Emerging scholars are often unprepared to navigate the changing landscape of scholarly publishing. Learn about author's rights and the importance of strategic publishing, including techniques to identify unethical scholarly publishers.

1. Scholarly Communications in
Global Perspective
Multi-level influence of global context: Government realities and expatriate assignments
Indiana Tech Global Leadership Immersion Weekend, April 25, 2015
Nina Collins
Reference Librarian

2. Scholarly Communications
“Scholarly communication is the process of sharing, disseminating and
publishing research findings of academics and researchers so that the
generated academic contents are made available to the global academic
communities” (UNESCO, p. 6).
UNESCO, (2015). “Scholarly communication”, Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

3. Scholarly Publishing
 2015 marks the 350th anniversary of the
first scientific paper!
 1665, Royal Society of London
published the first issue of
“Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society”.
 Laid the foundation and began the
practice of peer review
Available online at: https://www.force11.org/meetings/force2015/350
Bodleian Libraries, Oxford

4. Scholarly Publishing Business Model
 Editors of journals are gatekeepers to knowledge
 Peer Reviewers as well
 Pay Walls
 Journals require subscriptions for access
 Who Pays?!
 Creators of the scholarly works must sign away all copyrights to their works.
 Authors of scientific research have to pay for access.
 Publishers cover the costs of publishing. They do not pay the creators of the works, so
profits go to publishers.
 Rising Costs of Journal Subscriptions

5. Serials Crisis
 “Between 1986 and 2004, journal expenditures of North American research
libraries increased by a staggering 273%, with the average journal unit cost
increasing by 188%. During this same period, the U.S. Consumer Price Index rose by
73%, meaning that journal costs have outstripped inflation by a factor of almost 4”
(Newman, 2009).
 273% increase!

6. Open Access
“By Open Access, we mean the free, immediate, availability on
the public Internet of those works which scholars give to the world
without expectation of payment – permitting any user to read,
download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to the full text of
these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to
software or use them for any other lawful purpose.”
Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC),(2013)

7. Who Benefits from Open Access
 Researchers
 Increases discoverability of relevant literature and provides new avenues of discovery
 Increases visibility and impact of an author’s works
 Increases citations of scholarly works (Gargouri, 2010)
 Enhances interdisciplinary research
 Increases the pace of research and innovation
 Researchers and medical practitioners in developing nations!
SPARC. Why Open Access? http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/open-access/why-oa

8. Who Benefits from Open Access
 Educational Institutions
 Supports the mission of the institution—advances knowledge
 Provides access to STEM resources (expensive)
 Provides access for community colleges and K-12 institutions
 Increases democratization AND competitiveness of institutions
SPARC. Why Open Access? http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/open-access/why-oa

9. Who Benefits from Open Access
 Students
 Provides access to resources students need, regardless of institutional budget constraints
 Enriches quality of education
 Provides resources to help enhance education of work force
 Businesses
 Public
 Research Funders
SPARC. Why Open Access? http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/open-access/why-oa

10. Open Access Business Models
Green, Gold, Delayed, Hybrid

11. Green Open Access
 Creators are allowed to place a preprint copy of the manuscript on an
institutional repository
 Freely available to all
 Costs of maintaining the repository are funded by the institution
 Only works when the institution has a repository, and encourages faculty to
archive their scholarly content on the repository
 Most traditional publishers support Green OA

12. Gold Open Access
 “Author pays” model, used by online journals
 The costs of publication are funded by the authors, in the form of “author fees”, or
“article processing fees”
 Author fees vary significantly based on the discipline and the publisher
 Many OA publishers have policies for waiving the author fees for scholars in developing
nations, or who cannot afford the fee
 The fee is sometimes paid by the research sponsor (Institution or funding agency)

13. Delayed and Hybrid Models
 NIH uses a delayed OA model
 Many traditional, for profit, publishers are offering OA options

14. Government Mandates and Policies
 FASTR bill
 Fair Access to Science and Technology
Research Act
 U.S. OSTP memo
 Finch Report (2014)
 Research Councils UK (RCUK) Open
Access Policy adopted
 Institutional Mandates and Policies

15. Predatory Publishers
 Use the author-pays model of Gold Open Access
 Are not limited to Open Access publications. Can include conferences, or traditional
publishing business models
 Engage in unethical publishing practices
 Look like legitimate publishers
(Beall, 2013)

