Publishing, P&T, and Equity, an Open Access Week Miniseries, Part 3: How Librarians Became Experts on Publishing and Equity

Happy Open Access Week! This is the final installment in our 3-part mini-series of blog posts on Publishing, P&T, and Equity. The overarching issue: how to reform our research evaluation processes to eliminate bias and promote structural equity. On Monday I argued for ending P&T standards that reward journal ‘prestige.’ On Wednesday I wrote about why institutions who want to build structural equity should reward open publishing practices in their research evaluation processes. Today I will conclude with a little meta-piece on the Library’s place in all this.

Publishing, P&T, and Equity, an Open Access Week Miniseries, Part 3: How Librarians Became Experts on Publishing and Equity

Happy Open Access Week! This is the final installment in our 3-part mini-series of blog posts on Publishing, P&T, and Equity. The overarching issue: how to reform our research evaluation processes to eliminate bias and promote structural equity. On Monday I argued for ending P&T standards that reward journal ‘prestige.’ On Wednesday I wrote about why institutions who want to build structural equity should reward open publishing practices in their research evaluation processes. Today I will conclude with a little meta-piece on the Library’s place in all this.

Publishing, P&T, and Equity, an Open Access Week Miniseries, Part 1: Stop Rewarding Journal “Prestige”

“-Part 1 (this post!) will discuss why updating P&T standards to eschew journal level metrics and journal prestige is an important strategy for advancing equity and inclusion, as well as open access.

-Part 2 (Wednesday-ish) will suggest that rewarding open practice and open publishing in P&T standards is an important step toward affirmatively promoting equity and inclusion in the academy (and in the communities we serve).

-Part 3 (Friday-ish) is a kind of postscript that explains a bit about why libraries are especially interested in these issues and how we see the intersection of Open Access, Equity/Inclusion, and Promotion and Tenure with perhaps a unique clarity relative to other parts of the scholarly ecosystem….”

Journal- or article-based citation measure? A study… | F1000Research

Abstract:  In academia, decisions on promotions are influenced by the citation impact of the works published by the candidates. The Medical Faculty of the University of Bern used a measure based on the journal impact factor (JIF) for this purpose: the JIF of the papers submitted for promotion should rank in the upper third of journals in the relevant discipline (JIF rank >0.66). The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) aims to eliminate the use of journal-based metrics in academic promotion. We examined whether the JIF rank could be replaced with the relative citation ratio (RCR), an article-level measure of citation impact developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). An RCR percentile >0.66 corresponds to the upper third of citation impact of articles from NIH-sponsored research. We examined 1525 publications submitted by 64 candidates for academic promotion at University of Bern. There was only a moderate correlation between the JIF rank and RCR percentile (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.34, 95% CI 0.29-0.38). Among the 1,199 articles (78.6%) published in journals ranking >0.66 for the JIF, less than half (509, 42.5%) were in the upper third of the RCR percentile. Conversely, among the 326 articles published in journals ranking <0.66 regarding the JIF, 72 (22.1%) ranked in the upper third of the RCR percentile. Our study demonstrates that the rank of the JIF is a bad proxy measure for the actual citation impact of individual articles. The Medical Faculty of University of Bern has signed DORA and replaced the JIF rank with the RCR percentile to assess the citation impact of papers submitted for academic promotion.  

Statement on the Scholarly Merit and Evaluation of Open Scholarship in Linguistics | Linguistic Society of America

“The Linguistic Society of America values the open sharing of scholarship, and encourages the fair review of open scholarship in hiring, tenure, and promotion. The LSA encourages scholars, departments, and personnel committees to actively place value on open scholarship in their evaluation process with the aim of encouraging greater accessibility, distribution, and use of linguistic research….”

Best Practices in Research Metrics: A Conversation with Dr. Diana Hicks Registration, Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 4:00 PM | Eventbrite

“Join Professor Diana Hicks of the Georgia Tech School of Public Policy for a conversation about the Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics. There will be a high level overview of the 10 principles to guide research evaluation followed by a participant driven Q&A with Professor Hicks.”

