DOCSLIB.ORG

EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to Be Published in English, June 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to Be Published in English, June 2014 EASE1 GuidelinesEASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators for of Scientific Authors Articles to be Published andin English, June 2014 Translators ofFrom Scientific the Editors’ Desks Articles to Be Published in English June 2014 2 Guidelines 6 Practical tips Appendices 7 Abstracts 8 Ambiguity 9 Cohesion 10 Ethics 11 Plurals 12 Simplicity 13 Spelling 14 Text-tables 15 About EASE Updated annually, freely available in many languages at www.ease.org.uk ©2014 European Association of Science Editors (www.ease.org.uk). Non-commercial printing allowed. 2 EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English, June 2014 EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English To make international scientific communication more and your interpretation and main consequences of your efficient, research articles and other scientific publications findings (conclusions). The abstract must reflect the should be COMPLETE, CONCISE, and CLEAR, as content of the article, as for most readers it will be the explained below. These are generalized but not universal major source of information about your study. You must guidelines, intended to help authors, translators, and use all keywords within the abstract, to facilitate on-line editors. Common sense is necessary when applying these searching for your article by those who may be interested rules, as perfection is impossible to reach. in your results (many databases include only titles and abstracts). In a research report, the abstract should be First of all: informative, including actual results. Only in reviews, • Carefully plan and conduct your study (e.g. Hengl et meta-analyses, and other wide-scope articles, should al. 2011). Do not begin drafting the whole paper until the abstract be indicative, i.e. listing the major topics you are sure that your findings are reasonably firm discussed but not giving outcomes (CSE 2014). Do not and complete (O’Connor 1991), allowing you to draw refer in the abstract to tables or figures, as abstracts are reliable conclusions. also published separately. References to the literature • Before you start writing, preferably choose the journal are also not allowed unless they are absolutely necessary to which you will submit your manuscript. Make sure (but then you need to provide detailed information in that the journal’s readership corresponds to your target brackets: author, title, year, etc.). Make sure that all the audience (Chipperfield et al. 2010). Get a copy of the information given in the abstract also appears in the journal’s instructions to authors and plan the article main body of the article. (See Appendix: Abstracts) to fit the journal’s preferred format in terms of overall • List of additional keywords (if required by the editors): length, number of figures required/allowed, etc. include all relevant scientific terms that are absent from the title and abstract. Keep the keywords specific. Add Manuscripts should be COMPLETE, i.e. no necessary more general terms if your study has interdisciplinary information should be missing. Remember that significance (O’Connor 1991). In medical texts, use information is interpreted more easily if it is placed vocabulary found in the MeSH Browser. where readers expect to find it (Gopen & Swan 1990). For • List of abbreviations (if required by the editors): example, the following information ought to be included in define all abbreviations used in the article, except those experimental research articles. obvious to non-specialists. • Title: should be unambiguous, understandable to • Introduction: explain why the study was needed and specialists in other fields, and reflect the content of the specify your research objectives or the question(s) you article. Be specific, not general or vague (O’Connor aimed to answer. Start from more general issues and 1991). If relevant, mention in the title the study period gradually focus on your research question(s). and location, the international scientific name of the • Methods: describe in detail how the study was studied organism or the experimental design (e.g. case carried out (e.g. study area, data collection, criteria, study or randomized controlled trial). Information origin of analysed material, sample size, number of given in the title does not need to be repeated in the measurements, age and sex of participants, equipment, abstract (as they are always published jointly), although data analysis, statistical tests, and software used). All overlap is unavoidable. factors that could have affected the results need to be • List of authors, i.e. all people who contributed considered. Sources of experimental materials obtained substantially to study planning, data collection or from biobanks should be mentioned with full names interpretation of results and wrote or critically revised and identifiers, if available (Bravo et al. 2013). If you cite the manuscript and approved its final version and agree a method described in a non-English or inaccessible to be accountable for all aspects of the work (ICMJE publication, explain it in detail in your manuscript. 