DOCSLIB.ORG

Working with Publication Technology to Make Open Access Journals Sustainable

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Working with Publication Technology to Make Open Access Journals Sustainable A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Wrzesinski, Marcel; Riechert, Patrick Urs; Dubois, Frédéric; Katzenbach, Christian Working Paper Working with publication technology to make open access journals sustainable HIIG Discussion Paper Series, No. 2021-2 Suggested Citation: Wrzesinski, Marcel; Riechert, Patrick Urs; Dubois, Frédéric; Katzenbach, Christian (2021) : Working with publication technology to make open access journals sustainable, HIIG Discussion Paper Series, No. 2021-2, Alexander von Humboldt Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft (HIIG), Berlin, http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4558781 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/231355 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ www.econstor.eu MARCEL WRZESINSKI, PATRICK URS RIECHERT, FRÉDÉRIC DUBOIS, CHRISTIAN KATZENBACH Working with publication technology to make open access journals sustainable HIIG DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES 2021-02 WORKING WITH PUBLICATIONS TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS SUSTAINABLE ABSTRACT Over the last 25 years, scholars around the world have used electronic publishing to open up their work, share it with interested publics instantly or even become publishers themselves. This white paper explores in what ways advances in publication technology in the journal sector (e.g. the widespread use of content management and editorial systems) contributes to a more inclusive and sustainable open access ecosystem. Drawing on a study we did in Germany in 2019-2021, and for which we tested technical solutions together with the international, peer-reviewed diamond open access journal Internet Policy Review, we present and discuss publishing solutions based on software, workflows, and collaborations with regard to their practicability and scalability. The paper finds that scholar-led publishing is a force to be reckoned with when it comes to technical solutions tending towards increased bibliodiversity (i.e., variety of content, publication formats and publishing institutions). KEYWORDS Open access, Scholar-led, Publication technology, Sustainability, Small sciences CITATION Wrzesinski, M., Riechert, P. U., Dubois, F., & Katzenbach, C. (2021). Working with publication technology to make open access journals sustainable. HIIG Discussion Paper Series 2021-2. 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4558781 LICENCE This work is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (International) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Copyright remains with the authors. AUTHOR INFO / FUNDING Marcel Wrzesinski is Open Access Officer at the Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society and a researcher in the project “Innovative Open Access in the Small Sciences”. He worked with several Open Access Gold journals in order to create and sustain structures of scholar-led publishing. Patrick Urs Riechert is Student Assistant at the Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society where he works as editorial assistant for e-journal Internet Policy Review. He is an MA student in Political science at Freie Universität Berlin. HIIG DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES · 2021-02 1 WORKING WITH PUBLICATIONS TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS SUSTAINABLE Frédéric Dubois is Managing Editor of Internet Policy Review, an open access journal on internet regulation published by the Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society. Dr Christian Katzenbach is Senior Researcher and Research Group Leader at the Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society. He co-directs the interdisciplinary research program “Digital Society“ and leads multiple international projects on platform governance, controversies around artificial intelligence, and open access. The project “Innovative Open Access in the Small Sciences” is a cooperation between the Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society and the ZBW—Leibniz Information Centre for Economics and was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) between June 2019 and February 2021. HIIG DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES · 2021-02 2 WORKING WITH PUBLICATIONS TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS SUSTAINABLE CONTENT 1 Introduction 5 2 Technical innovations fostering sustainability 6 3 Open access and web accessibility 7 3.1 Web accessibility and accessibility evaluation 7 3.2 Accessible output formats 8 3.3 Key steps 9 3.4 Use case Internet Policy Review 9 4 Archiving, identification, and indexing: Making research available, discoverable, and impactful 11 4.1 Availability through long-term preservation 11 4.2 Identification services for electronic publishing 12 4.3 Indices and metrics for research dissemination 14 4.4 Key steps 17 4.5 Use case Internet Policy Review 17 5 Managing and documenting workflows: Open source (journal) systems 20 5.1 Editorial management systems as tools of sustainability 20 5.2 Key steps 21 5.3 Use case Internet Policy Review 21 6 Recommendations for sustainable open access publishing 24 6.1 Streamlining workflows with professional publication software 24 6.2 Displaying and contextualising altmetrics to showcase bibliometric diversity 24 6.3 Increasing impact through repository-based archiving and indexing 25 6.4 Providing accessible, single-source output formats 25 HIIG DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES · 2021-02 3 WORKING WITH PUBLICATIONS TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS SUSTAINABLE 6.5 Identifying authors and institutions via open databases and standards 25 7 Conclusion 25 8 References 26 HIIG DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES · 2021-02 4 WORKING WITH PUBLICATIONS TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS SUSTAINABLE 1 Introduction The publishing industry transformed more in the last 25 years than it has in the previous three hundred, largely due to the digital revolution: new business models arose (Björk and Korkeamäki, 2020) and an innovative culture of writing and reading emerged. Suddenly, electronic publishing enabled researchers around the world to open up their work, share it with an interested public instantly, or become publishers themselves (e.g., by running open access journals, university presses, or other publishing initiatives). This coincided with the formation of the open access movement, which questioned the toll access model and 1 fostered an equitable, open system of science. And besides the many good political reasons for publishing 2 research open access, there are also pragmatic and infrastructural advantages of electronic publishing and the technological revolution behind it: knowledge is more powerful if created together, it can be 3 disseminated widely and more quickly, and its scientometric impact can be measured more efficiently. Against this backdrop, this white paper explores in what ways advances in publication technology and electronic publishing in the journal sector (e.g., the widespread use of content management systems and the rise of editorial management systems like OJS) can contribute to a more inclusive and sustainable open access ecosystem, therefore increasing independence, productivity, and quality. As such and acknowledging the diversity of stakeholders within that ecosystem, this paper addresses not only those actively involved in publishing academic content but also funders and readers. This wide audience—including libraries, journals, digital data infrastructures, and funding organisations—means this paper is broad in scope and adopts a somewhat more generic approach. This paper is situated in the wider context of the quest for sustainable scholar-led publishing and 4 bibliodiversity, wherein we understand ‘scholar-led’ as having scholars actively leading publishing projects independently of large and commercial publishing houses. In this understanding, ‘scholar-led’ includes the important work of small and non-profit publishing houses, which are indicative of the diversity especially of small and interdisciplinary fields of research. Within the DFG funded project ‘Innovative Open Access in Small Sciences’ (June 2019 to February 2021), we addressed questions of sustainable publishing with regard to both business models and technical solutions—building on previous efforts to contribute to innovations within open access publishing. The project tested these solutions together with the international, peer- reviewed diamond open access5 journal Internet Policy Review (cooperatively published
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rethinking Publishing Infrastructure
    RatSWD Working Paper www.ratswd.de Series Flipping journals to open: 251 Rethinking publishing infrastructure Benedikt Fecher and Gert G. Wagner December 2015 Working Paper Series of the German Data Forum (RatSWD) The RatSWD Working Papers series was launched at the end of 2007. Since 2009, the series has been publishing exclusively conceptual and historical works dealing with the organization of the German statistical infrastructure and research infrastructure in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences. Papers that have appeared in the series deal primarily with the organization of Germany’s official statistical system, government agency research, and academic research infrastructure, as well as directly with the work of the RatSWD. Papers addressing the aforementioned topics in other countries as well as supranational aspects are particularly welcome. RatSWD Working Papers are non-exclusive, which means that there is nothing to prevent you from publishing your work in another venue as well: all papers can and should also appear in professionally, institutionally, and locally specialized journals. The RatSWD Working Papers are not available in bookstores but can be ordered online through the RatSWD. In order to make the series more accessible to readers not fluent in German, the English section of the RatSWD Working Papers website presents only those papers published in English, while the German section lists the complete contents of all issues in the series in chronological order. The views expressed in the RatSWD Working Papers are exclusively the opinions of their authors and not those of the RatSWD or of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The RatSWD Working Paper Series is edited by: Chair of the RatSWD (since 2014 Regina T.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Letters, White Paper, Black Ink: Race, Writing, Colors, and Characters in 1850S America
    Red Letters, White Paper, Black Ink: Race, Writing, Colors, and Characters in 1850s America Samuel Arrowsmith Turner Portland, Maine B.A., Vassar College, 1997 A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of English University of Virginia August, 2013 ii Abstract It’s well known that both the idea of race and the idea of writing acquired new kinds of importance for Americans in the mid-nineteenth century. Less obvious has been the extent to which the relationship between the two ideas, each charged by antebellum America with an ever-broader range of ideological functions, has itself served for some authors both as an object of inquiry and as a politico-aesthetic vocabulary. “White Paper, Black Ink, Red Letters” concerns this race-writing dialectic, and takes as its point of departure the fact that both writing and race depend on a priori notions of visibility and materiality to which each nonetheless is – or seems to be – irreducible. That is, though any given utterance of racial embodiment or alphabetic inscription becomes intelligible by its materialization as part of a field of necessarily visible signifiers (whether shapes of letters or racially encoded features of the body) the power of any such signifier to organize or regulate experience depends on its perceived connection to a separate domain of invisible meanings. iii For many nineteenth-century Americans race offered an increasingly persuasive narrative of identity at a time when the self-evidence of class, gender, and nationality as modes of affiliation seemed to be waning.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge Working Paper Economics
