DOCSLIB.ORG

Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future A Project Report and Associated Recommendations, Proceedings from a Meeting, and Background Papers Diane Harley and Sophia Krzys Acord with contributions from Sarah Earl-Novell, Shannon Lawrence, and Elise Herrala March 2011 The Future of Scholarly Communication Project University of California, Berkeley http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/scholarlycommunication © 2005–2011, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley Center for Studies in Higher Education 771 Evans Hall #4650 University of California Berkeley CA 94720-4650 (510) 642-5040 http://cshe.berkeley.edu Citation: Harley, Diane, and Sophia Krzys Acord. 2011. Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future. UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1xv148c8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and all of the workshop participants for their generous support and contributions to this project, including reviewing various iterations of the report. Throughout, we borrowed liberally from the many ideas presented by attendees at both meetings. Their ideas are central to this report, including the background documents. We would also like to thank a number of people who made this project possible, including: Shannon Lawrence and Emily Hilligoss for editorial support; Matthew Winfield at the California Digital Library for his personal help in publishing the report on e-scholarship; and Karen Weinbaum, Christina Herd, Meg Griffith, and Elisabeth Gordon for administrative assistance. HARLEY AND ACORD PEER REVIEW IN ACADEMIC PROMOTION AND PUBLISHING ABSTRACT Since 2005, and with generous support from the A.W. Mellon Foundation, The Future of Scholarly Communication Project at UC Berkeley's Center for Studies in Higher Education (CSHE) has been exploring how academic values—including those related to peer review, publishing, sharing, and collaboration—influence scholarly communication practices and engagement with new technological affordances, open access publishing, and the public good. The current phase of the project focuses on peer review in the Academy; this deeper look at peer review is a natural extension of our findings in Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines (Harley et al. 2010), which stressed the need for a more nuanced academic reward system that is less dependent on citation metrics, the slavish adherence to marquee journals and university presses, and the growing tendency of institutions to outsource assessment of scholarship to such proxies as default promotion criteria. This investigation is made urgent by a host of new challenges facing institutional peer review, such as assessing interdisciplinary scholarship, hybrid disciplines, the development of new online forms of edition making and collaborative curation for community resource use, heavily computational subdisciplines, large-scale collaborations around grand challenge questions, an increase in multiple authorship, a growing flood of low-quality publications, and the call by governments, funding bodies, universities, and individuals for the open access publication of taxpayer-subsidized research, including original data sets. The challenges of assessing the current and future state of peer review are exacerbated by pressing questions of how the significant costs of high-quality scholarly publishing can be borne in the face of calls for alternative, usually university-based and open access, publishing models for both journals and books. There is additionally the insidious and destructive “trickle down” of tenure and promotion requirements from elite research universities to less competitive and non- research-intensive institutions. The entire system is further stressed by the mounting—and often unrealistic—government pressure on scholars in developed and emerging economies alike to publish their research in the most select peer-reviewed outlets, ostensibly to determine the distribution of government funds (via research assessment exercises) and/or to meet national imperatives to achieve research distinction internationally. The global effect is a growing glut of low-quality publications that strains the efficient and effective practice of peer review, a practice that is, itself, primarily subsidized by universities in the form of faculty salaries. Library budgets and preservation services for this expansion of peer-reviewed publication have run out. Faculty time spent on peer review, in all of its guises, is being exhausted. As part of our ongoing research, CSHE hosted two meetings to address the relationship between peer review in publication and that carried out for tenure and promotion. Our discussions included: The Dominant System of Peer Review: Types, Standards, Uses, Abuses, and Costs; A Very Tangled Web: Alternatives to the Current System of Peer Review; Creating New Models: The Role of Societies, Presses, Libraries, Information Technology Organizations, Commercial Publishers, and Other Stakeholders; and Open Access “Mandates” and Resolutions versus Developing New Models. This report includes (1) an overview of the state of peer review in the Academy at large, (2) a set of recommendations for moving forward, (3) a proposed research agenda to examine in depth the effects of academic status-seeking on the entire academic enterprise, (4) proceedings from the workshop on the four topics noted above, and (5) four substantial and broadly conceived background papers on the workshop topics, with associated literature reviews. The http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/scholarlycommunication