Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.093802385 = product of:
  0.14070357 = sum of:
    0.07192158 = weight(_text_:electronic in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07192158 = score(doc=37,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.3665161 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
    0.068781994 = product of:
      0.13756399 = sum of:
        0.13756399 = weight(_text_:publishing in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13756399 = score(doc=37,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.56096876 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Open access has long been an ideal of academic publishing. Yet, contrary to initial expectations, cost of access to published scientific knowledge increased following the advent of the Internet and electronic processing. An analysis of the ethicality of current arrangements in academic publishing shows that monetization and the sequestering of scientific knowledge behind paywalls breach the principle of fairness and damage public interest. Following decades of failed effort to redress the situation, there are ethical grounds for consumers of scientific knowledge to invoke the right of collective civil disobedience, including support for pirate open access. Could this be the best option available to consumers of scientific knowledge for removing paywalls to knowledge that rightly belongs in the public domain?

0.027020117 = product of:
  0.08106035 = sum of:
    0.08106035 = product of:
      0.1621207 = sum of:
        0.1621207 = weight(_text_:publishing in 9) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1621207 = score(doc=9,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.66110796 = fieldWeight in 9, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=9)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The emergence of open access (OA) publishing has altered incentives and opportunities for academic stakeholders and publishers. These changes have yielded a variety of new economic and academic niches, including journals with questionable peer-review systems and business models, commonly dubbed "predatory publishing." Empirical analysis of Cabell's Journal Blacklist reveals substantial diversity in types and degrees of predatory publishing. While some blacklisted publishers produce journals with many severe violations of academic norms, "gray" journals and publishers occupy borderline or ambiguous niches between predation and legitimacy. Predation in academic publishing is not a simple binary phenomenon and should instead be perceived as a spectrum with varying types and degrees of illegitimacy. Conceptions of predation are based on overlapping evaluations of academic and economic legitimacy. High institutional status benefits publishers by reducing conflicts between-if not aligning-professional and market institutional logics, which are more likely to conflict and create illegitimacy concerns in downmarket niches. High rejection rates imbue high-status journals with value and pricing power, while low-status OA journals face "predatory" incentives to optimize revenue via low selectivity. Status influences the social acceptability of profit-seeking in academic publishing, rendering lower-status publishers vulnerable to being perceived and stigmatized as illegitimate.

0.022061832 = product of:
  0.0661855 = sum of:
    0.0661855 = product of:
      0.132371 = sum of:
        0.132371 = weight(_text_:publishing in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.132371 = score(doc=5920,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.53979236 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The movement for open access publishing (OA) is often said to have its roots in the scientific disciplines, having been popularized by scientific publishers and formalized through a range of top-down policy interventions. But there is an often-neglected prehistory of OA that can be found in the early DIY publishers of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Managed entirely by working academics, these journals published research in the humanities and social sciences and stand out for their unique set of motivations and practices. This article explores this separate lineage in the history of the OA movement through a critical-theoretical analysis of the motivations and practices of the early scholar-led publishers. Alongside showing the involvement of the humanities and social sciences in the formation of OA, the analysis reveals the importance that these journals placed on experimental practices, critique of commercial publishing, and the desire to reach new audiences. Understood in today's context, this research is significant for adding complexity to the history of OA, which policymakers, advocates, and publishing scholars should keep in mind as OA goes mainstream.

0.022061832 = product of:
  0.0661855 = sum of:
    0.0661855 = product of:
      0.132371 = sum of:
        0.132371 = weight(_text_:publishing in 448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.132371 = score(doc=448,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.53979236 = fieldWeight in 448, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=448)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

With the growth of open access (OA), the financial flows in scholarly journal publishing have become increasingly complex, but comprehensive data on and transparency of these flows are still lacking. The opacity is especially concerning for hybrid OA, where subscription-based journals publish individual articles as OA if an optional fee is paid. This study addresses the lack of transparency by leveraging Elsevier article metadata and provides the first publisher-level study of hybrid OA uptake and invoicing. Our results show that Elsevier's hybrid OA uptake has grown steadily but slowly from 2015 to 2019, doubling the number of hybrid OA articles published per year and increasing the share of OA articles in Elsevier's hybrid journals from 2.6 to 3.7% of all articles. Further, we find that most hybrid OA articles were invoiced directly to authors, followed by articles invoiced through agreements with research funders, institutions, or consortia, with only a few funding bodies driving hybrid OA uptake. As such, our findings point to the role of publishing agreements and OA policies in hybrid OA publishing. Our results further demonstrate the value of publisher-provided metadata to improve the transparency in scholarly publishing.