    Faculty of Economics Cambridge Working Paper Economics Cambridge Working Paper Economics: 1753 PUBLISHING WHILE FEMALE ARE WOMEN HELD TO HIGHER STANDARDS? EVIDENCE FROM PEER REVIEW. Erin Hengel 4 December 2017 I use readability scores to test if referees and/or editors apply higher standards to women’s writing in academic peer review. I find: (i) female-authored papers are 1–6 percent better written than equivalent papers by men; (ii) the gap is two times higher in published articles than in earlier, draft versions of the same papers; (iii) women’s writing gradually improves but men’s does not—meaning the readability gap grows over authors’ careers. In a dynamic model of an author’s decision-making process, I show that tougher editorial standards and/or biased referee assignment are uniquely consistent with this pattern of choices. A conservative causal estimate derived from the model suggests senior female economists write at least 9 percent more clearly than they otherwise would. These findings indicate that higher standards burden women with an added time tax and probably contribute to academia’s “Publishing Paradox” Consistent with this hypothesis, I find female-authored papers spend six months longer in peer review. More generally, tougher standards impose a quantity/quality tradeoff that characterises many instances of female output. They could resolve persistently lower—otherwise unexplained—female productivity in many high-skill occupations. Publishing while Female Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review.∗ Erin Hengely November 2017 I use readability scores to test if referees and/or editors apply higher standards to women’s writing in academic peer review.
    [Show full text]
  • Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus
    Journal of Informetrics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1160-1177, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOI.2018.09.002 Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories Alberto Martín-Martín1 , Enrique Orduna-Malea2 , Mike 3 1 Thelwall , Emilio Delgado López-Cózar Version 1.6 March 12, 2019 Abstract Despite citation counts from Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus being widely consulted by researchers and sometimes used in research evaluations, there is no recent or systematic evidence about the differences between them. In response, this paper investigates 2,448,055 citations to 2,299 English-language highly-cited documents from 252 GS subject categories published in 2006, comparing GS, the WoS Core Collection, and Scopus. GS consistently found the largest percentage of citations across all areas (93%-96%), far ahead of Scopus (35%-77%) and WoS (27%-73%). GS found nearly all the WoS (95%) and Scopus (92%) citations. Most citations found only by GS were from non-journal sources (48%-65%), including theses, books, conference papers, and unpublished materials. Many were non-English (19%- 38%), and they tended to be much less cited than citing sources that were also in Scopus or WoS. Despite the many unique GS citing sources, Spearman correlations between citation counts in GS and WoS or Scopus are high (0.78-0.99). They are lower in the Humanities, and lower between GS and WoS than between GS and Scopus. The results suggest that in all areas GS citation data is essentially a superset of WoS and Scopus, with substantial extra coverage.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Full White Paper
    Open Access White Paper University of Oregon SENATE SUB-COMMITTEE ON OPEN ACCESS I. Executive Summary II. Introduction a. Definition and History of the Open Access Movement b. History of Open Access at the University of Oregon c. The Senate Subcommittee on Open Access at the University of Oregon III. Overview of Current Open Access Trends and Practices a. Open Access Formats b. Advantages and Challenges of the Open Access Approach IV. OA in the Process of Research & Dissemination of Scholarly Works at UO a. A Summary of Current Circumstances b. Moving Towards Transformative Agreements c. Open Access Publishing at UO V. Advancing Open Access at the University of Oregon and Beyond a. Barriers to Moving Forward with OA b. Suggestions for Local Action at UO 1 Executive Summary The state of global scholarly communications has evolved rapidly over the last two decades, as libraries, funders and some publishers have sought to hasten the spread of more open practices for the dissemination of results in scholarly research worldwide. These practices have become collectively known as Open Access (OA), defined as "the free, immediate, online availability of research articles combined with the rights to use these articles fully in the digital environment." The aim of this report — the Open Access White Paper by the Senate Subcommittee on Open Access at the University of Oregon — is to review the factors that have precipitated these recent changes and to explain their relevance for members of the University of Oregon community. Open Access History and Trends Recently, the OA movement has gained momentum as academic institutions around the globe have begun negotiating and signing creative, new agreements with for-profit commercial publishers, and as innovations to the business models for disseminating scholarly research have become more widely adopted.
