The death of the literature review and the rise of the dynamic knowledge map | Impact of Social Sciences

“Literature reviews are a core part of academic research that are loathed by some and loved by others. The LSE Impact Blog recently presented two proposals on how to deal with the issues raised by literature reviews: Richard P. Phelps argues, due to their numerous flaws, we should simply get rid of them as a requirement in scholarly articles. In contrast, Arnaud Vaganay proposes, despite their flaws, we can save them by means of standardization that would make them more robust. Here, I put forward an alternative that strikes a balance between the two: Let’s build databases that help systemize academic research. There are examples of such databases in evidence-based health-care, why not replicate those examples more widely?…”

Bringing Scholarship Back to the Heart of Scholarly Communication

“What are our chances of better aligning the paved and unpaved routes, or, in other words, what are our options to reduce the gap between established, ‘paved’ practices of scholarly communication and actual, evolving research practices? My thoughts are situated in the contexts of arts and humanities research, but similar phenomena are surely present in other disciplines as well….”

Bringing Scholarship Back to the Heart of Scholarly Communication

“What are our chances of better aligning the paved and unpaved routes, or, in other words, what are our options to reduce the gap between established, ‘paved’ practices of scholarly communication and actual, evolving research practices? My thoughts are situated in the contexts of arts and humanities research, but similar phenomena are surely present in other disciplines as well….”

Younger researchers are embracing change in scholarly communication

“Those in the 20-29 year old age group were most likely to agree that open access journals have a larger readership than subscription journals (58% either strongly agreed or agreed with this statement) and that open access journals are more heavily cited. Across all other age groups agreement with these statements decreased with age, with just 15% of those who were 70 or over expressing the same level of agreement on citations. Authors in their sixties and seventies offered the opposite opinion to those in their twenties, being the least likely to agree that open access publication increased readership and citations, and most likely to agree with the statement that there is ‘no fundamental benefit to open access’.  …

And what of their future intentions on publishing gold or green open access? Younger authors are consistently the highest proportion of any age group saying they would choose to publish their work open access, whether gold (37%) or green (51%). When it comes to being mandated to publish open access though, those in their twenties were the most unsure, with 61% unclear on whether they would be mandated to publish gold open access in the future….”

REF should accommodate more diverse outputs, says study | Times Higher Education (THE)

“The UK’s research excellence framework should evolve to support the growing diversity of scholarly outputs, a major report says.

The study by consultants Rand Europe, who were commissioned by Research England to consider how research assessment might need to evolve over the next decade, draws on a survey of 3,768 academics in England.

 

It says that, while scholars currently produce an average of 4.7 different types of research output, this is likely to increase to 6.5 over the next decade, with 65 per cent of respondents saying that they expected to produce a greater diversity of output.

Respondents said that the three most dominant forms of output were likely to remain journal articles, conference contributions and book chapters. But many mentioned other types of content that they expected to produce more of in future: for example, website content, openly published peer reviews and research reports for external bodies….”

REF should accommodate more diverse outputs, says study | Times Higher Education (THE)

“The UK’s research excellence framework should evolve to support the growing diversity of scholarly outputs, a major report says.

The study by consultants Rand Europe, who were commissioned by Research England to consider how research assessment might need to evolve over the next decade, draws on a survey of 3,768 academics in England.

 

It says that, while scholars currently produce an average of 4.7 different types of research output, this is likely to increase to 6.5 over the next decade, with 65 per cent of respondents saying that they expected to produce a greater diversity of output.

Respondents said that the three most dominant forms of output were likely to remain journal articles, conference contributions and book chapters. But many mentioned other types of content that they expected to produce more of in future: for example, website content, openly published peer reviews and research reports for external bodies….”

Technical and social issues influencing the adoption of preprints in the life sciences [PeerJ Preprints]

Abstract:  Preprints are gaining visibility in many fields. Thanks to the explosion of bioRxiv, an online server for preprints in biology, versions of manuscripts prior to the completion of journal-organized peer review are poised to become a standard component of the publishing experience in the life sciences. Here we provide an overview of current challenges facing preprints, both technical and social, and a vision for their future development, from unbundling the functions of publication to exploring different communication formats.

Technical and social issues influencing the adoption of preprints in the life sciences [PeerJ Preprints]

Abstract:  Preprints are gaining visibility in many fields. Thanks to the explosion of bioRxiv, an online server for preprints in biology, versions of manuscripts prior to the completion of journal-organized peer review are poised to become a standard component of the publishing experience in the life sciences. Here we provide an overview of current challenges facing preprints, both technical and social, and a vision for their future development, from unbundling the functions of publication to exploring different communication formats.

Scholarly Communication Report: Final Draft

“FINDINGS
1. Researchers are embracing non-traditional modes of scholarly output. 
2. Researchers are interested in sharing their work more broadly and more meaningfully than they have in the past.
3. Researchers feel a tension between their desire to create and share broadly and the pressures of tenure and promotion.
4. Researchers view the library as a trusted authority with whom they
would like to partner in advocacy and new scholarly production….”