2013). The authors listed first should be those who did Make sure that you comply with the ethical standards most. Names of authors must be supplemented with (e.g. WMA 2013) in respect of patient rights, animal their affiliations (during the study) and the present testing, environmental protection, etc. address of an author for correspondence. E-mail addresses of all authors should be provided, so that • Results: present the new results of your study (usually published data should not be included in this section). they can be contacted easily. All tables and figures must be mentioned in the main • Abstract: briefly explain why you conducted the study body of the article, and numbered in the order in which (background), what question(s) you aimed to answer they appear in the text. Make sure that the statistical (objectives), how you performed the study (methods), analysis is appropriate (e.g. Lang 2004). Do not fabricate what you found (results: major data, relationships), or distort any data, and do not exclude any important ©2014 European Association of Science Editors (www.ease.org.uk). Non-commercial printing allowed. 3 EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English, June 2014 data; similarly, do not manipulate images to make a • Remember to comply with the journal’s instructions false impression on readers. Such data manipulations to authors in respect of abstract length, style of may constitute scientific fraud (see COPE flowcharts). references, etc. • Discussion: answer your research questions (stated at Write CONCISELY to save the time of referees and readers. the end of the Introduction) and compare your new • Do not include information that is not relevant to results with published data, as objectively as possible. your research question(s) stated in the Introduction. Discuss their limitations and highlight your main • Do not copy parts of your previous publications and findings. Consider any findings that run contrary do not submit the same manuscript to more than one to your point of view. To support your position, use journal at a time. Otherwise, you may be responsible only methodologically sound evidence (ORI 2009). for redundant publication (see COPE flowcharts). At the end of the Discussion or in a separate section, This does not apply to preliminary publications, emphasize your major conclusions and the practical such as conference abstracts (O’Connor 1991, see significance of your study. also BioMed Central policy). Moreover, secondary • Acknowledgements: mention all people who publications are acceptable if intended for a contributed substantially to the study but cannot be completely different group of readers (e.g. in another regarded as co-authors, and acknowledge all sources language or for specialists and the general public) and of funding. The recommended form is: “This work you have received approval from the editors of both was supported by the Medical Research Council [grant journals (ICMJE 2013). A reference to the primary number xxxx]”. If no specific funding was provided, publication must then be given in a footnote on the use the following sentence: “This research received no title page of the secondary publication. specific grant from any funding agency in the public, • Information given in one section preferably should commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.” (RIN 2008). not be repeated in other sections. Obvious exceptions If relevant, disclose to the editors any other conflicts include the abstract, the figure legends, and the of interest, e.g. financial or personal links with the concluding paragraph. manufacturer or with an organization that has an interest • Consider whether all tables and figures are necessary. in the submitted manuscript (Goozner et al. 2009). If you Data presented in tables should not be repeated in reproduce previously published materials (e.g. figures), figures (or vice versa). Long lists of data should not be ask the copyright owners for permission and mention repeated in the text. them in the captions or in the acknowledgements. If you were helped by a language professional (e.g. author’s • Captions to tables and figures must be informative editor or translator), a statistician, data collectors, etc., but not very long. If similar data are presented in you should acknowledge their assistance for the sake of several tables or several figures, then the format of transparency (ICMJE 2013, Graf et al. 2009). It must be their captions should also be similar. clear that they are not responsible for the final version • Preferably delete obvious statements (e.g. “Forests of the article. You need to ensure you have the consent are very important ecosystems.”) and other redundant of all the people named in this section. (See Appendix: fragments (e.g. “It is well known that…”). Ethics) • If a long scientific term is frequently repeated, define • References: make sure that you have provided its abbreviation at first use in the main body of the sources for all information extracted from other article, and later apply it consistently.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Publication Guidelines for Quality Improvement in Health Care