    [Show full text]
  • Tipping Points: Cancelling Journals When Arxiv Access Is Good Enough
    Tipping points: cancelling journals when arXiv access is good enough Tony Aponte Sciences Collection Coordinator UCLA Library ASEE ELD Lightning Talk June 17, 2019 Preprint explosion! Brian Resnick and Julia Belluz. (2019). The war to free science. Vox https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/3/18271538/open- access-elsevier-california-sci-hub-academic-paywalls Preprint explosion! arXiv. (2019). arXiv submission rate statistics https://arxiv.org/help/stats/2018_by_area/index 2018 Case Study: two physics journals and arXiv ● UCLA: heavy users of arXiv. Not so heavy users of version of record ● Decent UC authorship ● No UC editorial board members 2017 Usage Annual cost Cost per use 2017 Impact Factor Journal A 103 $8,315 ~$80 1.291 Journal B 72 $6,344 ~$88 0.769 Just how many of these articles are OA? OAISSN.py - Enter a Journal ISSN and a year and this python program will tell you how many DOIs from that year have an open access version2 Ryan Regier. (2018). OAISSN.py https://github.com/ryregier/OAcounts. Just how many of these articles are OA? Ryan Regier. (2018). OAISSN.py https://github.com/ryregier/OAcounts. Just how many of these articles are OA? % OA articles from 2017 % OA articles from 2018 Journal A 68% 64% Journal B 11% 8% Ryan Regier. (2018). OAISSN.py https://github.com/ryregier/OAcounts. arXiv e-prints becoming closer to publisher versions of record according to UCLA similarity study of arXiv articles vs versions of record Martin Klein, Peter Broadwell, Sharon E. Farb, Todd Grappone. 2018. Comparing Published Scientific Journal Articles to Their Pre-Print Versions -- Extended Version.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Reports, Working Papers, and Preprints
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS COLLECTIONS POLICY STATEMENTS Technical Reports, Working Papers, and Preprints Contents I. Scope II. Research Strengths III. Collecting Policy IV.Best Editions and Preferred Formats V. Acquisition Sources I. Scope This statement describes the Library's collection policies for technical reports, working papers, and preprints, in all subjects. These formats for publication are used by researchers or contractors to inform sponsoring agencies, peers, or others of the progress of research. This policy statement covers these formats when issued either by government or non-government publishers, or from both domestic and foreign sources. This statement is further limited to technical reports, working papers, and preprints that are issued in numbered or otherwise clearly identifiable series. Some technical reports, working papers, and preprints may be collected on a case-by-case basis rather than as a series, in which case they will fall under the Library's other Collections Policy Statements by subject rather than this Collections Policy Statement. Although the Library of Congress has a separate custodial Technical Reports collection, all Recommending Officers in appropriate fields are responsible for identifying series of technical reports, working papers, and preprints that are of interest to the Library's legislative, federal, and research clientele. The custodial location of reports acquired by the Library may include the Science, Technology & Business Division’s Automation, Collections Support and Technical Reports Section, the Serial and Government Publications Division, the Collections Management Division or any other appropriate custodial divisions, including Law and custodial area studies divisions. Format characteristics of technical reports, working papers, and preprints: The names given to these publication series vary.