0.019106109 = product of:
  0.057318322 = sum of:
    0.057318322 = product of:
      0.114636645 = sum of:
        0.114636645 = weight(_text_:publishing in 11) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114636645 = score(doc=11,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.46747392 = fieldWeight in 11, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=11)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We investigate the state of multilingualism across the social sciences and humanities (SSH) using a comprehensive data set of research outputs from seven European countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Flanders [Belgium], Norway, Poland, and Slovenia). Although English tends to be the dominant language of science, SSH researchers often produce culturally and societally relevant work in their local languages. We collected and analyzed a set of 164,218 peer-reviewed journal articles (produced by 51,063 researchers from 2013 to 2015) and found that multilingualism is prevalent despite geographical location and field. Among the researchers who published at least three journal articles during this time period, over one-third from the various countries had written their work in at least two languages. The highest share of researchers who published in only one language were from Flanders (80.9%), whereas the lowest shares were from Slovenia (57.2%) and Poland (59.3%). Our findings show that multilingual publishing is an ongoing practice in many SSH research fields regardless of geographical location, political situation, and/or historical heritage. Here we argue that research is international, but multilingual publishing keeps locally relevant research alive with the added potential for creating impact.

0.019106109 = product of:
  0.057318322 = sum of:
    0.057318322 = product of:
      0.114636645 = sum of:
        0.114636645 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114636645 = score(doc=1206,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.46747392 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Open Access (OA) publishing has progressed from an initial fringe idea to a still-growing, major component of modern academic communication. The proliferation of OA publishing presents a context to examine how new innovations and institutions develop. Based on analyses of 1,296,304 articles published in 83 OA journals, we analyze changes in the institutional status, gender, age, citedness, and geographical locations of authors over time. Generally, OA journals tended towards core-to-periphery diffusion patterns. Specifically, journal authors tended to decrease in high-status institutional affiliations, male and highly cited authors over time. Despite these general tendencies, there was substantial variation in the diffusion patterns of OA journals. Some journals exhibited no significant demographic changes, and a few exhibited periphery-to-core diffusion patterns. We find that although both highly and less-legitimate journals generally exhibit core-to-periphery diffusion patterns, there are still demographic differences between such journals. Institutional and cultural legitimacy-or lack thereof-affects the social and intellectual diffusion of new OA journals.

0.018720087 = product of:
  0.056160256 = sum of:
    0.056160256 = product of:
      0.11232051 = sum of:
        0.11232051 = weight(_text_:publishing in 805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11232051 = score(doc=805,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.45802903 = fieldWeight in 805, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Mailtext: "Im Rahmen der Schwerpunktinitiative "Digitale Information" der Allianz der Wissenschaftsorganisationen wurden jetzt "Empfehlungen für transformative Zeitschriftenverträge mit Publikationsdienstleistern" veröffentlicht. Die formulierten Kriterien dienen als gemeinsamer und handlungsleitender Rahmen der Akteur:innen aus allen Wissenschaftsorganisationen, d.h. Hochschulen ebenso wie außeruniversitäre Forschungseinrichtungen, für Verhandlungen mit Publikationsdienstleistern. Dabei bildet die Forderung nach größtmöglicher Kostentransparenz und Kosteneffizienz im Gesamtsystem den Kern des Handelns der Wissenschaftsorganisationen im Kontext ihrer Open-Access-Strategie für die Jahre 2021-2025. Diese Kriterien gliedern sich in die Aspekte Transformation von Zeitschriften, Preisgestaltung, Transparenz, Workflow, Preprints, Qualitätssicherung, Metadaten und Schnittstellen, Statistiken, Tracking und Waiver. Deutsche Version: https://doi.org/10.48440/allianzoa.045 Englische Version: https://doi.org/10.48440/allianzoa.046 Siehe auch: Empfehlungen für transformative Zeitschriftenverträge mit Publikationsdienstleistern veröffentlicht https://www.allianzinitiative.de/2022/11/24/empfehlungen-fuer-transformative-zeitschriftenvertraege-mit-publikationsdienstleistern-veroeffentlicht/ Recommendations for Transformative Journal Agreements with Providers of Publishing Services published https://www.allianzinitiative.de/2022/11/24/recommendations-for-transformative-journal-agreements-with-providers-of-publishing-services-published/?lang=en"

