Not the Beall and end-all* – Assessing quality publications from multiple perspectives

Authors: Dr. Andy Pleffer & Susan Shrubb

Abstract: Assessing reputable places to publish is a shared responsibility; one that should (ideally) be dispersed among academic authors and their institution(s). Those who have a stake in such assessment may include – but by no means be limited to – researchers and trusted colleagues, students and supervisors, research administrators and research librarians.

Citation: Pfeffer, A., & Shrubb, S. (2017, March 27). Not the Beall and end-all*. Australasian Open Access Strategy Group blog.

View

Source: Not the Beall and end-all* – Assessing quality publications from multiple perspectives

OPRM: Challenges to Including Open Peer Review in Open Access Repositories

Authors: Pandelis Perakakis, Agnes Ponsati, Isabel Bernal, Carles Sierra, Nardine Osman, Concha Mosquera-de-Arancibia, and Emilio Lorenzo

Abstract: The peer review system is the norm for many publications. It involves an editor and several experts in the field providing comments for a submitted article. The reviewer remains anonymous to the author, with only the editor knowing the reviewer’s identity. This model is now being challenged and open peer review (OPR) models are viewed as the new frontier of the review process. OPR is a term that encompasses diverse variations in the traditional review process. Examples of this are modifications in the way in which authors and reviewers are aware of each other’s identity (open identities), the visibility of the reviews carried out (open reviews) or the opening up of the review to the academic community (open participation). We present the project for the implementation of an Open Peer Review Module in two major Spanish repositories, DIGITAL.CSIC and e-IEO, together with some promising initial results and challenges in the take-up process. The OPR module, designed for integration with DSpace repositories, enables any scholar to provide a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of any research object hosted in these repositories.

Citation: Perakakis, P., Ponsati, A., Bernal, I., Sierra, C., Osman, N., Mosquera-de-Arancibia, C., & Lorenzo, E. (2017). OPRM: Challenges to Including Open Peer Review in Open Access Repositories. The Code4Lib Journal, (35).

View

Source: OPRM: Challenges to Including Open Peer Review in Open Access Repositories

Open Science: a revolution in sight?

Author: Bernard Rentier

Abstract: Purpose
This paper aims to describe the evolution of scientific communication, largely represented by the publication process. It notes the disappearance of the traditional publication on paper and its progressive replacement by electronic publishing, a new paradigm implying radical changes in the whole mechanism. It aims also at warning the scientific community about the dangers of some new avenues and why, rather than subcontracting an essential part of its work, it must take back full control of its production.

Design/methodology/approach
The paper reviews the emerging concepts in scholarly publication and aims to answer frequently asked questions concerning free access to scientific literature as well as to data, science and knowledge in general.

Findings
The paper provides new observations concerning the level of compliance to institutional open access mandates and the poor relevance of journal prestige for quality evaluation of research and researchers. The results of introducing an open access policy at the University of Liège are noted.

Social implications
Open access is, for the first time in human history, an opportunity to provide free access to knowledge universally, regardless of either the wealth or the social status of the potentially interested readers. It is an essential breakthrough for developing countries.

Originality/value
Open access and Open Science in general must be considered as common values that should be shared freely. Free access to publicly generated knowledge should be explicitly included in universal human rights. There are still a number of obstacles hampering this goal, mostly the greed of intermediaries who persuade researchers to give their work for free, in exchange for prestige. The worldwide cause of Open Knowledge is thus a major universal issue for the twenty-first century.

Citation: Bernard Rentier, (2016) “Open science: a revolution in sight?”, Interlending & Document Supply, Vol. 44 Issue: 4, pp.155-160, doi: 10.1108/ILDS-06-2016-0020

View

Peer Review and Replication Data: Best Practice from Journal of Peace Research

Authors: Nils Petter Gleditsch, Ragnhild Nordås, & Henrik Urdal

Abstract: Journal of Peace Research is an independent, interdisciplinary, and international journal devoted to the study of war and peace. It is owned by the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) and published on contract with Sage.Its articles range across all the social sciences, although a large majority of its authors now have their main training in political science. The international character of the journal is visible in the composition of the editorial committee and the authorship. The journal has long been a leader among the journals in political science and international relations in making research data publicly available, and is a pioneer in publishing dataset in the form of “special data features.”

Citation: Gleditsch, N. P., Nordås, R., & Urdal, H. (2017). Peer Review and Replication Data: Best Practice from Journal of Peace Research. College & Research Libraries, 78(3), 267–271.

View

Source: Peer Review and Replication Data: Best Practice from Journal of Peace Research

Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review.

Authors: Valerie Spezi, Simon Wakeling, Stephen Pinfield, Claire Creaser, Jenny Fry, Peter Willett

Abstract: Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific “soundness” and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community.

Citation: Valerie Spezi, Simon Wakeling, Stephen Pinfield, Claire Creaser, Jenny Fry, Peter Willett. (2017) “Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 73 Iss: 2, pp.263 – 283.

View

Source: Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review: Journal of Documentation: Vol 73, No 2