Blog
About

Tag: scientific publishing

In:  Aggregation  

Scholarly communications knowledge base on ScienceOpen

At ScienceOpen, we are constantly evolving to meet the needs of the ever-changing scholarly communication ecosystem.

To keep you all up-to-date about the latest research advancements in the field, we’ve built an easily accessible and searchable scholarly communications knowledge base, which we call a super collection! This knowledge base covers different aspects of the field, such as:

Scholarly communication super collection on ScienceOpen

A simple search for “scholarly communication” on our platform also reveals 150 Open Access papers on the topic!

Our recent partnership with IOS Press allows us to greatly expand this knowledge base. Their flagship Open Access journal, Information Services and Use, is now indexed on ScienceOpen. The journal covers a wide range of topics around scholarly publishing and open research, and facilitates discussion on the key aspects of the field. Articles cover a whole new set of issues about how to maximize the accessibility and potential of research data.

Below you can find a selection of some of the most exciting topics and articles.

  • Key infrastructure for a modern scholarly communication environment

Transforming a research paper into a rich internet publication

Supporting a Passion for New Ideas through Open APIs

Researchers of Tomorrow: The research behaviour of Generation Y doctoral students

  • The transformation of journal publishing into a Web 2.0 context

The transformation of scientific journal publishing: Open access after the Berlin 12 Conference

Shared service components infrastructure for enriching the user experience in electronic publications

  • Newly emerging archiving practices and platforms in the era of digital publishing

Archives information publishing new design in post-custodial regime: The National Archives Experience Digital Vaults

Accessibility and self-archiving of conference articles: A study on a selection of Swedish institutional repositories

Metadata for Big Data: A preliminary investigation of metadata quality issues in research data repositories

  • Evaluating national and international Open Access policies

Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: The UK approach to Open Access

Open Access improves returns to public research funding: A perspective from Germany

The OpenAIRE2020 FP7 Post-Grant Open Access Pilot: Implementing a European-wide funding initiative for Open Access publishing costs

  • How open principles are transplanted into practices

PlosOpenR – Exploring FP7 funded PLOS publications

Open Access monographic publishing in the humanities

  • Accelerating research transparency

Creative commons: A convergence model between the ideal of commons and the possibilities of creation in contemporary times, opposed to copyright impediments

Where does the buck stop? Research ethics and publishing

Cloudy, increasingly FAIR; revisiting the FAIR Data guiding principles for the European Open Science Cloud

The importance of being aware of these newly emerging directions and sustainable practices in scholarly communication is unquestionable. It gives you powerful tools for communicating your research more effectively and thus to boost your academic career and even your well-being in academia.

If you don’t want to miss a single article that might be of interest for you from this gigacorpus, we keep you up to date by constantly integrating newly published content. Follow the collection, or create saved searches to ma make this even easier!

scholarly communication

 

 

 

Give the pioneers a chance – Open Access and closing the reputational gap for young scientists.

25th ESC 2014 Berlin
Impressions of the 25th European Students’ Conference 2014 in Berlin

Over the last few months I’ve had the privilege of chatting to many young researchers from different areas of science. Last week, I was delighted to attend the 25th European Students’ Conference 2014 in Berlin where I had been invited to organize an afternoon workshop entitled Perspectives on Scientific Publishing with about 100 participants. It was terrific to spend almost three hours with so many students which were keen to find out more about the future of scholarly communication.

My interest in this topic was sparked by a previous panel discussion on scholarly publishing when I observed that a significant part of the audience were Ph.D. students or post-docs. When one of the speakers talked about new opportunities in Open Access publishing, a very intensive discussion began. Almost all the young scientists in the audience were excited and motivated by the principles and vision behind Open Access. They said they would like to change the current publishing system and participate in a more open conversation about their research with peers. I was thrilled because that is what we are trying to develop at ScienceOpen.

However, “If I publish my work Open Access, I will have difficulties in my future career, I am afraid, because I need the highest Impact Factor (IF) possible” said one of the young scholars, dampening the enthusiasm, and in the end most of his colleagues agreed.

If I publish my work Open Access, I will have difficulties in my future career, I am afraid, because I need the highest Impact Factor (IF) possible.”