ABSTRACT ⎪ i HARLEY AND ACORD PEER REVIEW IN ACADEMIC PROMOTION AND PUBLISHING document explores, in particular, the tightly intertwined phenomena of peer review in publication and academic promotion, the values and associated costs to the Academy of the current system, experimental forms of peer review in various disciplinary areas, the effects of scholarly practices on the publishing system, and the possibilities and real costs of creating alternative loci for peer review and publishing that link scholarly societies, libraries, institutional repositories, and university presses. We also explore the motivations and ingredients of successful open access resolutions that are directed at peer-reviewed article-length material. In doing so, this report suggests that creating a wider array of institutionally acceptable and cost- effective alternatives to peer reviewing and publishing scholarly work could maintain the quality of academic peer review, support greater research productivity, reduce the explosive growth of low-quality publications, increase the purchasing power of cash-strapped libraries, better support the free flow and preservation of ideas, and relieve the burden on overtaxed faculty of conducting too much peer review. http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/scholarlycommunication ABSTRACT ⎪ ii HARLEY AND ACORD PEER REVIEW IN ACADEMIC PROMOTION AND PUBLISHING TABLE OF CONTENTS PEER REVIEW IN ACADEMIC PROMOTION AND PUBLISHING: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND ..................... 1 What Do We Mean by Peer Review?...................................................................................................................... 1 Road Map to the Report and Methods .................................................................................................................... 5 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Some Suggestions for Further Research .............................................................................................................. 11 WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS SESSION 1. The Dominant System of Peer Review: Types, Standards, Uses, Abuses, and Costs ................... 15 BACKGROUND PAPER 1. Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Norms, Complaints, and Costs .................................................................................................................................................................... 21 The Value of Publication-based Peer Review ....................................................................................................... 22 Complaints about Publication-based Peer Review ............................................................................................... 23 The Costs of the Publication-based Peer-Review System and Who Bears Them ................................................ 27 SESSION 2. A Very Tangled Web: Alternatives to the Current System of Peer Review ...................................... 31 BACKGROUND PAPER 2. New Models of Peer Review: Repositories, Open Peer Review, and Post-Publication Metrics ........................................................................................................................................... 41 The Changing Landscape of Peer Review ............................................................................................................ 41 An Overview of Attempts to Reform the Existing Peer-Review System ................................................................ 41 Pre-Publication Peer Review ................................................................................................................................ 43 “Open” Peer-Review Experiments
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Announcement
    Announcement Total 100 articles, created at 2016-06-09 18:04 1 Best mobile games of 2016 (pictures) Looking for a new game to play on your mobile device? Here's our pick of the best released in 2016 (so far). 2016-06-09 12:53 677Bytes (1.08/2) www.cnet.com 2 Apple revamps App Store, may not win over developers Apple Inc. announced a series of long-awaited enhancements to (1.05/2) its App Store on Wednesday, but the new features may not ease concerns of developers and analysts who say that the App Store model - and the very idea of the single-purpose app - has... 2016-06-09 08:46 4KB pctechmag.com 3 HPE Unveils Converged Systems for IoT The Edgeline EL1000 and EL4000 systems are part of a larger series of announcements by HPE to address such IoT issues as (1.02/2) security and management. 2016-06-09 12:49 5KB www.eweek.com 4 What is AmazonFresh? Amazon launches new grocery service for the UK: Can I get (1.02/2) AmazonFresh in the UK? What is AmazonFresh, Amazon launches new grocery service for the UK, Can I get AmazonFresh in the UK, where does AmazonFresh deliver, what does AmazonFresh deliver 2016-06-09 12:42 3KB www.pcadvisor.co.uk 5 Borderlands 3 UK release date, price and gamelplay rumours: Gearbox has confirmed the (1.02/2) game is being developed Gearbox, the developers behind the Borderlands series are back it again with a new game on the horizon. 2016-06-09 11:00 3KB www.pcadvisor.co.uk 6 More Than 32 Million Twitter Passwords May Have Been Hacked And Leaked On The Dark (1.02/2) Web Last week Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg's social accounts; Pinterest and Twitter were briefly hacked, with the details coming from the LinkedIn breach that happened in 2012, with the founder of the world’s biggest social network reusing the password “dadada.” This time around Twitter users have become the..