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft Academic Search and Google Scholar Citations
    Microsoft Academic Search and Google Scholar Citations Microsoft Academic Search and Google Scholar Citations: A comparative analysis of author profiles José Luis Ortega1 VICYT-CSIC, Serrano, 113 28006 Madrid, Spain, [email protected] Isidro F. Aguillo Cybermetrics Lab, CCHS-CSIC, Albasanz, 26-28 28037 Madrid, Spain, [email protected] Abstract This paper aims to make a comparative analysis between the personal profiling capabilities of the two most important free citation-based academic search engines, namely Microsoft Academic Search (MAS) and Google Scholar Citations (GSC). Author profiles can be very useful for evaluation purposes once the advantages and the shortcomings of these services are described and taken into consideration. A total of 771 personal profiles appearing in both the MAS and the GSC databases are analysed. Results show that the GSC profiles include more documents and citations than those in MAS, but with a strong bias towards the Information and Computing sciences, while the MAS profiles are disciplinarily better balanced. MAS shows technical problems such as a higher number of duplicated profiles and a lower updating rate than GSC. It is concluded that both services could be used for evaluation proposes only if they are applied along with other citation indexes as a way to supplement that information. Keywords: Microsoft Academic Search; Google Scholar Citations; Web bibliometrics; Academic profiles; Research evaluation; Search engines Introduction In November 2009, Microsoft Research Asia started a new web search service specialized in scientific information. Even though Google (Google Scholar) already introduced an academic search engine in 2004, the proposal of Microsoft Academic Search (MAS) went beyond a mere document retrieval service that counts citations.
    [Show full text]
  • Algorithms, Platforms, and Ethnic Bias: an Integrative Essay
    BERKELEY ROUNDTABLE ON THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY BRIE Working Paper 2018-3 Algorithms, Platforms, and Ethnic Bias: An Integrative Essay Selena Silva and Martin Kenney Algorithms, Platforms, and Ethnic Bias: An Integrative Essay In Phylon: The Clark Atlanta University Review of Race and Culture (Summer/Winter 2018) Vol. 55, No. 1 & 2: 9-37 Selena Silva Research Assistant and Martin Kenney* Distinguished Professor Community and Regional Development Program University of California, Davis Davis & Co-Director Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy & Affiliated Professor Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna * Corresponding Author The authors wish to thank Obie Clayton for his encouragement and John Zysman for incisive and valuable comments on an earlier draft. Keywords: Digital bias, digital discrimination, algorithms, platform economy, racism 1 Abstract Racially biased outcomes have increasingly been recognized as a problem that can infect software algorithms and datasets of all types. Digital platforms, in particular, are organizing ever greater portions of social, political, and economic life. This essay examines and organizes current academic and popular press discussions on how digital tools, despite appearing to be objective and unbiased, may, in fact, only reproduce or, perhaps, even reinforce current racial inequities. However, digital tools may also be powerful instruments of objectivity and standardization. Based on a review of the literature, we have modified and extended a “value chain–like” model introduced by Danks and London, depicting the potential location of ethnic bias in algorithmic decision-making.1 The model has five phases: input, algorithmic operations, output, users, and feedback. With this model, we identified nine unique types of bias that might occur within these five phases in an algorithmic model: (1) training data bias, (2) algorithmic focus bias, (3) algorithmic processing bias, (4) transfer context bias, (5) misinterpretation bias, (6) automation bias, (7) non-transparency bias, (8) consumer bias, and (9) feedback loop bias.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Social Sciences Blog: Fair Open Access: Returning Control of Scholarly Journals to Their Communities Page 1 of 4