    Supplement Qual Saf Health Care: first published as 10.1136/qshc.2008.029066 on 3 October 2008. Downloaded from Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project F Davidoff,1 P Batalden,2 D Stevens,2 G Ogrinc,2 S Mooney for the SQUIRE development group 1 Institute for Healthcare ABSTRACT published original reports of quality improvement Improvement, New Hampshire, 2 In 2005, draft guidelines were published for reporting projects provided full information on the indivi- USA; Dartmouth Institute for studies of quality improvement interventions as the initial dual guideline items we had identified,1 while Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Center for Leadership step in a consensus process for development of a more individual guideline items were not addressed at and Improvement, Dartmouth definitive version. This article contains the full revised all in 4–44% of those reports (Mooney S, Ogrinc G, College, Hanover, New version of the guidelines, which the authors refer to as unpublished). Hampshire, USA SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Our initial draft guidelines were, of course, not a Correspondence to: Excellence). This paper also describes the consensus tested approach to judging the quality of the Dr F Davidoff, 143 Garden process, which included informal feedback from authors, improvement literature, since that draft was based Street, Wethersfield, CT 06109, editors and peer reviewers who used the guidelines; largely on the authors’ personal experience with USA; [email protected] formal written commentaries; input from a group of improvement work, and was intended only as an initial step towards an established standard.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Challenges in Mining Scientific Papers
    BIR 2019 Workshop on Bibliometric-enhanced Information Retrieval Beyond Metadata: the New Challenges in Mining Scientific Papers Iana Atanassova[0000−0003−3571−4006] CRIT, Universit´ede Bourgogne Franche-Comt´e,France [email protected] Abstract. Scientific articles make use of complex argumentative struc- tures whose exploitation from a computational point of view is an im- portant challenge. The exploration of scientific corpora involves methods and techniques from Natural Language Processing in order to develop applications in the field of Information Retrieval, Automatic Synthesis, citation analyses or ontological population. Among the problems that remain to be addressed in this domain is the developing fine-grained analyses of the text content of articles to identify specific semantic cat- egories such as the expression of uncertainty and controversy that are an integral part of the scientific process. The well-known IMRaD struc- ture (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) is often used as a standard template that governs the structure of articles in experimental sciences and provides clearly identifiable text units. We study the inter- nal structure of articles from several different perspectives and report on the processing of a large sample extracted from the PLOS corpus. On the one hand, we analyse citation contexts with respect to their positions, verbs used and similarities across the different sections, and on the other hand, we study other phenomena such as the expression of uncertainty. The production of standard datasets dedicated to such tasks is now nec- essary and would provide favourable environment for the development of new approaches, e.g. using neural networks, that require large amounts of labelled data.
    [Show full text]
  • Escritura, Comunicación Científica Y Acceso Abierto: Un Proyecto Internacional Y Multidisciplinario-NECOBELAC
