The Plan – Towards a Scholarly Commons

“To do so, the project will undertake the following activities:

Write a Literature Review that situates this work within the current research on scholarly publishing.
Conduct Focus Groups that will provide insight into how libraries currently make decisions about investing in infrastructure.
Develop a Census of Infrastructure that will make visible the current set of platforms, systems, and applications that comprise the system of scholarly publishing
Create a Map of the Scholarly Publishing System that visualizes the results of the census
Write a set of Case Studies of Infrastructure Providers that provide insight into what is required for long-term sustainability for this infrastructure
Conduct a Survey of Investment in Infrastructure by colleges and universities that will document the current state of investment

Develop a Report that synthesizes the materials from our activities and provides recommendations on promising directions to sustain and grow investment in this infrastructure, and if warranted, how to sustain the specific work of this project….

The project begins in September 2018 and concludes in February 2020….”

The Plan – Towards a Scholarly Commons

“To do so, the project will undertake the following activities:

Write a Literature Review that situates this work within the current research on scholarly publishing.
Conduct Focus Groups that will provide insight into how libraries currently make decisions about investing in infrastructure.
Develop a Census of Infrastructure that will make visible the current set of platforms, systems, and applications that comprise the system of scholarly publishing
Create a Map of the Scholarly Publishing System that visualizes the results of the census
Write a set of Case Studies of Infrastructure Providers that provide insight into what is required for long-term sustainability for this infrastructure
Conduct a Survey of Investment in Infrastructure by colleges and universities that will document the current state of investment

Develop a Report that synthesizes the materials from our activities and provides recommendations on promising directions to sustain and grow investment in this infrastructure, and if warranted, how to sustain the specific work of this project….

The project begins in September 2018 and concludes in February 2020….”

The rise of new citation indexes and the impact on Science mapping tools – Citespace, VOSviewer , Citation Gecko and more | Musings about librarianship

“For a long time, there were just two main citation sources that had data that could claim to be relatively comprehensive multi-discipline wise, namely Web of Science and Scopus. (We will come to Google Scholar later).

 

As I noted in past posts (here, here), this has changed in the last 2 years, new citation sources both  proprietary such as Dimensions, and open such as OpenCitations Corpus have started to emerge.

 

At the same time, I have recently became interested in the potential of Science or bibliometric tools for aiding phd students who want to do more sophisticated literature review.

These tools generally accept inputs from citation indexes and I’ve started to notice that the science mapping tools that are still in active development e.g. VOSViewer , Citespace  or newer tools such as Citation Gecko have started to respond to the trend of new emerging citation indexes and have began supporting these new sources on top of the traditional Web of Science and Scopus data.

Similarly the popular tool Publish or Perish  tool by Anne-Wil Harzing which began by supporting extraction of results and citations from Google Scholar has now also grown now to support other citation indexes beyond Scopus or Web of Science.

 

In this blog post, I will talk about some of the new indexes, Science mapping tools are starting to support, and as an aside provide a brief overview of what such tools can do and my first thoughts on them.

As it stands, it seems Microsoft Academic graph (due to it’s size), Crossref (due to its openness) and Dimensions (Digital Science backed) are starting to be sources used by such tools. The first two are also classed as open data which has helped to fuel their popularity, while the last has made it easy for bona fide researchers to access. 

 

A warning, I’m still trying to figure out these tools, so chances are my understanding is incomplete!…”

View of Discovering Open Access Engineering Journals | Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship

Abstract:  This study examines the indexing of open access journals in the engineering disciplines. The sample used in this study was generated from a title listing pulled from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) in late 2013. Indexing data from four prominent commercial databases in the discipline, Compendex, Web of Science, Inspec, and Scopus, were gathered in late 2017. The four-year interval was a critical component to the methodology, in that it provided sufficient time for these open journals to establish themselves in the research marketplace and earn the attention of leading indexers. The study found that while no single database provided excellent coverage of the open access content, in aggregate, the four databases indexed journals currently listed by the DOAJ reasonably well. The study also found that the four commercial databases indexed current DOAJ content at a much higher rate than content that was no longer listed in the DOAJ.