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Elsevier Foundation Annual Report
    2017 Elsevier Foundation Report Médecins Sans Frontiers doctors conduct a Phase III rotavirus vaccine trial at Epicentre’s Niger Research Center at the Maradi Hospital, which receives an annual capacity building grant of $100,000 from the Elsevier Foundation. © KRISHAN Cheyenne/MSF White City students at a recent Imperial College London workshop with the student drone society. The Elsevier Foundation supported Maker’s Challenge space will launch in September, hosting future White City students as they navigate 3D printers, tackle robotics and many other tech challenges. © Imperial College London 2017 OWSD-Elsevier Foundation woman scientist award winner Felycia Edi Soetaredjo, PhD, Lecturer at Widya Mandala Surabaya Catholic University in Surabaya, Indonesia, was recognized for her work utilizing waste and cheap materials for environmental remediation of renewable energy. © Widya Mandala Surabaya Catholic University The Elsevier Foundation 2017 Board Report 2 Contents Foreword: Youngsuk “YS” Chi, President of the Elsevier Foundation I. The Elsevier Foundation 1. Who we are 2. Our Board 3. Our Programs 4. Our Future II. Our Programs 1. Health & Innovation 2. Research in Developing Countries 3. Diversity in STM 4. Technology for Development IV. Matching Gift V. Media Outreach VI. Financial Overview VII. Appendix The Elsevier Foundation 2017 Board Report 3 The Elsevier Foundation 2017 Board Report 4 Foreword On the occasion of the September 2017 Elsevier Foundation Board Meeting It has been an incredible privilege to steer collaboration in Sustainability. The TWAS the Elsevier Foundation’s development Elsevier Foundation Program provides over the last decade. I continue to be travel grants for PhD’s and postdoc inspired by the dedication and resolve of scientists studying in sustainability fields this group as we strive to tackle important and hosts case study competitions to global challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies and Analysis of Reference Management Software: a Literature Review
    Studies and analysis of reference management software: a literature review Jesús Tramullas Ana Sánchez-Casabón {jesus,asanchez}@unizar.es Dept .of Library & Information Science, University of Zaragoza Piedad Garrido-Picazo [email protected] Dept. of Computer and Software Engineering, University of Zaragoza Abstract: Reference management software is a well-known tool for scientific research work. Since the 1980s, it has been the subject of reviews and evaluations in library and information science literature. This paper presents a systematic review of published studies that evaluate reference management software with a comparative approach. The objective is to identify the types, models, and evaluation criteria that authors have adopted, in order to determine whether the methods used provide adequate methodological rigor and useful contributions to the field of study. Keywords: reference management software, evaluation methods, bibliography. 1. Introduction and background Reference management software has been a useful tool for researchers since the 1980s. In those early years, tools were made ad-hoc, and some were based on the dBase II/III database management system (Bertrand and Bader, 1980; Kunin, 1985). In a short period of time a market was created and commercial products were developed to provide support to this type of information resources. The need of researchers to systematize scientific literature in both group and personal contexts, and to integrate mechanisms into scientific production environments in order to facilitate and expedite the process of writing and publishing research results, requires that these types of applications receive almost constant attention in specialized library and information science literature. The result of this interest is reflected, in bibliographical terms, in the publication of numerous articles almost exclusively devoted to describing, analyzing, and comparing the characteristics of several reference management software products (Norman, 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: a Review and Framework
    Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework Item Type Journal Article (On-line/Unpaginated) Authors Trant, Jennifer Citation Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework 2009-01, 10(1) Journal of Digital Information Journal Journal of Digital Information Download date 02/10/2021 03:25:18 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/105375 Trant, Jennifer (2009) Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework. Journal of Digital Information 10(1). Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework J. Trant, University of Toronto / Archives & Museum Informatics 158 Lee Ave, Toronto, ON Canada M4E 2P3 jtrant [at] archimuse.com Abstract This paper reviews research into social tagging and folksonomy (as reflected in about 180 sources published through December 2007). Methods of researching the contribution of social tagging and folksonomy are described, and outstanding research questions are presented. This is a new area of research, where theoretical perspectives and relevant research methods are only now being defined. This paper provides a framework for the study of folksonomy, tagging and social tagging systems. Three broad approaches are identified, focusing first, on the folksonomy itself (and the role of tags in indexing and retrieval); secondly, on tagging (and the behaviour of users); and thirdly, on the nature of social tagging systems (as socio-technical frameworks). Keywords: Social tagging, folksonomy, tagging, literature review, research review 1. Introduction User-generated keywords – tags – have been suggested as a lightweight way of enhancing descriptions of on-line information resources, and improving their access through broader indexing. “Social Tagging” refers to the practice of publicly labeling or categorizing resources in a shared, on-line environment.
