2010.  Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age. 2007. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107>. Web. 1 May 2010.

×