    Rev. salud pública. 11 (2): 310-314, 2009 310 REVISTA DE SALUD PÚBLICA · Volumen 11(2), Abril 2009 Escritura, Comunicación Científica y Acceso Abierto: un Proyecto Internacional y Multidisciplinario-NECOBELAC Scientific writing, scientific communication and open access: an international, multidisciplinary project – NECOBELAC Diony Pulido O, Rocío Robledo M, Carlos A. Agudelo y Grupo de Trabajo NECOBELAC Instituto de Salud Pública. Departamento de Salud Pública. Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Bogotá. [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Recibido 14 Diciembre 2008/Enviado para Modificación 28 Diciembre 2008/Aceptado 4 Marzo 2009 RESUMEN Una red de colaboración entre seis países de Europa, América latina y El Caribe ha iniciado un proyecto para mejorar la comunicación y la diseminación científica en salud pública. El proyecto apunta a fomentar la comunicación científica en aspectos de valor actual y futuro como son la escritura científica y el acceso abierto a la informa- ción en salud. El proyecto NECOBELAC (www.necobelac.eu) es auspiciado por la Comunidad Europea (7th Framework Programme) y tiene una duración de tres años. Como un reto, el proyecto reconoce las diferencias socio culturales entre los países que participan y se ocupará de generar redes de instituciones en colaboración estre- cha para realizar programas de entrenamiento e intercambio de saberes en produc- ción de información y difusión (incluyendo los aspectos técnicos y éticos). El proyecto NECOBELAC incluye al Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS) de Italia, coordinador del mismo, el Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) de España, la Universidad de Nottingham (SHERPA) del Reino Unido, BIREME de Brasil, el Instituto de Salud Pública (ISP) de Colombia y la Universidade de Minho, de Portugal.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Manual for Residents
    RESEARCH MANUAL FOR RESIDENTS A guide to the path less traveled Joy L. Palmer, D.O. With contributions from Cynthia Norton, M.S., OMS IV Judith Viola, OMS III UNECOM 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Acknowledgement I. Why conduct clinical research? 3 II. Types of clinical research 5 III. Nitty-gritty terminology 8 IV. Timeline 11 a. PGY-1 b. PGY-2 c. PGY-3 V. Designing your project 16 a. And the correct question is… b. How and what to measure c. Subject participation – who, where, how long? d. Data analysis VI. Institutional Review Board (IRB) 20 VII. Funding your project 22 a. Where to look b. Networking c. Grant writing VIII. Manuscript Writing and Publication 26 IX. Resources – people, places, publications 28 X. Lessons learned 32 a. Mentor selection b. Proposal review, and review, and review c. Recruiting d. Size does matter Appendix A – Annotated bibliography of recommended readings Appendix B – Table format of recommended timeline Appendix C – Poster template Appendix D - Hard Copy of Biosketch INTRODUCTION Good day, Colleagues: By no means am I an expert on designing, performing and/or publishing clinical research. In fact, before residency, I had never even participated in any research activity outside of being a subject in psychology studies as an undergrad! I have however, lived through, that’s right, I have survived the experience of designing and implementing a clinical research project as a resident at the University of New England and want to pass on the lessons I’ve learned. At times it has felt like I was in a foreign country without an interpreter, without any knowledge of how to speak the language, AND without any money to bribe or shall we say compensate someone to provide me with directions.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda & Supporting Documents
    Cochrane Scientific Committee AGENDA 28th February 2018 8pm-10pm UK GMT Cochrane Scientific Committee Agenda 28th February 2017 OPEN ACCESS 2 Philippe Ravaud (PR) Professor of Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Head of the Clinical Epidemiology Centre, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Paris Descartes University, France AGENDA and Director of Cochrane France. Johannes Reistma (JR) Associate Professor at the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands and a member of both the DT – David Tovey, Editor in Chief, JC – Jackie Chandler, Methods Co-ordinator Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group and the Screening and Committee members: Diagnostic Tests Methods Group. Corinna Dressler (CD) Rebecca Ryan (RR) Research Associate at the Division of Evidence-Based Medicine (dEBM) at the Research Fellow at the School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany University, Australia and Deputy Co-ordinating Editor of the Cochrane Donna Gilles (DG) Consumers and Communication Group. Senior Researcher, Clinical Performance Mental Health Network, Western Christopher Schmid (CS) Sydney, Australia and editor for both the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial Professor of Biostatistics, founding member and Co-Director of the Center for and Learning Problems Group and Diagnostic Test Accuracy Review Group. Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown School of Public Health, US, Fellow of the Julian Higgins (JH) American Statistical Association (ASA) and Founding Co-Editor of Research Professor of Evidence Synthesis at the School of Social and Community Synthesis Methods. Medicine, at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK, and current Senior Scientific Nicole Skoetz (NS) Editor of the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews for Interventions.