    [Show full text]
  • What Makes a Good Reference Manager? A
    1 What Makes A Good Reference Manager? 2 Quantitative Analysis of Bibliography Management Applications 3 4 5 ∗ 6 ANONYMOUS AUTHOR(S) 7 Reference managers have been widely used by researchers and students. While previous performed qualitative analysis for reference 8 managers, it is unclear how to asses these tools quantitatively. In this paper, we attempted to quantify the physical and mental effort to 9 10 use a reference manager. Specifically, we use a keystroke and mouse move logger, RUI, to record and analyze the user’s activities and 11 approximate the physical and mental effort. We also use pre- and post-study surveys to keep track of the participant’s preferences and 12 experiences with reference managers, and also their self-reported task load (NASA TLX Index.) In this pilot work, we first collected 69 13 pre-study surveys from graduate students to understand their experience with reference managers, and then conducted user study 14 with 12 voluntary participants. Four common reference managers, Mendeley, Zotero, EndNote, and RefWorks, were included in our 15 study. The results show, for the same task, different software might require different levels of effort, and users generally preferthe 16 tools that require less effort. We also observe that although these reference managers share similar features, the differences intheir 17 18 presentation and organization matter. Factors such as pricing, cloud sync and accuracy of bibliography generation also influence the 19 preference of users. We conclude this work by providing a set of guidelines for users and developers. 20 CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing ! Usability testing; Activity centered design.
    [Show full text]
  • Mendeley Reader Counts for US Computer Science Conference
    1 Mendeley Reader Counts for US Computer Science Conference Papers and Journal articles1 Mike Thelwall, Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, University of Wolverhampton, UK. Although bibliometrics are normally applied to journal articles when used to support research evaluations, conference papers are at least as important in fast-moving computing- related fields. It is therefore important to assess the relative advantages of citations and altmetrics for computing conference papers to make an informed decision about which, if any, to use. This paper compares Scopus citations with Mendeley reader counts for conference papers and journal articles that were published between 1996 and 2018 in 11 computing fields and had at least one US author. The data showed high correlations between Scopus citation counts and Mendeley reader counts in all fields and most years, but with few Mendeley readers for older conference papers and few Scopus citations for new conference papers and journal articles. The results therefore suggest that Mendeley reader counts have a substantial advantage over citation counts for recently-published conference papers due to their greater speed, but are unsuitable for older conference papers. Keywords: Altmetrics; Mendeley; Scientometrics; Computer Science; Computing; Conference papers 1 Introduction Altmetrics, social media indicators for the impact of academic research derived from the web (Priem, Taraborelli, Groth, & Neylon, 2010), are now widely available to help assess academic outputs. Altmetric.com, for example, collects a range of data about online mentions of academic documents, supplying it to journal publishers to display in article pages, to institutions to help them analyse their work and to researchers to track the impact of their publications (Adie & Roe, 2013; Liu & Adie, 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Module Five - Management of Information
    Module Five - Management of Information Introduction “Where did I read this information?”, “I know that I printed a copy of this article, but I don't remember where I kept it.” These are very common situations among researchers, students or anybody whose works involve using documents. In the course of learning, teaching and research, information accessed from diverse sources accumulates. Without a proper information management practice; such information may be difficult to find and later locate. In certain instance some people may print the same documents again and again, or search for the same information every time they need it. As a consequence there is a need for this information to be organized so that it becomes easily accessible. Managing this information properly will save time, energy and lead to increased productivity. This module discusses tools and techniques for collecting, storing, organizing and using information. Special attention will be given to the management of the following categories of information: bibliographic references, primary documents such as books or articles, user’s notes and manuscripts. Learning Objectives In this module we will: • Explain the benefits of good organization of information, • Present referenced management tools, • present bookmark management tools, • Discuss information management techniques. Learning Outcomes At the end of the module, one should be able to: • Understand the importance of managing information, • Use a reference management software for storing bibliographic references, •
