Group items tagged

Acceptance was the norm, not the exception

accepted by journals hosted by industry titans Sage and Elsevier

by journals published by prestigious academic institutions such as Kobe University in Japan.

a short list of some of the many OA models

Freely available journal paid for by author publication charges

Free available journal with no APCs, paid for by institution or funding agency grant.

While there is variation in current terminology (public scholarship, scholarship of engagement, community-engaged scholarship), engaged scholarship is defined by the collaboration between academics and individuals outside the academy - knowledge professionals and the lay public (local, regional/state, national, global) - for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity.                                                                                                                                            (NERCHE, n.d.)

The Journal of Public Scholarship in Higher Education aims to advance the status and prospects for publicly engaged teaching and research in the academy by showcasing the new disciplinary and/or pedagogical knowledge generated by engagement with the community.

In the first stage, manuscripts that pass a rapid pre-screening (access review) are immediately published as 'discussion papers' on the journal's website. They are then subject to interactive public discussion for a period of 8 weeks, during which the comments of designated reviewers, additional comments by other interested members of the scientific community, and the authors' replies are published alongside the discussion paper. Reviewers can choose to sign their comments or remain anonymous, but comments by other scientists must be signed.

One of the forms of open access . . . consists in the creation and use of repositories for research writing: databases, typically run by university libraries, into which ‘pre-prints’ (basically, manuscripts) of journal articles may be uploaded for free download by anyone with access to the internet. This has recently become known as ‘green’ open access

gold’ open access, which keeps journals open by moving the burden of payment from the reader to the writer

Open peer review means that, firstly, the reviewers' names are included on the peer review reports, and secondly that, if the manuscript is published, the reports are made available online along with the final version of the manuscript. The published article will provide a link to its 'pre-publication history', which lists all the versions of the manuscript, all the signed reviews, and all responses to the reviewers since the submission of the manuscript until its publication.

The author’s manuscript after eligibility check (step 1) made by the journal’s editors enters the traditional double blind peer review (step 2). Articles accepted for publication are then available for an open comment peer review (step 3) for a given period (at least 30 days) during which the journal’s editors solicit scholars in the field to post comments.  All registered users to the journals are therefore able to comment on and to discuss the accepted articles published in pre-print format. This part of the peer review process is moderated by the journals editors. Authors are able to revise their articles for final publication in the light of both forms of review (double blind and open).

The BMJ now has a system of open peer review. This means that reviewers have to sign their reports, saying briefly who they are and where they work. We also ask reviewers to declare to the editors any competing interests that might relate to articles we have asked them to review, and we take these into account when considering reviewers' comments. When such competing interests are too great reviewers usually decline the assignment. Open peer review does not mean that authors should feel able to contact reviewers directly to discuss their reports; all queries should still be directed through the editorial office.

We will send you a decision letter and report from the meeting as soon as possible; usually within a few days but longer if we have asked for an additional detailed report from the statistics editor or another reviewer. The report will list the names of everyone who took part in the discussion about your article.

The purpose of this study is to examine how uncivil online interpersonal discussion may contribute to polarization of perceptions about an issue.

Uncivil discourse is a growing concern in American rhetoric, and this trend has expanded beyond traditional media to online sources, such as audience comments. Using an experiment given to a sample representative of the U.S. population, we examine the effects online incivility on perceptions toward a particular issue—namely, an emerging technology, nanotechnology. We found that exposure to uncivil blog comments can polarize risk perceptions of nanotechnology along the lines of religiosity and issue support.

Its ethics and values hold central:

Relationship-building, reciprocity, and mutual benefit Participation, transparency, and reflection Innovation, integration, and dialogue Cultural diversity and social equality In coming to these forms of “applied” scholarship, humanities scholars have emphasized the way that culture in its many forms mediates interactions, development, and knowledge.

Publicly-engaged scholarship yields diverse artifacts, informing knowledge in multiple domains Policy and planning recommendations Museum exhibitions and public performances New curricula for courses or workshops Books and journal articles As consequence, public scholarship also yields new connections among disciplines, communities, and sectors. 

One-month of open-review, during which registered users of the journal platform will be enabled to comment on and to discuss the selected and peer reviewed papers. Authors will be able to use these comments and discussions to revise their final submission for publication.