    [Show full text]
  • Instructions to Authors and Guidelines for Manuscript Submission
    Instructions to Authors and Guidelines for Manuscript Submission 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Objectives and readership 1.2 Contents 1.2.1 Original research articles 1.2.2 Reviews 1.2.3 Special reports 1.2.4 Opinion and analysis 1.2.5 Brief communications 1.2.6 Current topics 1.2.7 Letters to the editor 1.3 Language 1.4 Guidelines and research protocols 1.5 Ethics 1.6 Conflict of interests 1.7 Copyright 1.8 Peer review process 1.9 Dissemination 2 GUIDELINES FOR MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION 2.1 General criteria for manuscript acceptance 2.2 Manuscript specifications 2.3 Formatting requirements 2.4 Title 2.5 Authorship 2.6 Abstract and keywords page 2.7 Body of the article 2.8 Tables and figures 2.9 Submitting the manuscript 2.10 Editing the manuscript 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Objectives and readership The Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública/Pan American Journal of Public Health (RPSP/PAJPH) is a free-access, peer-reviewed, monthly journal, published as the flagship scientific and technical publication of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), headquartered in Washington, D.C., United States of America. Its mission is to serve as an important vehicle for disseminating scientific public health information of international significance, mainly in areas related to PAHO's essential mission to strengthen national and local health systems and improve the health of the peoples of the Americas. To this end, the RPSP/PAJPH publishes materials that reflect PAHO's main strategic objectives and programmatic areas: health and human development, health promotion and protection, prevention and control of communicable and chronic diseases, maternal and child health, gender and women's health, mental health, violence, nutrition, environmental health, disaster management, development of health systems and services, social determinants of health, and health equity.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 62 - March - April 2013
    No. 62 - March - April 2013 Facebook Twitter RSS EIFL update EIFL team meets Aung San Suu Kyi on Myanmar trip EIFL-Licensing update Renewal agreement for OED Online and Oxford Reference Online Extension of pilot agreement for Wiley-Blackwell Standard Journals Collections Mary Ann Liebert Journals now available through EIFL EIFL-OA update EIFL joins the new DOAJ Advisory Board EPT awards Iryna Kuchma for her advocacy of OA EIFL releases results of OA advocacy grants EIFL Call for proposals: Open access advocacy campaigns EIFL-IP update EIFL statement in support of LDC TRIPs waiver Thanks to CFL tweeters! EIFL supports open dialogue on text and data mining Copyright reform in Poland: libraries are prepared EIFL-FOSS update EIFL FOSS launches disability tools for libraries guide and support community Webinars survey reveals FOSS progress EIFL-PLIP update Libraries tell impact stories Library health services showcase their impact Five library ICT services improve farmers’ lives Three public libraries help young people find jobs Five libraries win EIFL-PLIP award for social inclusion New PLIP award to mark international women’s day Events March – April 2013 events EIFL | knowledge without boundaries EIFL update EIFL team meets Aung San Suu Kyi on Myanmar trip As part of the Beyond Access delegation to Myanmar, EIFL team members Rima Kupryte and Monika Elbert met with Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Myanmar MP Aung San Suu Kyi. The delegation met with Aung San Suu Kyi in Naypyidaw to discuss her vision of public libraries in Myanmar and the roles these libraries can play in the communities they serve.
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching and Supporting Researchers to Develop Better Research Questions
    Teaching and supporting researchers to develop better research questions EBHC preconference workshop Sicily, October 2017 Trish Groves Director of academic outreach BMJ Editor-in-chief BMJ Open [email protected] twitter @trished Competing interests I’m editor in chief of BMJ Open and Director of academic outreach at BMJ Publishing Group, owned by the British Medical Association (BMA) Part of the revenue for BMJ comes from drug & device manufacturers through advertising, reprint sales, & sponsorship. The BMJ (British Medical Journal) and BMJ Open are open access journals that charge article publishing fees for research. I’m editorial lead for the BMJ Research to Publication eLearning programme (by subscription). My annual bonus scheme is based partly on the overall financial performance of both BMJ and BMJ Research to Publication 85% research is wasted, costing >$100bn/yr Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2014; 374: 86-9. REWARD Alliance http://researchwaste.net/about/ Why do editors reject research? What are the main reasons for journal editors to reject a research paper, even if well written and presented? • the research question isn’t sufficiently new, interesting, or important • the question is answered with suboptimal design • investigators often lack training on developing good research questions, choosing study designs, and reporting research effectively What exactly is a research question? An article reporting a study should state a specific question A research question is more than an objective or aim. It focuses the hypothesis and suggests how to find an answer Broad questions may be split to yield several testable hypotheses.
