Submitting, publishing and sharing articles | European Heart Journal | Oxford Academic

“Turning to Plan S, he said there are three routes: the Subscription model, Hybrid model, and Open Access model, each with various strengths and challenges.

The Subscription model—where the reader pays, and access is only for subscribers—has strengths such as maintaining a solid budget for editorial work but a weakness in dissemination of information.

A Hybrid model combines full access for subscribers and a paid open access option and offers good dissemination, high impact, and downloads.

Open Access, where the author pays a high submission fee, has the weakness of a restricted editorial budget and discriminates against contributions from low-income countries and could see a division of the publishing world….”

Submitting, publishing and sharing articles | European Heart Journal | Oxford Academic

“Turning to Plan S, he said there are three routes: the Subscription model, Hybrid model, and Open Access model, each with various strengths and challenges.

The Subscription model—where the reader pays, and access is only for subscribers—has strengths such as maintaining a solid budget for editorial work but a weakness in dissemination of information.

A Hybrid model combines full access for subscribers and a paid open access option and offers good dissemination, high impact, and downloads.

Open Access, where the author pays a high submission fee, has the weakness of a restricted editorial budget and discriminates against contributions from low-income countries and could see a division of the publishing world….”

Meta-Research: Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article | eLife

Abstract:  Preprints in biology are becoming more popular, but only a small fraction of the articles published in peer-reviewed journals have previously been released as preprints. To examine whether releasing a preprint on bioRxiv was associated with the attention and citations received by the corresponding peer-reviewed article, we assembled a dataset of 74,239 articles, 5,405 of which had a preprint, published in 39 journals. Using log-linear regression and random-effects meta-analysis, we found that articles with a preprint had, on average, a 49% higher Altmetric Attention Score and 36% more citations than articles without a preprint. These associations were independent of several other article- and author-level variables (such as scientific subfield and number of authors), and were unrelated to journal-level variables such as access model and Impact Factor. This observational study can help researchers and publishers make informed decisions about how to incorporate preprints into their work.

Meta-Research: Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article | eLife

Abstract:  Preprints in biology are becoming more popular, but only a small fraction of the articles published in peer-reviewed journals have previously been released as preprints. To examine whether releasing a preprint on bioRxiv was associated with the attention and citations received by the corresponding peer-reviewed article, we assembled a dataset of 74,239 articles, 5,405 of which had a preprint, published in 39 journals. Using log-linear regression and random-effects meta-analysis, we found that articles with a preprint had, on average, a 49% higher Altmetric Attention Score and 36% more citations than articles without a preprint. These associations were independent of several other article- and author-level variables (such as scientific subfield and number of authors), and were unrelated to journal-level variables such as access model and Impact Factor. This observational study can help researchers and publishers make informed decisions about how to incorporate preprints into their work.

Are You Ready to ROR? An Inside Look at this New Organization Identifier Registry – The Scholarly Kitchen

“As a former full-time PID person (until recently I was ORCID’s Director of Communications), I am convinced of the important role that persistent identifiers (PIDs) play in supporting a robust, trusted, and open research information infrastructure. We already have open PIDs for research people (ORCID iDs) and research outputs (DOIs), but what about research organizations? While organization identifiers do already exist (Ringgold identifiers, for example, have been widely adopted; Digital Science’s GRID is still relatively new), until recently there has been no truly open equivalent. But that’s changing, as you will learn in this interview with the team behind the newly launched Research Organization Registry—ROR….”

 

Good Practices – Research Institutes – DORA

“DORA’s ultimate aim is not to accumulate signatures but to promote real change in research assessment.  One of the keys to this is the development of robust and time-efficient ways of evaluating research and researchers that do not rely on journal impact factors. We are keen to gather and share existing examples of good practice in research assessment, including approaches to funding and fellowships, hiring and promotion, and awarding prizes, that emphasize research itself and not where it is published. 

If you know of exemplary research assessment methods that could provide inspiration and ideas for research institutes, funders, journals, professional societies, or researchers, please contact DORA….”

To fix research assessment, swap slogans for definitions

“Two years ago, the DORA steering committee hired me to survey practices in research assessment and promote the best ones. Other efforts have similar goals. These include the Leiden Manifesto and the HuMetricsHSS Initiative.

