Group items tagged

Cohen blogs about the emergence of several new ways of publishing within the scientific field that is still considered scholarly and many times peer reviewed. Some of the websites mentioned offer to publish a writer's work for a lifetime, for a few dollars. The emergence of these self-publishing, academic, scientific sites also shows a slight shift in philosophy. By restricting the publication through certain channels, the publishing companies and universities were choosing what will be the topic "of next year." Some times they were right, sometimes they were wrong, but either way, great and important papers were lost because they were not considered "the next big thing" or they are too "normal."

This article discusses the economic nature of publishing from the viewpoint of an author and editor of the works of others. The author explains the legitimacy of publishing companies' practices in the past, but calls into question those of modern for-profit publishers. He rejects the current model, in which his readers would pay more for a day's use of his article than for either of his books, and supports a billable-hours system like that of lawyers or psychiatrists.

PLOS is a nonprofit publisher that publishes only 7 journals in topics related to science or medicine. Every article that is published is open access and is freely able to be viewed online. The publishers of this website believe that their journals allows for ease of research and is determined to accelerate the advancement of knowledge in these fields.

This article explains the dispute between Google and publishers here in the United States. As we have seen in class, Google Books offers internet users the ability to search through their database of scanned books. Publishers are fighting that Google is violating copyright laws by scanning these books and letting people have free open access. Although the project itself is causing an uproar, publishers as well as authors are being given the opportunity to decide what books are included in this project.

BMJ is an open online, open access general medical journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and the therapeutic areas. The journal publishes a wide variety of different types of studies, from protocols, to phase 1 trail, to meta-analyses, including small or potentially low impact studies. The publishing procedures are fully open peer review and continuous publication which allows research to published online as soon as the article is ready. BMJ main goal is to promote transperency in the publication process by publishing reviewer reports and previous versions of manuscripts as pre-publication histories.

This article discusses the extensive nature of scholarly publishing. He explains the industry in terms of a social contract between the supply side, publication, and the demand side, the consumers. The supply side of this contract has enjoyed large growth recently, with the continued growth of digital outlets, while the demand side has remained stationary, maintaining its view of the book as the definitive form of publication. In conclusion, the author argues that curation will solve this problem, and become more important that publication once publication ceases to be limited.

This article expands on the subjects discussed in Dan Cohen's earlier article on The Social Contract of Scholarly Publishing. He breaks the supply and demand model, introduced in the previous article, into four influential categories that need focus to better both sides. He argues for impartiality when approaching a text, passion for the subject, shame for the lack of sharing compared to other fields, and the shift from narcissistic desires for compensation to a desire for communal knowledge.

Tim Hitchcock begins this article by stating that books are dead. He goes on to explain his statement, qualifying that the process of creating a 'book' is lengthy and redundant, especially in the digital age. In our current state, we still think of data in reference to standard book form (book, chapter, page, line). He also criticizes modern humanists' approach/integration of scholarship and technology. Hitchcock believes that many utilize technical shortcuts (such as Google Books), but refuse to recognize it. Or they reference an article that they found online, but cite the paper version. His greatest criticism is the path that he believes digital humanities is going. He beleves that it is following the progress of the book too closely and that in an attempt to make things accessible, they have not utilized the versatility of digital publishing. He notes that how we currently view books depends on how digital humanities progresses. At the end of the article, Hitchcock describes his original tone and intention of the article. He also describes the editing and peer-review process.

Scholastica is a server that allows people to publish journals and articles. The main point is to bring together "editors, authors, and reviewers" to one area. It also emphasizes the idea that using their system makes the process of getting material published in and peer reviewed is much simpler, less time consuming, and generates genuine interest and collaboration between all parties. It is open for all subjects, and even welcomes people to create a journal in a content area that may be lacking. It is a paid membership, but also provides options of community support with their "The Conversation," what I am assuming is a question-answer section.

PLOS One is a open access, peer reviewed journal set up specifically for scientists. PLOS One does not pick and choose which papers are important. It peer reviews all articles/journals to make sure all of the material is sound, then publishes it. This means, that any work that is holds validity and is scientifically sound will get published. Because PLOS One is open access, it allows anyone to download, reprint, copy, etc... as long as a credit is given without fees or other charges. It also keeps the writer/researchers right of ownership.

This 2010 article provides some insight into the grant proposal process for the Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants, provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities. George Williams describes the process of grant proposals as "lightning rounds" in which the project director is allowed only two minutes and three slides for their presentation. 46 projects were presented, and Williams provides a rough categorization for the projects, such as mapping or publishing projects, and provides a list of examples for each category.

The author explores a potential new solution to peer review in the the work of scientific journal publisher Elsevier. The director of this project argues that it encourages quality reviews while acknowledging the reviewer's contribution by allowing them to choose whether or not to remain anonymous.

Dan Cohen opens his blog with the announcement that several of his colleagues "taken democratic ownership" and they now have a new interface and editing process. He also provides several screen shots (from his ipad) of the journal to give his readers an idea of the articles and layout. He also notes that they do not use the typical process of publishing in an academic journal; he calls their approach the "catching the good."

Peerj offers three different types of memberships, each with their own advantages and restrictions, but all are for life. They emphasis that they do not publish based on possible "impact" or "interest," but focus on scientific soundness. They also offers "No questions asked" waivers for people in certain countries.

PeerJ is an open access journal that researchers in Biological and Medical Sciences publish their works for a one time membership fee, which covers their lifetime. The PeerJ, Inc. has two different publication venues: PeerJ is a peer reviewed journal and PeerJ Preprint is where they can post their unfinished works for feedback.

This website is, as its title suggests, a directory of open access journals. These journals are free, full text, quality-controlled scientific and scholarly journals that cover a wide range of subjects. It features search fields for both journals and articles, with the ability to search by title, ISSN, author, keywords, and abstract.