    [Show full text]
  • Reference Management Software (Rms) in an Academic Environment: a Survey at a Research University in Malaysia
    Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology 10 th June 2016. Vol.88. No.1 © 2005 - 2016 JATIT & LLS. All rights reserved . ISSN: 1992-8645 www.jatit.org E-ISSN: 1817-3195 REFERENCE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE (RMS) IN AN ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT: A SURVEY AT A RESEARCH UNIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA 1MOHAMMAD OSMANI, 2ROZAN MZA, 3BAKHTYAR ALI AHMAD, 4ARI SABIR ARIF 1 Department of Management, Mahabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mahabad, Iran 2 Faculty of Computing, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Johor, Malaysia 3 Faculty of Geo Information and Real Estate, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Johor, Malaysia 4 Faculty of Physical and Basic Education, University of Sulaimani (UOS), Sulaimani, Iraq E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] , [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT Reference Management Software is used by researchers in academics to manage the bibliographic citations they encounter in their research. With these tools, scholars keep track of the scientific literature they read, and to facilitate the editing of the scientific papers they write. This study presents the results of a quantitative survey performed at a research university in Malaysia. The aims of the survey were to observe how much these softwares are used by the scientific community, to see which softwares are most known and used, and to find out the reasons and the approaches behind their usage. Manually questionnaire was distributed to the Master and PhD students at all faculties in Jun 2014. The data collected were analysed through a constant comparative analysis, and the following categories were drawn: a basic practical approach to the instrument, the heavy impact of the time factor, the force of habit in scholars, economic issues, the importance of training and literacy, and the role that the library can have in this stage.
    [Show full text]
  • Science and Medical Publishers Imprints List Version 1.1, October 2007 8 October 2007 Version
    Science and Medical Publishers Imprints List Version 1.1, October 2007 8 October 2007 version Publishing house Imprints & former imprints Internet site or e-mail address for permissions contacts or information American Association AAAS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/readers/per for the Advancement of Science (magazine) missions.dtl Science American Chemical ACS http://pubs.acs.org/copyright/index.html Society Chemical Abstracts Service CAS American Institute of AIP http://journals.aip.org/copyright.html Physics [include AIP member societies?] [email protected] American Medical AMA http://pubs.ama- Association assn.org/misc/permissions.dtl American Physical APS http://librarians.aps.org/permissionscopy.htm Society l American Psychological APA http://www.apa.org/about/copyright.html Association American Society of ASCE http://www.pubs.asce.org/authors/Rightslink Civil Engineers WelcomePage.htm American Society of ASCO http://jco.ascopubs.org/misc/permissions.sht Clinical Oncology ml Association of ACM http://www.acm.org/pubs/copyright_policy/ Computing Machinery, Inc. Atlas Medical Clinical Publishing http://www.clinicalpublishing.co.uk/contact. Publishing Ltd asp BMJ Publishing Group British Medical Journal http://journals.bmj.com/misc/permissions.dtl BMJ Brill Academic Brill http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=15 Publishers Hotei Publishing IDC Martinus Nijhoff VSP Cambridge University CUP Press CABI CSIRO Publishing CSIRO http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/182.htm#8 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Australia)
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluación De Software Libre Para La Gestión De Bibliografía