0.0132371 = product of:
  0.0397113 = sum of:
    0.0397113 = product of:
      0.0794226 = sum of:
        0.0794226 = weight(_text_:publishing in 544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0794226 = score(doc=544,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 544, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=544)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study explores the use of PubPeer by the scholarly community, to understand the issues discussed in an online journal club, the disciplines most commented on, and the characteristics of the most prolific users. A sample of 39,985 posts about 24,779 publications were extracted from PubPeer in 2019 and 2020. These comments were divided into seven categories according to their degree of seriousness (Positive review, Critical review, Lack of information, Honest errors, Methodological flaws, Publishing fraud, and Manipulation). The results show that more than two-thirds of comments are posted to report some type of misconduct, mainly about image manipulation. These comments generate most discussion and take longer to be posted. By discipline, Health Sciences and Life Sciences are the most discussed research areas. The results also reveal "super commenters," users who access the platform to systematically review publications. The study ends by discussing how various disciplines use the site for different purposes.

0.0132371 = product of:
  0.0397113 = sum of:
    0.0397113 = product of:
      0.0794226 = sum of:
        0.0794226 = weight(_text_:publishing in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0794226 = score(doc=612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In the last decade, one of the most effective tools applied in combating the erosion of public trust in academic research has been an increased level of transparency in the peer review and editorial process. Publicly available publication ethics guidelines and policies are vital in creating a transparent process that prevents unethical research, publication misconduct, manipulation of the communication of research to practitioners, and the erosion of public trust. This study investigated how these unethical practices, specifically those coded as editorial misconduct, bring the authenticity and integrity of the library and information science academic research digital record into question. Employing a multi-layered approach, including key informant interviews, researchers determined the frequency and the content of ethical publishing policies and procedures in library and information science journals; exploring the ways the lack of, or nonadherence to these policies and procedures impacted library and information science researchers in instances of editorial misconduct.

0.011030916 = product of:
  0.03309275 = sum of:
    0.03309275 = product of:
      0.0661855 = sum of:
        0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 5677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0661855 = score(doc=5677,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 5677, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.011030916 = product of:
  0.03309275 = sum of:
    0.03309275 = product of:
      0.0661855 = sum of:
        0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0661855 = score(doc=647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.011030916 = product of:
  0.03309275 = sum of:
    0.03309275 = product of:
      0.0661855 = sum of:
        0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0661855 = score(doc=741,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 741, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=741)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.008824733 = product of:
  0.026474198 = sum of:
    0.026474198 = product of:
      0.052948397 = sum of:
        0.052948397 = weight(_text_:publishing in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052948397 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.21591695 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.

0.008824733 = product of:
  0.026474198 = sum of:
    0.026474198 = product of:
      0.052948397 = sum of:
        0.052948397 = weight(_text_:publishing in 333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052948397 = score(doc=333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.21591695 = fieldWeight in 333, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The preservation of the scholarly record has been a point of concern since the beginning of knowledge production. With print publications, the responsibility rested primarily with librarians, but the shift toward digital publishing and, in particular, the introduction of open access (OA) have caused ambiguity and complexity. Consequently, the long-term accessibility of journals is not always guaranteed, and they can even disappear from the web completely. The focus of this exploratory study is on the phenomenon of vanished journals, something that has not been carried out before. For the analysis, we consulted several major bibliographic indexes, such as Scopus, Ulrichsweb, and the Directory of Open Access Journals, and traced the journals through the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. We found 174 OA journals that, through lack of comprehensive and open archives, vanished from the web between 2000 and 2019, spanning all major research disciplines and geographic regions of the world. Our results raise vital concern for the integrity of the scholarly record and highlight the urgency to take collaborative action to ensure continued access and prevent the loss of more scholarly knowledge. We encourage those interested in the phenomenon of vanished journals to use the public dataset for their own research.

0.00793389 = product of:
  0.023801671 = sum of:
    0.023801671 = product of:
      0.047603343 = sum of:
        0.047603343 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047603343 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05