Where Can I Publish? Part 2: Is there a definitive list? – Delta Think

“We set out to examine whether there is a definitive, curated list of journals that researchers can use when deciding on their publication venue. While some offer very good coverage, the short answer appears to be that no one index offers a definitive list.

Across all journals, there seems to be overlap of significant proportions of the mainstream indexes. However, fully OA journals present a more varied landscape. You need to combine multiple lists to round up a comprehensive list of curated fully OA journals.

Our analysis has combined over 100,000 ISSNs across over 65,000 titles and, we think it represents one of the most comprehensive round ups of the coverage of curated lists available….”

Myth-busting: Journals must meet the DOAJ Seal criteria to be indexed in DOAJ – News Service

“There is a common misunderstanding that for a journal to have its application accepted and be indexed in DOAJ it must meet all the criteria for the DOAJ Seal. There is an assumption, born out of that misunderstanding, that journals in DOAJ without the Seal are of inferior quality. This is also a myth….”

Myth busting: DOAJ is not inclusive – News Service

“One of the most common criticisms levelled at DOAJ, particularly over the last 5 years, is that the index is not inclusive enough; that its coverage is poor; and that it lists only a fraction of the open access journals that exist. Our research shows that many journals reported as “missing” from DOAJ have a failed application or have been removed for not meeting DOAJ standards….”

Survey of Academic Library Open Access Publication Fee Pay Practices

“This report presents data from 73 academic libraries about their open access publication fee payment practices.  The 53-page study enables its end users to answer questions such as: How much have libraries spent in the past year on publication fees for open access and hybrid journals for their institution’s authors?  How much will they spend in the next year? What percentage of libraries pay such fees at all or have plans to?  What share of these fees are paid by libraries and what share by other departments and entities of the college or university? Have academic libraries partnered with consortia or other libraries to negotiate these fees?  How many articles did the pay for in the past year?  How many do they plan to pay for in the next year? 

Data in the report is broken out for R1 and R2 research universities, for doctoral level institutions and for those offering only BA/MA degrees.  In addition the data is broken out for public and private colleges, and by enrollment and tuition levels, and other variables, including work title, age and gender of the survey participant.

Some of the report’s many findings are that:

35.3% of R1 research universities in the sample had a line item in their budgets for the payment of author processing fees for hybrid and open access journals
20.51% of public institutions sampled said that departments or entities other than the academic library at their college or university contributed to the payment of author processing fees.
5.88% of BA/MA granting colleges in the sample have partnered with other colleges or universities or consortia to negotiate the level of author processing fees with publishers of hybrid or open access journals….”

Learning to Spot the Revealing Gaps in Our Public Data Sets

“As art installations go, it is low key: a filing cabinet filled with meticulously labelled hanging folders. Visitors are welcome to browse under any heading that sparks their interest: publicly available gun trace data; the Nanjing massacre death toll; English language rules internalised by native speakers; how much Spotify pays each artist per play of song. The folders are all empty.

The work, titled “The Library of Missing Datasets”, is by Mimi Onuoha, an artist and adjunct professor at New York University. The aim, she says, is to expose the “blank spots in spaces that are otherwise saturated with data”. The blanks can reveal hidden biases in a society….”

Announcing “Mind the Gap,” a major report on all available open-source publishing software | The MIT Press

“Mellon-funded report Mind the Gap: A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms catalogs and analyzes all available open-source software for publishing and warns that open publishing must grapple with the dual challenges of siloed development and organization of the community-owned ecosystem…

The MIT Press is pleased to release Mind the Gap: A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms (openly published at mindthegap.pubpub.org), a major report on the current state of all available open-source software for publishing. Funded by a grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the report “shed[s] light on the development and deployment of open-source publishing technologies in order to aid institutions’ and individuals’ decision-making and project planning.” It will be an unparalleled resource for the scholarly publishing community and complements the recently released Mapping the Scholarly Communication Landscape census….”