My view is that most assessment guidelines permit sliding standards: instead of clearly defined terms, they give us feel-good slogans that lack any fixed meaning. Facing the problem will get us much of the way towards a solution.

Broad language increases room for misinterpretation. ‘High impact’ can be code for where research is published. Or it can mean the effect that research has had on its field, or on society locally or globally — often very different things. Yet confusion is the least of the problems. Descriptors such as ‘world-class’ and ‘excellent’ allow assessors to vary comparisons depending on whose work they are assessing. Academia cannot be a meritocracy if standards change depending on whom we are evaluating. Unconscious bias associated with factors such as a researcher’s gender, ethnic origin and social background helps to perpetuate the status quo. It was only with double-blind review of research proposals that women finally got fair access to the Hubble Space Telescope. Research suggests that using words such as ‘excellence’ in the criteria for grants, awards and promotion can contribute to hypercompetition, in part through the ‘Matthew effect’, in which recognition and resources flow mainly to those who have already received them….”

Taking the Temperature on Open Access Among UC Berkeley Faculty | Ithaka S+R

“To promote a publishing ecosystem where the impact of research can be maximized by removing readership barriers, the UC Berkeley Library is making many efforts to push for open access publishing, including signing the OA2020 Expression of Interest and terminating our Elsevier journal subscriptions. But what are our faculty’s opinions on these issues? The Ithaka S+R US Faculty Survey gave us an opportunity to take the temperature of Berkeley faculty’s attitudes on open access.

Do Berkeley faculty support open access? The short answer is yes….”

2019 Scholarly Communications Research Grant Recipients Announced – ACRL Insider

“ACRL is pleased to announce the recipients of its Scholarly Communications Research Grants in 2019. These grants of up to $5,000 each support new research that will contribute to more inclusive systems of scholarly communications in areas suggested by the 2019 report Open and Equitable Scholarly Communications: Creating a More Inclusive Future (available for download or purchase).

The selection committee from ACRL’s Research and Scholarly Environment Committee chose seven proposals from a highly competitive round of applications. The grant recipients are:

Tatiana Bryant (Adelphi University) and Camille Thomas (Florida State University) for a project titled “Attitudes Towards Open Access Publishing Amongst Faculty of Color”
Jennifer Chan (University of California, Los Angeles) and Juleah Swanson (University of Colorado Boulder) for a project titled “SCORE Analysis: Leveraging Institutional Data to Bring Balance Back into the Scholarly Landscape”
Amanda Makula and Laura Turner (University of San Diego) for a project titled “Collaborative Collection Development: Inviting Community-Owned Public Scholarship into the Academic Library”
Gemmicka Piper (Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis) for a project titled “Barriers to Minority Faculty Open Knowledge Production”
Mantra Roy (San Jose State University) for a project titled “Global South Speaks: A Librarianship Perspective”
Teresa Schultz and Elena Azadbakht (University of Nevada, Reno) for a project titled “Accessible Open Educational Resources Project”
Carolyn Sheffield, Michelle Flinchbaugh (University of Maryland, Baltimore County), Carolyn Cox (University of Baltimore), Adam Zukowski (Towson University), Robin Sinn, Caitlin Carter (Johns Hopkins University), Katherine Pitcher (St. Mary’s College), Trevor Muñoz, and Terry Owens (University of Maryland, College Park) for a project titled “A Roadmap to the Future of Promotion & Tenure”…”

Internal Collaboration: Using the IR to Build a Promotion and Tenure Package

“At Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, world-class experts conduct cutting-edge air and space research, and the Library works diligently to capture and share all the unique work through their institutional repository. When the Chief Information Officer asked library staff for help creating a Promotion and Tenure tool to better serve faculty looking to advance, librarians Debra Rodensky and Chip Wolfe knew they had the technology, all the content of the IR and the strong campus relationships to make it happen. Join Debra and Chip on December 11 for a webinar on the Library’s collaboration with IT and the library’s relationships with faculty through the tenure and promotion process. Topics will include:

– The historical relationship between the Library, its IR and the IT department at Embry-Riddle
– The changing culture of promotion and tenure on campus
– Challenges and successes of building a tool to meet the needs of both IT and faculty….”