Group items tagged

Presentations from the ALCTS Scholarly Communications Group in January 2011 on the topic of the "author pays" model in open access journal publishing

Grading journals on how well they share information with readers will help deliver accountability to an industry that often lacks it.

A thoughtful and well-researched article that offers positive and negative quality indicators for evaluating open access journals for publishing considerations, while the authors caution against a "one-size fits all" approach and the importance of guiding faculty and researchers to make informed personal choices.

Bibliometric and usage-based analyses and tools highlight the value of information about scholarship contained within the network of authors, articles and usage data. Less progress has been made on populating and using the author side of this network than the article side, in part because of the difficulty of unambiguously identifying authors. I briefly review a sample of author identifier schemes, and consider use in scholarly repositories. I then describe preliminary work at arXiv to implement public author identifiers, services based on them, and plans to make this information

What was highly significant, however, was the pace of discussion and analysis, carried out in real time on blogs and a wiki that had been quickly set up for the purpose of collectively analyzing the paper. This kind of collaboration has emerged only in recent years in the math and computer science communities. In the past, intense discussions like the one that surrounded the proof of the Poincaré conjecture were carried about via private e-mail and distribution lists as well as in the pages of traditional paper-based science journals.

The Public Library of Science (PLoS) is the first publisher to place transparent and comprehensive information about the usage and reach of published articles onto the articles themselves, so that the entire academic community can assess their value. We call these measures for evaluating articles 'Article-Level Metrics', and they are distinct from the journal-level measures of research quality that have traditionally been made available until now.

Now some humanities scholars have begun to challenge the monopoly that peer review has on admission to career-making journals and, as a consequence, to the charmed circle of tenured academe. They argue that in an era of digital media there is a better way to assess the quality of work.

Gargouri Y, Hajjem C, Larivière V, Gingras Y, Carr L, Brody T, Harnad S. Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(10):e13636+. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013636.

"SAGE Research Methods Online (SRMO) is a tool to support your research needs as you design, select and apply a method. Containing over 100,000 pages of book, journal and reference content from leading SAGE authors, SRMO supports independent researchers at all levels."

new ways of publishing with linked data and metadata

survey useufl for societies consider e-only publication

This article describes a study, involving a set of articles published in scholarly journals by faculty members of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) that have also been deposited in the HKUST Institutional Repository. The study was

manipulation of impact factors?

new perspective in journal metrics from Elsevier

"Cloud computing comes in several different forms and this article documents how service, platform, and infrastructure forms of cloud computing have been used to serve library needs. Following an overview of these uses the article discusses the experience of one library in migrating IT infrastructure to a cloud environment and concludes with a model for assessing cloud computing."

paper examines costs and benefits of alternative scholarly publishing strategies in the UK, with five responding articles in the same journals issue

comparison of article metrics

Study of Open Access Publishing (SOAP) project highlights, culling some 40,000 answers reflecting positive views of open access while reflecting concerns with funding and journal quality. An introduction to the survey is presented with links to survey data.