16. Unethical Publishing Practices
(Beall, 2013)

17. Unethical Practices: Deception
 The websites look like legitimate publishers (ex.)
 The journal/publisher name mimics an established journal/publisher (ex.)
 Journal name does not reflect geographic location (ex.)
 Not indexed by reputable indexing and abstracting services, but claim to be
 Coverage is misrepresented in abstracting & indexing services
 List databases as abstracting/indexing services that are not true abstracting/indexing services
 Make up citation metrics
 List people on the editorial board who have not agreed to serve OR refuse to provide names of
editorial board
 Lie about location of publisher headquarters (ex. Avens Publishing Group)
(Beall, 2013)

18. Unethical Practices: Negligence and
Non-adherence to standards
 Inadequate peer-review
 A publisher may list the same editor for all its
journals
 A journal has very broad coverage or subject
matter
 Author side fee
 Spelling or Grammar errors
 Licensing problems
 Fleet Startup
 Use email spam to solicit manuscripts
 May not use ISSN or DOIs
 Fail to provide contact information for the journal or
the editors
 Use AOL. Yahoo! Or Gmail addresses (ex.)
 Poor website search functionality
Beall (2013)

19. Unethical Practices: Lack of transparency
 Claim Peer review, when they do not practice adequate peer review
 Little or no information about the peer review process
 Fail to clearly state author side fees
 Fail to list editorial board or contact information for editorial board
 The only contact information for the editor is an online form, or an email through the
website
Beall (2013)

20. Predatory Publishing Quick Check
 Has the publisher started dozens of new Open Access titles all at once?
 Do the published titles have very few papers (if any)?
 Does the publisher send e-mails to myriad researchers asking for manuscript submissions or to
serve on editorial boards?
 Does the publisher fail to disclose the names of editorial board members or editors?
 Is the publisher’s address NOT verifiable?
 Is there very little evidence of peer review?
Crawford (2011)
 Additionally:
 Use the PET Project
 Check Sherpa/Romeo

21. Ethics in Scholarship
 Peer review stings
 Bohannon, 2013
 Scientific Paper Retractions
 Barbash, 2015
 Acceptance of nonsensical papers
 “Get me off your f#@$!^* mailing list”
 Citation cartels
 Thompson Reuters bans Journals from IF measures (Jump, 2013)
 Academic administrators loosing positions due to predatory publications (Beall, 2014)
 Misrepresented results, under pressure to publish or secure funding
 Data falsification (Extance, 2015)

22. Why care about ethics in scholarship?
 Scholars
 Administrators
 Hiring Managers
 General Public
 Your professional career can be sunk before
you begin
 Administrators have recently lost their jobs for
publishing in predatory journals
 Unethical scholars working in higher education
reflect poorly on the institution as well as the
entire scientific community
 False link between autism and vaccines
 Scientific Knowledge is built upon previous
knowledge
 Discovery and visibility are important

23. Scholarly Communications Lifecycle
Discovery
Analysis
Write
Publication
Research
Activity
Proposals
Idea
Partners,
Funding
Simulate,
Experiment,
Observe

24. Scholarly Communications Lifecycle
Discovery
Analysis
Write
Publication
Research
Activity
Proposals
Idea
Partners,
Funding
Simulate,
Experiment,
Observe
Breakdowns in the scholarly communications lifecycle:
1. Publication
1. Publication is not “the end” of the scientific process.
2. Discovery
1. Scientific knowledge is built on previous knowledge.
2. What happens when research is created and lost?

25. Scholarly Communications Lifecycle: Re-Discovery
 Visibility of Scholarship is important (Salo, 2008)
 Open Access
 Research supports visibility and reuse (Gargouri, 2010)
 Research also supports higher priced journals are more highly cited (Bosch and
Henderson, 2013)
 Publishing Open Access allows you to maintain copyright permissions

26. Global Perspective: North-South Divide
 Although ¾ of the world’s population lives in the Global South, they are poor.
 4/5 of the world’s wealth is held by the Global North.
 Access to knowledge is limited by paywalls that are far beyond the reach of
researchers in the Global South.
 1986 paper documenting the likelihood of an Ebola outbreak in Liberia (Dahn,
Mussah, and Nutt, 2015)
 Open Access holds the potential to bridge this divide.
(Open Science Initiative Working Group, 2015)

27. Strategic Publishing
How to maximize visibility and impact of your scholarship

28. Copyright
 Title 17, U.S. Code governs copyright
 Copyright covers original works of creative
expression in any fixed, tangible medium
 Authors have the following rights
 Reproduction
 Translation, abridgement, revision
 Distribution
 Public Performance or display
Please note, I am not a
lawyer and therefore
cannot give legal advice.
 Negotiate copyright with publishers
 Be proactive. If you seek a position in higher education, your
future employer may wish to archive your work on their IR!