Gaps in Academic Communication – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Recently I saw a LinkedIn advertisement looking for Chinese speaking Associate Editors for the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). I approached Dominic Mitchell who posted the message, and suggested he post a message on Chinese social media. The next day I noticed a post in Chinese by the DOAJ WeChat account, and shared it with my network of STM publishers. There was immediate interest, and issues. The application form was a Google Doc which cannot be opened by Chinese users since Google does not have a license to operate in China. Realizing that this could be a problem, the DOAJ post offered a Word file, available for download from a Google Drive account which was still inaccessible to Chinese users….

A few weeks ago, an old document from a double-first-class university in south China triggered a lot of discussion among researchers and publishers. This internal document states that, “starting from January 1, 2019, papers published in open access journals will not be recognized by the university” in performance evaluation. It was rumored that at least one other top-100 university has the same regulation. As incredible as it sounds, this reflects the perception of open access by many Chinese researchers and publishers. Twenty years ago, the same skepticism on open access publications was not uncommon in the West, but it remains surprisingly prevalent in China.

I also often encounter a lack of interest in open access from Chinese STM publishers, which is perplexing considering how hot this topic has been in the West. I attribute this to the uncommercialized status of STM publishing in China. The majority of journals are fully funded and published by universities or research institutes. Reputation and quality have always been placed above all other metrics, and the business side is much less of a concern. This attitude towards open access is changing slowly. From 2016 to 2019, the total number of open access papers published by Chinese authors in gold or hybrid journals has more than doubled, and the percentage of these papers among all papers by Chinese authors increased by 1-2% every year, to 24% in 2019 (source of data: Dimensions). Meanwhile there is more and more vocal support of open access, so it could be just a matter of time until China fully embraces it….”

Research 2030 podcast: Can the reward system learn to love open science? Part 1 with Jean-Claude Burgelman

“The open science movement has been gaining momentum over the past decade, prompting initiatives such as cOAlition S, with its plan to increase open access publications. But while the goals of open science are welcomed by many, challenges remain. And top of the list is the researcher reward system.

This is the first episode in our short series on open science and the reward system. Host Dr. Stephane Berghmans, Elsevier VP of Academic and Research Relations EU, welcomes Prof. Jean-Claude Burgelman to the podcast. Prof. Burgelman is eminently qualified to talk about this topic. Not only is he a part-time Professor of Open Science Policy at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, he was recently Head of Unit Open Data Policies and Science Cloud at the European Commission and an open access envoy for the organization….”

Elsevier have endorsed the Leiden Manifesto: so what? – The Bibliomagician

“If an organisation wants to make a public commitment to responsible research evaluation they have three main options: i) sign DORA, ii) endorse the Leiden Manifesto (LM), or iii) go bespoke – usually with a statement based on DORA, the LM, or the Metric Tide principles.

The LIS-Bibliometrics annual responsible metrics survey shows that research-performing organisations adopt a wide range of responses to this including sometimes signing DORA and adopting the LM. But when it comes to publishers and metric vendors, they tend to go for DORA. Signing DORA is a proactive, public statement and there is an open, independent record of your commitment. DORA also has an active Chair in Professor Stephen Curry, and a small staff in the form of a program director and community manager, all of whom will publicly endorse your signing which leads to good PR for the organisation.

A public endorsement of the LM leads to no such fanfare. Indeed, the LM feels rather abandoned by comparison. Despite a website and blog, there has been little active promotion of the Manifesto, nor any public recognition for anyone seeking to endorse it….”

Elsevier have endorsed the Leiden Manifesto: so what? – The Bibliomagician

“If an organisation wants to make a public commitment to responsible research evaluation they have three main options: i) sign DORA, ii) endorse the Leiden Manifesto (LM), or iii) go bespoke – usually with a statement based on DORA, the LM, or the Metric Tide principles.

The LIS-Bibliometrics annual responsible metrics survey shows that research-performing organisations adopt a wide range of responses to this including sometimes signing DORA and adopting the LM. But when it comes to publishers and metric vendors, they tend to go for DORA. Signing DORA is a proactive, public statement and there is an open, independent record of your commitment. DORA also has an active Chair in Professor Stephen Curry, and a small staff in the form of a program director and community manager, all of whom will publicly endorse your signing which leads to good PR for the organisation.

A public endorsement of the LM leads to no such fanfare. Indeed, the LM feels rather abandoned by comparison. Despite a website and blog, there has been little active promotion of the Manifesto, nor any public recognition for anyone seeking to endorse it….”