The purpose of publications in a pandemic and beyond | Wonkhe

“The virus is reminding us that the purpose of scholarly communication is not to allocate credit for career advancement, and neither is it to keep publishers afloat. Scholarly communication is about, well, scholars communicating with each other, to share insights for the benefit of humanity. And whilst we’ve heard all this before, in a time of crisis we realise afresh that this isn’t just rhetoric, this is reality….”

The R2R debate, part 3: my response for the motion | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

“The Researcher to Reader (R2R) conference at the start of this week featured a debate on the proposition “The venue of its publication tells us nothing useful about the quality of a paper”. I’ve already posted Toby Green’s opening statement for the proposition and Pippa Smart’s opening statement against it.

Now here is my (shorter) response in favour of the motion, which is supposed to be a response specifically to Pippa’s opening sttement against. As with Toby’s piece, I mistimed mine and ran into my (rather niggardly) three-minute limit, so I didn’t quite get to the end. But here’s the whole thing….”

The R2R debate, part 2: opening statement against the motion | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

“Yesterday I told you all about the Researcher to Reader (R2R) conference and its debate on the proposition “The venue of its publication tells us nothing useful about the quality of a paper”. I posted the opening statement for the proposition, which was co-written by Toby Green and me.

Now here is the opening statement against the proposition, presented by Pippa Smart of Learned Publishing, having been co-written by her and Niall Boyce of The Lancet Psychiatry.

(I’m sure it goes without saying that there is much in here that I disagree with. But I will let Pippa speak for herself and Niall without interruption for now, and discuss her argument in a later post.)…”

The R2R debate, part 2: opening statement against the motion | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

“Yesterday I told you all about the Researcher to Reader (R2R) conference and its debate on the proposition “The venue of its publication tells us nothing useful about the quality of a paper”. I posted the opening statement for the proposition, which was co-written by Toby Green and me.

Now here is the opening statement against the proposition, presented by Pippa Smart of Learned Publishing, having been co-written by her and Niall Boyce of The Lancet Psychiatry.

(I’m sure it goes without saying that there is much in here that I disagree with. But I will let Pippa speak for herself and Niall without interruption for now, and discuss her argument in a later post.)…”

The R2R debate, part 1: opening statement in support | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

“This Monday and Tuesday, I was at the R2R (Researcher to Reader) conference at BMA House in London. It’s the first time I’ve been to this, and I was there at the invitation of my old sparring partner Rick Anderson, who was organizing this year’s debate, on the proposition “The venue of its publication tells us nothing useful about the quality of a paper”.

I was one half of the team arguing in favour of the proposition, along with Toby Green, currently managing director at Coherent Digital and prevously head of publishing at the OECD for twenty years. Our opponents were Pippa Smart, publishing consultant and editor of Learned Publishing; and Niall Boyce, editor of The Lancet Psychiatry.

I’m going to blog three of the four statements that were made. (The fourth, that of Niall Boyce, is not available, as he spoke from handwritten notes.) I’ll finish this series with a fourth post summarising how the debate went, and discussing what I now think about the proposition….”

The R2R debate, part 1: opening statement in support | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

“This Monday and Tuesday, I was at the R2R (Researcher to Reader) conference at BMA House in London. It’s the first time I’ve been to this, and I was there at the invitation of my old sparring partner Rick Anderson, who was organizing this year’s debate, on the proposition “The venue of its publication tells us nothing useful about the quality of a paper”.

I was one half of the team arguing in favour of the proposition, along with Toby Green, currently managing director at Coherent Digital and prevously head of publishing at the OECD for twenty years. Our opponents were Pippa Smart, publishing consultant and editor of Learned Publishing; and Niall Boyce, editor of The Lancet Psychiatry.

I’m going to blog three of the four statements that were made. (The fourth, that of Niall Boyce, is not available, as he spoke from handwritten notes.) I’ll finish this series with a fourth post summarising how the debate went, and discussing what I now think about the proposition….”

R2R Debate Teams Announced | The Researcher to Reader Conference – BMA House, London – 24-25 February 2020

“This time, the debate is on the subject of Journal Brands and Impact Measures. Teams of debaters will be arguing for and against the controversial proposition:

“The venue of its publication tells us nothing useful about the quality of a paper”.

Speaking for the proposition will be:

Dr Mike Taylor, who is a Research Associate at the University of Bristol and a Software Guy at Index Data
Toby Green, who is Managing Director at Coherent Digital and Former Head of Publishing at the OECD

Speaking against will be:

Pippa Smart, who is a Publishing Consultant, Editor-in-Chief of Learned Publishing and President of the European Association Of Science Editors
Dr Niall Boyce, who is Editor of The Lancet Psychiatry and a PhD researcher at Birkbeck…”

R2R Debate Teams Announced | The Researcher to Reader Conference – BMA House, London – 24-25 February 2020

“This time, the debate is on the subject of Journal Brands and Impact Measures. Teams of debaters will be arguing for and against the controversial proposition:

“The venue of its publication tells us nothing useful about the quality of a paper”.

Speaking for the proposition will be:

Dr Mike Taylor, who is a Research Associate at the University of Bristol and a Software Guy at Index Data
Toby Green, who is Managing Director at Coherent Digital and Former Head of Publishing at the OECD

Speaking against will be:

Pippa Smart, who is a Publishing Consultant, Editor-in-Chief of Learned Publishing and President of the European Association Of Science Editors
Dr Niall Boyce, who is Editor of The Lancet Psychiatry and a PhD researcher at Birkbeck…”

Rethinking the Journal Impact Factor and Publishing in the Digital Age

Abstract:  Clinical and experimental literature search has changed significantly over the past few decades, and with it, the way in which we value information. Today, our need for immediate access to relevant and specific literature, regardless of specialty, has led to a growing demand for open access to publications. The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been a long-time standard for representing the quality or “prestige” of a journal, but it appears to be losing its relevance. Here, we define the JIF and deconstruct its validity as a modern measure of a journal’s quality, discuss the current models of academic publication, including their advantages and shortcomings, and discuss the benefits and shortcomings of a variety of open-access models, including costs to the author. We have quantified a nonsubscribed physician’s access to full articles associated with dermatologic disease and aesthetics cited on PubMed. For some of the most common dermatology conditions, 23.1 percent of citations (ranging from 17.2% for melasma to 31.9% for malignant melanoma) were available as free full articles, and for aesthetic procedures, 18.9 percent of citations (ranging from 11.9% for laser hair removal to 27.9% for botulinum toxin) were available as free full articles. Finally, we discuss existing alternative metrics for measuring journal impact and propose the adoption of a superior publishing model, one that satisfies modern day standards of scholarly knowledge pursuit and dissemination of scholarly publications for dermatology and all of medical science.

 

Journal brand and research culture | Steven Hill

Research culture is one of the hot topics in research policy. There is general agreement that things are not right in the culture of research, and that this is ultimately to the detriment of research (see, for example, the recent findings from a survey of researchers carried out by Wellcome). This is a global question, and covers a broad territory, from questions of research misconduct and reproducibility to the relations between researchers and equality, diversity and inclusion. When you consider these issues, two things emerge: the huge complexity of the research ecosystem, and the related problem of collective action that this complexity creates.