29. Influence of Scholarship:
Bibliometrics
 Pay attention to Citation Metrics
 Impact Factor
 Eigenfactor
 Article Influence
 Look for High Impact Journals
 Lower acceptance rate
(Bosch and Henderson, 2013)

30. Altmetrics
 “Alternative metrics” include discussions about scholarly research that occur on
social media
 How many times has the article been shared on social media? Comments about the
research?
 Social Media for scholarly inquiry
 Academic.edu
 Research Gate
 Mendeley
 Best Practice: deposit your work on an institutional repository, then link to this version
from other social media outlets!
 Researcher ID/ ORCHID ID
 Ensures all of your publications are attributed to the exact same person

31. Resources and Tools
For more information:
 See the McMillen Library LibGuide on Choosing and Evaluating Journals
 Use the PET Project (Publisher Evaluation Tool)
 Visit Jeffrey Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers
 For detailed information about a journal’s open access policies, visit Sherpa/Romeo
 To assess journal impact, visit Eigenfactor
 For Fun: see SCIgen, the scientific paper generator
 Open Access Creative Commons Licenses
 Use the SPARC Author Addendum to negotiate copyrights
 ORCHID ID, Researcher ID
Contact Nina Collins, Reference Librarian:
nkcollins@indianatech.edu
260.422.5561 x 2223

32. References
Barbash, F. (2015, March 28). “Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal”. The Washington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-
retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
Beall, J. (2014, February 20). Iceland professor in hot water for publishing in predatory journals. Scholarly Open Access: Critical analysis of
scholarly open access publications. Retrieved from http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/02/20/iceland-professor-in-hot-water-for-publishing-in-
predatory-journals/
Beall, J. (2014, January 24). University of Pristina Rector under fire for publishing in predatory journals. Scholarly Open Access: Critical
analysis of scholarly open access publications. Retrieved from http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/24/university-of-pristina-rector-under-fire-for-
publishing-in-predatory-journals/
Beall, J. (2013). Unethical Practices in Scholarly, Open-Access Publishing. Journal of Information Ethics, 22(1), 11-20. doi: 10.3172/JIE.22.1.11
Bohannon, J. (2013, October 4). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6). Retrieved from
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
Bosch, S. and Henderson, K. (2013). “The winds of change: Periodical price survey 2013”. Library Journal. Retrieved from
http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/04/publishing/the-winds-of-change-periodicals-price-survey-2013/#_
Bot, B., Ratan, K. and Jackson, K. (2014). “ACRL-SPARC Forum: Evaluating the quality of open access content.” Proceedings from American
Library Association Annual Conference. Las Vegas, NV.
Crawford, W. (2011). ALA Editions Special Reports : Open Access : What You Need to Know Now. Chicago, IL, USA: American Library
Association Editions

33. References
Dahn, B., Mussah, V., and Nutt, C. (2015). “Yes, we were warned about ebola”. New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/opinion/yes-we-were-warned-about-ebola.html?_r=1
Extance, A. (2015, March 16). “Data falsification hits polymer mechanochemistry papers”. Chemistry World. Retrieved
from http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/03/data-falsification-hits-polymer-mechanochemistry-papers
Gargouri, Y., et al. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, Open Access increases citation impact for higher quality
research. PLoS One, 5(10).
Jump, P. (2013). “Journal citation cartels on the rise.” The Times Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/journal-citation-cartels-on-the-rise/2005009.article
Newman, K. (2009). “The cost of journals.” University Library: University of Illinois at Urbana0Champaign. Retrieved
from http://www.library.illinois.edu/scholcomm/journalcosts.html
Open Science Initiative Working Group. (2015). “Mapping the future of scholarly publishing”. National Science
Communication Institute (nSCI). Retrieved from http://nationalscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/OSI-report-Feb-
2015.pdf
Salo, D. (2008). “Innkeeper at the roach motel.” Library Trends: 57(2).
SPARC, (2013). Why Open Access? Retrieved from http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/open-access/why-oa
Straub, D., & Anderson, C. (2010). Journal Quality and citations: common metrics and considerations about their use.
MIS Quarterly, 34(1), iii-xii.
Suber, P. (2012). MIT Press Essential Knowledge : Open Access. Cambridge, MA, USA MIT Press
Van Noorden, R. (2013). “The true cost of science publishing”. Nature. Retrieved from
http://www.nature.com/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-science-publishing-1.12676