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by E-LIS Evaluación de software libre para la gestión de bibliografía Mónica Giménez López Jesús Tramullas Saz Resumen Las herramientas sociales de gestión de bibliografía están emergiendo rápidamente en la web. En este trabajo se lleva a cabo una evaluación de las herramientas de gestión bibliográfica más reconocidas existentes en la red. Al tratarse de herramientas libres y open source, se pretende elegir la mejor para desarrollar un servicio de gestión de bibliografías en castellano. Palabras clave Gestión bibliográfica, software libre, redes sociales, web 2.0., web semántica, Abstract The Social Tools in bibliography management are growing really fast on the Internet. In this project we’re going to evaluate the most popular management bibliography tools known. We’re going to select the best open source tool in order to develop a bibliography management service in Spanish Castilian. Keywords Bibliography management, free software, open source, social network, web 2.0., semantic web 1. Introducción Este trabajo pretende hacer una evaluación de varias herramientas de gestión bibliográfica que existen en la red, y que permiten importar, organizar, exportar, editar y compartir referencias bibliográficas, así como crear bibliografías personales y darle formato. Entre la amplia variedad de herramientas de gestión bibliográfica, disponibles, se han seleccionado las siguientes: • Bibsonomy ( http://www.bibsonomy.org ) • CiteuLike ( http://www.citeulike.org ) • Connotea ( www.connotea.org ) • Refbase ( http://refbase.sourceforge.net ) • Wikindx ( http://wikindx.sourceforge.net/ ) • Zotero ( http://www.zotero.org/ ) Se han analizado las características y capacidades que pueden interesar desde un punto de vista documental.
    [Show full text]
  • E-Journal Archiving Metes and Bounds: a Survey of the Landscape
    E-Journal Archiving Metes and Bounds: A Survey of the Landscape by Anne R. Kenney, Richard Entlich, Peter B. Hirtle, Nancy Y. McGovern, and Ellie L. Buckley September 2006 Council on Library and Information Resources Washington, D.C. ii ISBN 1-932326-26-X ISBN 978-1-932326-26-0 CLIR Publication No. 138 Published by: Council on Library and Information Resources 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Web site at http://www.clir.org Additional copies are available for $30 each. Orders must be placed through CLIR’s Web site. This publication is also available online at no charge at http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub138abst.html. The paper in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard 8 for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials ANSI Z39.48-1984. Copyright 2006 by the Council on Library and Information Resources. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transcribed in any form without permission of the publishers. Requests for reproduction or other uses or questions pertaining to permissions should be submitted in writing to the Director of Communications at the Council on Library and Information Resources. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kenney, Anne R., 1950- E-journal archiving metes and bounds : a survey of the landscape / by Anne R. Kenney ... [et al.]. p. cm. -- (CLIR publication ; no. 138) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN-13: 978-1-932326-26-0 (alk. paper) 1. Electronic journals--Conservation and restoration. 2. Electronic journals--Publishing. 3. Scholarly periodicals--Conservation and restoration.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Techniques in Network and Information Technologies, February
    Tools to support research M. Antonia Huertas Sánchez PID_00185350 CC-BY-SA • PID_00185350 Tools to support research The texts and images contained in this publication are subject -except where indicated to the contrary- to an Attribution- ShareAlike license (BY-SA) v.3.0 Spain by Creative Commons. This work can be modified, reproduced, distributed and publicly disseminated as long as the author and the source are quoted (FUOC. Fundació per a la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya), and as long as the derived work is subject to the same license as the original material. The full terms of the license can be viewed at http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/es/legalcode.ca CC-BY-SA • PID_00185350 Tools to support research Index Introduction............................................................................................... 5 Objectives..................................................................................................... 6 1. Management........................................................................................ 7 1.1. Databases search engine ............................................................. 7 1.2. Reference and bibliography management tools ......................... 18 1.3. Tools for the management of research projects .......................... 26 2. Data Analysis....................................................................................... 31 2.1. Tools for quantitative analysis and statistics software packages ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]