But how real is this risk for junior faculty who will have the most important impact on the future of academia? To find out more about the perspectives of grad students and junior researchers at institutions or universities, I tried to find arguments against active participation in Open Access publishing. Although younger researchers would like to have a public discussion about their science with their peers, almost everyone I talked to stressed that they have been instructed by their academic senior advisor to aim for a high-IF journal to publish their work. And most young scientists had the impression that there are relatively few quality Open Access journals and even many of these have a low IF, if any. Therefore I next asked some of their supervisors and professors for their thoughts. Amazingly, many of them emphasized that their graduate students and junior researchers themselves insisted on publishing in a “Champions League” journal, or at least, in a “Premiere League” journal with a high IF.

Who was right? I believe that we don’t need to answer this question in order to understand why young researchers are wary of Open Access publishing opportunities.

Let’s summarize the major reasons that motivate a researcher to publish her/his work:

(A) To record and archive results.
(B) To share new findings with colleagues.
(C) To receive feedback from experts / peers.
(D) To get recognition by the scientific community.
(E) To report results to the public, funding bodies, and others.

Next, let us analyze which reasons for publishing are more relevant to young researchers in comparison with others. Reporting results (E) is a more formal reason which is required when one has received a financial contribution by funding organizations. As for archiving (A), it is not a particular motivation for junior scientists. By contrast, sharing with colleagues (B) may have more significance for those groups that have just started to build up their academic network. We all agree that younger scientists must not only actively promote themselves by sharing new results of their work, but also to intensify dialogue with their peers. They therefore also depend on feedback from experts and peers (C) much more than a senior researcher who has established his or her expertise across decades. Both (B) and (C) will hopefully result in recognition from the scientific community and (D) has long been considered the conditio sine qua non in academia for all junior researchers if they want a successful academic career. Everyone I talked to agreed and most of my scholarly colleagues confirmed that this list appeared to be consistent and complete in describing the relevance of publishing for young researchers.

But where are the Impact Factors in my list? Where are big journal brands?

But where are the Impact Factors in my list? Where are big journal brands?”

Until relatively recently, recognition has been largely measured by citations. Today, with more frequent usage of social networks, we should broaden our view and associate credit for scientific work also with mentions, likes, or retweets. The latter attributes of modern communication in social networks is an immediate and uniquely fast way to provide and earn credit  in scholarly publishing. There are an ever increasing number of examples where an excellent paper was recognized within minutes after it had been published Open Access. Citations are important, but it is the article and the individuals who authored that work which should get credited. And there is growing evidence that papers published Open Access are read and ultimately cited more often. Impact factor is a “toxic influence” on science, as Randy Shekman, Nobel laureate and founder of eLife recently stated,.

“Impact factor is a “toxic influence” on science.”

Finally, we do not need big journal brands or an Impact Factor to evaluate the relevance and quality of research. Neither for senior scientists, nor for young researchers. The latter group, however, has a significant intrinsic advantage: they are much more accustomed to communicating with social media tools. If they continue to use these when starting their academic career, they will strongly influence traditional, old-fashioned ways of crediting academic research.

My conclusion can therefore be considered as an invitation to the younger generation of researchers:

  1. Substitute pay-walled journals with new open science technologies to publicly publish your scientific results
  2. Continue to use social network tools to communicate about and discuss recent research with others
  3. Adopt alternative metrics to measure scientific relevance in addition to classical citation

Liz Allen, who works with me at ScienceOpen, also recently wrote this blog post to encourage younger researchers to be part of the open scientific conversation and suggested different ways for them to get involved.

It will be your generation in a decade from now that will craft the careers of other young researchers. Nobody else. Therefore you should not be afraid of publishing Open Access or submitting your next paper to an alternative open science platform. The more people like you who follow that path of modern scholarly publishing, the less emphasis will be put on classical incentives for academic evaluation. Open Access and active communication about new results in science by social media and open science platforms, such as ScienceOpen, can increase both usage and impact for your work.

“We do not need big journal brands or an Impact Factor to evaluate the relevance and quality of research.”

And my request to senior scientists who are presently judging the quality of the younger generation of researchers: challenge yourself to look at their social networking record and their willingness to shape the new measures of recognition. And do not forget: Access is not a sufficient condition for citation, but it is a necessary one. Open Access dramatically increases the number of potential users of any given article by adding those users who would otherwise have been unable to access it, as Stevan Harnad and Tim Brody demonstrated already 10 years ago. Give the pioneers a chance – they are the future of research!

“Give the pioneers a chance – they are the future of research.”

Alexander Grossmann