    Impact of Social Sciences Blog: Fair Open Access: returning control of scholarly journals to their communities Page 1 of 4 Fair Open Access: returning control of scholarly journals to their communities The problem of how we should transition to open access is now urgent. The current situation is one of exorbitant subscription journals and expensive open-access ones, and to address it requires organised action from academics. The Fair Open Access Alliance, set up to facilitate the conversion of existing subscription journals to open access, is an example of such organisation. Alex Holcombe and Mark C. Wilson outline the group’s five Fair Open Access Principles and encourage all librarians, researchers, and administrators to work together to secure agreement to cancel subscriptions and to pool funds to pay for open access infrastructure. The problem of how the world should transition to open access is now urgent. Growth in subscription fees charged to libraries has continued rising even as open access has grown, and open access has its own costs. The business model for recorded music was disrupted by the rise of illegal file-sharing. In academia however, until recently file sharing of scholarly papers did not occur enough for researchers to forego subscription access to journals. But that may have changed, via a process of paywall-thwarting that reminds us, a bit, of George Lopez’s reaction to Donald Trump’s planned border wall. When Lopez, the Mexican-American comedian, was asked what he thought about Trump’s wall, he replied: “well, I got news for everybody… we’ve got tunnels!”.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Journal Systems the Guide for Authors
    Open Journal Systems The Guide for Authors: Museum & Society Edition Overview What is OJS? OJS, or Open Journal Systems, is a piece of free, open source software for the management and publication of academic journals. The University of Leicester is now hosting a number of its journals in this way, and Museum & Society is joining them. Since 2003 we have been managing the journal using databases and spreadsheets, and we think the time has come to work towards something which will make M&S more sustainable for the future. We hope that using OJS will prove to be a reliable system, and improve efficiency and productivity for both authors and editors. We are committed to remaining open access, and OJS offers us that option with increased functionality and systematization. More information about the system and its history can be found here: https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/ An Overview of the Publication Process Figure 2 A visual representation of the publication process is given in Fig. 2. A list of the processes is as follows: Author submission Editor assigns submission to Section Editor Section Editor sends submission to Peer Review Section Editor informs Author of editorial decision and review comments Author makes necessary alterations and returns submission Section Editor sends submission to Copy Editor Copy edited submission is returned to Author Author makes necessary alterations and returns submission Section Editor sends to Layout Editor Submission is sent for Proofreading The submission is assigned to an issue, created by the Editors The issue is published. Elements involving the author are indicated in bold.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategische Und Operative Handlungsoptionen Für Wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen Zur Gestaltung Der Open-Access-Transformation
    ! ! ! !"#$"%&'()*%+,-.+/0%#$"'1%+2$-.3,-&(/0"'/-%-+ 45#+6'((%-()*$4"3')*%+7'-#')*",-&%-+8,#+ 9%("$3",-&+.%#+:0%-;<))%((;=#$-(4/#>$"'/-+ ! "#$$%&'('#)*! "#$!%$&'()#()!*+,!'-'*+./,01+(!2$'*+,! ")+')&!,-#.)$),-#(%! /"&0!,-#.01! ! +/()+$+/013! '(!*+$!41/&5,561/,01+(!7'-#&383! *+$!9#.:5&*3;<(/=+$,/383!"#!>+$&/(! ! =5(!9+/("!4'.6+&! ! ! ?/+!4$8,/*+(3/(!*+$!9#.:5&*3;<(/=+$,/383!"#!>+$&/(@!! 4$5AB!?$B;C()B!?$B!D':/(+!E#(,3! ! ?/+!?+-'(/(!*+$!41/&5,561/,01+(!7'-#&383@! 4$5AB!?$B!2':$/+&+!F+3"&+$! ! ! 2#3'013+$! %$,3)#3'013+$@!! ! 4$5AB!?$B!4+3+$!D01/$.:'01+$! GH+/3)#3'013+$@!! 4$5AB!?$B!I5&A$'.!95$,3.'((! ! ?'3#.!*+$!?/,6#3'3/5(@!JKB!F'/!LMLJ! !"#$%&'()*+),-#",'. G#,'..+(A',,#()!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!NC! O:,3$'03!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!NCC! ?'(-,')#()!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!NCCC! O:-P$"#(),=+$"+/01(/,!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!CQ! R':+&&+(=+$"+/01(/,!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!QCC! O::/&*#(),=+$"+/01(/,!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!QCCC!
    [Show full text]