The Sermon’s Copy: Pulpit Plagiarism and the Ownership of Divine Knowledge | KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge: Vol 4, No 1

Abstract:  This article interrogates the sermon as a genre of religious media designed to capture and mediate divine knowledge. It does so in order to better understand the complex nature of sermon authorship, particularly the way that it elicits a uniquely spiritual conception of ownership in the sermon as an object of intellectual property. By exploring recent debates about sermon stealing, or pulpit plagiarism, the article concludes that sermon authors have generated unique defenses of sermon ownership grounded not in legal entitlement but rather in theological arguments balancing an inalienable relationship to the divine with the imperative to distribute God’s word.


Introducing CiteScore, Our Journal’s Preferred Citation Index: Moving Beyond the Impact Factor – Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety

“The mission of The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety is to improve health care quality, safety, and value by providing professionals and researchers a learning community to share innovative thinking, strategies, and practices. Although we publish a wide range of research in quality and safety, we emphasize rigorous, generalizable quality improvement research that our readers can use to improve care at their own institutions. Thus, our ultimate metric of success should be how often organizations read our articles, apply what they learn, and improve care and patient outcomes. Unfortunately, no such measure exists, so we must rely on several proxies, including downloads and references to the articles in press coverage and social media.”

Scholarly Publishing at a Crossroads: Scholarly Perspectives on Open Access | SpringerLink

Abstract:  The cost of access to scholarly research creates inequity for readers with varying resources. Open access publishing is an avenue to address this inequity. This research employed a survey of scholars to discover what they know and think about open access. The survey elicited both faculty and doctoral student perspectives. Data were analyzed according to rank and discipline. Although the majority of scholars across disciplines agreed that their work should be freely available to all readers, there were significant differences between disciplines regarding whether scholars had distributed their publications through open access. The survey instrument was examined through Exploratory Factor Analysis.


Letter to the editor in support of data sharing, with caveats – McDade – – American Journal of Physical Anthropology – Wiley Online Library

“First, deductive disclosure—discerning an individual’s identity and associated information in a dataset—is a major concern that needs to be taken very seriously. In human biology, we often ask participants to volunteer potentially sensitive or embarrassing information…

Second, we have to be careful about imposing expectations for data sharing that become overly expensive or burdensome. In particular, I worry about the potential impacts on students and junior scholars who are often short on time and money. Of the data repositories recommended in the article, many impose user fees. Furthermore, we should not underestimate the amount of effort it takes to prepare and upload datasets, codebooks, summary statistics, and analysis files for each publication….”

Covid-19 – Scientific research on the coronavirus is being released in a torrent | Science & technology | The Economist

“The current public-health emergency has, however, turbocharged all this. With physicians, policymakers and prime ministers all needing the latest science in order to make immediate life-and-death decisions, speed has become paramount. Journals have responded to sharp rises in submissions by working overtime. In so doing they have squeezed their normal processes down to days or weeks….

In the view of many, though, this is not enough. These people support a different way of disseminating scientific information—one that dethrones the journals by making journal publication an optional extra rather than a researcher’s primary goal. This model of scientific publishing relies on online repositories called preprint servers, on which papers can be posted swiftly and with only minimal formalities. Mathematicians and physicists already use them widely. Biologists increasingly do so too. Covid-19, however, has seen a step-change. Around half of the available scientific work on the pandemic has been released through preprint servers. The hope of preprinting’s supporters is that this will make the shift to using them irreversible….

This increased speed shows that scientists have learned from their sluggish responses to previous outbreaks. In an analysis of research carried out during and after the Ebola outbreak of 2014-16 and the Zika outbreak of 2015-16, Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at Harvard now working on covid-19, looked at just how sluggish those responses were. He found that, where preprints had been available, they appeared around 100 days before journal articles that had eventually been published on the same work. Unfortunately, less than 5% of all the journal articles published about the two outbreaks had been preprinted….”

Open access publication: Academic colonialism or knowledge philanthropy? – ScienceDirect

Abstract:  Open access (OA) publication of scholarly articles in journals has come to be celebrated as opening up new knowledge base to researchers, making knowledge a ‘public-good’. What seems to have gone amiss is a deep-seeded exclusion and discrimination that OA furthers by being blind to authors’ location. I argue that OA entrenches prevailing ‘academic colonialism’, without any reflection on transforming existing academic hierarchies. The paper brings forth the idea of academiccolonialism leading to a hierarchization of scholarships, wherein the authors belonging to the so-called Global South stand at a disadvantage.


Transparency and open access in CF research – Journal of Cystic Fibrosis

Abstract:  In response to recent JCF Editorials regarding academic publishing, we highlight efforts to promote transparency, foster open access and recognize methodological contributions to CF [Cystic Fibrosis] clinical/translational research. We believe these efforts have been vital to improve methodological rigor and clinical impact of published research.


The Impact of Big Deal Breaks on Library Consortia: An Exploratory Case Study: The Serials Librarian: Vol 0, No 0

Abstract:  This study examines the impact of Big Deal breaks on statewide resource sharing. An analysis within VIVA (Virginia’s academic library consortium) for Big Deal publishers showed significant lending of one publisher with low levels of statewide holdings. A closer examination of an individual institution with the most recent cancellations of this publisher’s content showed high levels of fulfillment from lending partners outside the consortium. As more groups cancel Big Deals, consideration for alternative access will be increasingly important, and understanding the resource sharing environment should inform a cooperative approach to journal acquisitions in order to minimize negative impacts on researchers.