    [Show full text]
  • Writing Narrative Style Literature Reviews
    Writing narrative style literature reviews Correspondence to: Rossella Ferrari Rossella Ferrari Milan, Italy Freelance medical writer, Milan Italy [email protected] Abstract Reviews provide a synthesis of published literature summarizing what has been previously published, on a topic and describe its current state-of-art. avoiding duplications, and seeking new study Reviews in clinical research are thus useful when areas not yet addressed.3,5,6 While PRISMA designing studies or developing practice guidelines. (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews The two standard types of reviews are (a) systematic and Meta-Analyses) provides reporting guidelines and (b) non-systematic or narrative review. Unlike for SRs, no acknowledged guidelines are available systematic reviews that benefit from guidelines for NR writing. The task of review writing is fre- such as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for quently assigned to medical writers, for example, Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, on new or completed research projects, synthesis there are no acknowledged guidelines for narrative for editorial projects. However, training opportu- reviews. I have attempted to define the best practice nities on writing literature reviews in the biomedical recommendations for the preparation of a narrative field are few. The objective of the present study is to review in clinical research. The quality of a narrative identify practice guidelines to improve NR writing review may be improved by borrowing from the sys- on topics related to clinical research. tematic review methodologies that are aimed at reducing bias in the selection of articles for review Comparison of narrative and and employing an effective bibliographic research systematic styles of literature reviews strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Reports of Meetings
    European Science Editing 10 February 2011; 37(1) Reports of Meetings METM10 – a jamboree for editors and translators Mediterranean Editors and Translators Meeting 2010, Tarragona, Spain, 28-30 October 2010 I first came across the Mediterranean Editors and repeated at various times of the year, mainly in Barcelona. Translators (MET) group after I joined the translation The ones I missed at METM10 included “Righting citing” team on Actas Dermosifiliográficas, a bilingual dermatology by Iain Patten, helping editors to spot referencing errors or journal produced by Elsevier. My motivation for attending misplaced citations and suggesting ways to resolve these the first MET meeting was partly the wish to put faces on issues; Alan Lounds on how genre analysis can support the other members of a team I had only met virtually and editors and translators of research articles in improving partly the need for guidance to improve the quality of my abstracts and introductions; John Bates on approaches to medical output. effective paragraphing; Marije de Jager and Dado Cakalo What greeted me was a community of supremely with pointers on how editors should deal with plagiarism in professional editors and translators willing to openly share science writing; and Felicity Neilson with an introduction their expertise in order to provide better language services to editing medical texts. and promote the related professions. Most of the sessions offered were practice-based, with real working examples of During the issues in hand presented by experienced professionals. The conference proper had a rich programme of plenary The 2010 MET meeting, “Facilitating knowledge transfer speeches, panels, and parallel sessions of knowledge updates – through editing, translation, coaching”, was held in and promising practices for editors and translators.
    [Show full text]
  • Marc Scheufen on the Organisation and International Political Economy
    International Law and Economics Marc Scheufen Copyright Versus Open Access On the Organisation and International Political Economy of Access to Scienti c Knowledge International Law and Economics More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13428 Marc Scheufen Copyright Versus Open Access On the Organisation and International Political Economy of Access to Scientific Knowledge 123 Marc Scheufen Ruhr University of Bochum Faculty of Law Bochum Germany ISBN 978-3-319-12738-5 ISBN 978-3-319-12739-2 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-12739-2 Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London Library of Congress Control Number: 2014958302 © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Advantages, Policy and Advocacy Ariadne Chloe Furnival ABSTRACT the Open Access
    1 Open access to scholarly communications: advantages, policy and advocacy1 Ariadne Chloe Furnival2 ABSTRACT The Open Access (OA) movement regards OA modes of disseminating research as the unequivocal future of scholarly communication. Proponents of the open access movement itself have, over the last ten years, carried out systematic research to show how OA can tangibly benefit researchers, institutions and society at large. Even so, the number of research papers being uploaded to OA institutional repositories remains relatively low, frequently based on concerns which often contradict the facts. Policies for OA have been introduced to encourage author uptake, and these are also discussed here. Briefly delineating aspects of these phenomena, this paper will then move on to outline and discuss advocacy for OA in organisations, and whether this should be “downstream”, in the form of informational campaigns, or “upstream”, in the form of top-down change management. This paper seeks to make a contribution to these issues in the OA sphere, by brining into the debate strands from the literature of the sociology of science and management science that will hopefully elucidate aspects of author reactions to OA, and the perceived changes that its adoption gives rise to. Introduction Ever since the enshrining of the concept of Open Access (hereafter, “OA”) in the declarations like those of the Budapest OA Initiative (2002), the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003) and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) – famously referred to as the “3 B‟s” by Peter Suber – , there has been a veritable proliferation of projects worldwide promoting OA as the future mode of scholarly communication.
    [Show full text]