A Confusion of Journals – What Is PubMed Now? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Now, a new twist is emerging, and that seems to be that PubMed may be consciously or unwittingly acting as a facilitator of predatory or unscrupulous publishing.

In a paper published in Neuroscience, the authors analyzing the neurology and neuroscience journals included in PubMed found that:

  • Twenty-five predatory neurology journals were indexed in PubMed, accounting for 24.7% of all predatory neurology journals.
  • Fourteen predatory neuroscience journals were indexed in PubMed, accounting for 16.1% of all predatory neuroscience journals.
  • Only one of the 188 predatory neuroscience or neurology journals appeared in the DOAJ index.
  • Only 54.6% of the journals deemed predatory in neuroscience actually contained articles.”

Leveraging the License: Part I – Scholarly Communication

“The Scholarly Communication Department attended several orientations and events for new faculty over the last few weeks. During these events, I have had the privilege of chatting informally with a faculty members about IU Bloomington’s new Open Access Policy. Faculty have a lot of questions about how the policy works, what kinds of scholarship the policy applies to, and author processing charges (or APCs).

The question that has been most difficult to explain quickly and effectively in these informal conversations has been about how faculty can ‘leverage’ or utilize the license established by the Open Access policy when negotiating with potential publishers. This post will explain in more detail what ‘leveraging the license’ means and clarify when in the publishing process faculty should attempt to negotiate. This post on leveraging the OA policy license is part one of a two-part series. The second post will explore the OA policy license in more detail, particularly when it concerns utilizing third-party content.”

Finding a third way to open access | Research Information

Entrenched viewpoints on both sides of the open access debate risk leaving authors stuck in no man’s land, argues Rob Johnson….In politics, the ‘third way’ emerged as a synthesis of right-wing economics and left-wing social policies. Perhaps it’s time for us to embrace a ‘third way to OA’ – enabling us to harness the dynamism of commercial players in the interests of opening up research findings to the world.

Reviewer criticises ‘no publication after preprint’ rule | THE News

“An academic is boycotting peer review for a scholarly journal after it turned down a manuscript that had previously been published on the website of an education centre.

The journal in question said that if the author had posted the article behind a paywall on a conference website, it would have still accepted it for publication.”

Financial and administrative issues around article publication costs for Open Access

“How are authors of journal articles paying for Open Access (OA) fees or Article Processing Costs (APCs)? What is the administrative burden for authors? And do their research organisations have an accurate overview of all these payments?

A better understanding of such authors’ perspectives on APC payments will support the development of an optimal communication and administrative strategy with the aim of encouraging authors’ usage of existing APC-funding mechanisms.

For these purposes, Knowledge Exchange has carried out a study among authors at six research organisations. In total, 1,069 authors participated in online surveys focused on their 2015 articles published in OA journals or in subscription journals that offer the option of publishing individual articles on OA for an additional fee, so-called hybrid journals.”

Quitting For-Profit Preprints | science of psych

“I’ve decided to quit academia.edu and researchgate and put all of my pre-prints/manuscripts on PsyArXiv. I deleted any manuscript copies that I had uploaded to academia.edu and RG and removed my accounts from them. I’m writing you because you posted a copy of our collaborative work on researchgate. It is of course your prerogative as to how you share our work, but I thought I might ask you to consider taking that copy of our paper down. I’m trying to streamline access points for our work and also to redirect traffic away from these commercial sites. PsyArXiv is indexed by Google scholar, so the work remains freely accessible in a space backed by a non-profit entity (the Open Science Framework). Another benefit of OSF is that it is backed by a large preservation grant, so that the works on PsyArXiv will be supported in perpetuity even if OSF grows or changes.”

The open science movement: Revolution is underway | PhySoc Blogs

“The world’s first academic science journal, Philosophical Transactions, was published by the Royal Society in 1665. At last count there were some 11,365 science journals spanning over 234 disciplines by 2015, and yet the primary model of scientific publishing remained largely unchanged throughout the centuries.

As a fresh-faced, naïve PhD student, I recall the horror I felt upon learning that my hard work would be at the mercy of a veiled, political peer-review process, that I’d be left with little option but to sign away my rights to publishers, and too often forced to choose between burning a hole in my wallet or forgoing access to a potentially critical paper!”

Center for Open Science Launches Thesis Commons, an Open-source Platform for Theses and Dissertations

“The Center for Open Science (COS) is pleased to announce the release of Thesis Commons, a free, cloud-based, open-source platform for the submission, dissemination, and discovery of graduate and undergraduate theses and dissertations from any discipline. Authors can share their electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) with a quick and easy submission workflow.  Readers can search, discover, and download with a clean and simple interface. Institutions can sign-up for a branded version of the service for their institutional community for hosting ETDs, preprints, or other scholarship.  

Thesis Commons in part of  a rapidly growing community of open scholarly communication services built on an open-source infrastructure called the Open Science Framework (OSF).  As a shared, public good, the OSF dramatically lowers the barrier to entry for communities to introduce and operate services across the research lifecycle such as preprints, ETD repositories, and data or materials archives.  With a planned integration of a peer review service layer, communities will be able to moderate these services directly and operate discipline-specific repositories or journals with a common integrated infrastructure.”

Center for Open Science Launches Thesis Commons, an Open-source Platform for Theses and Dissertations

“The Center for Open Science (COS) is pleased to announce the release of Thesis Commons, a free, cloud-based, open-source platform for the submission, dissemination, and discovery of graduate and undergraduate theses and dissertations from any discipline. Authors can share their electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) with a quick and easy submission workflow.  Readers can search, discover, and download with a clean and simple interface. Institutions can sign-up for a branded version of the service for their institutional community for hosting ETDs, preprints, or other scholarship.  

Thesis Commons in part of  a rapidly growing community of open scholarly communication services built on an open-source infrastructure called the Open Science Framework (OSF).  As a shared, public good, the OSF dramatically lowers the barrier to entry for communities to introduce and operate services across the research lifecycle such as preprints, ETD repositories, and data or materials archives.  With a planned integration of a peer review service layer, communities will be able to moderate these services directly and operate discipline-specific repositories or journals with a common integrated infrastructure.”

Scholarly Communications Model Policy and Licence: Publishers’ Association Concerns together with UK-SCL Steering Group Responses

“The proposed policy is based on the Harvard model which has been in use since 2008 and has been adopted by over 60 institutions worldwide, including  Ivy League universities whose publishing outputs eclipse the numbers published in total in the UK. Under the Harvard model policy, waivers are  requested for less than 5% of articles. We are at a loss to understand why,  therefore, the estimate is so high for UK authors and why UK authors might  be treated differently to their counterparts in existing ‘Harvard policy’ institutions.”