DOCSLIB.ORG

OPEN ACCESS MONITORING Guidelines and Recommendations for Research Organisations and Funders

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

OPEN ACCESS MONITORING Guidelines and Recommendations for Research Organisations and Funders May 2021 Colophon May 2021 "Open Access Monitoring: Guidelines and Recommendations for Research Organisations and Funders" Available at: https://scieur.org/monitoring-oa Authors: Tobias Philipp (Swiss National Science Foundation), Georg Botz (Max Planck Society), Jean-Claude Kita (Fund for Scientific Research F.R.S.- FNRS), Paul Richards (UK Research & Innovation), Astrid Sänger (German Research Foundation), Olaf Siegert (Leibniz Association), Mathilde Reumaux (Science Europe). Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the members of the Science Europe Working Group on Open Access to Research Publications (chaired by Georg Botz), participants at the Science Europe Workshop on Open Access Monitoring (October 2020), and Lidia Borrell-Damián (Science Europe) for their contributions. Editors: Lorna Stokes and Iwan Groeneveld (Science Europe). For further information please contact: [email protected] © Copyright Science Europe 2021. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited, with the exception of logos and any other content marked with a separate copyright notice. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. Open Access Monitoring: Guidelines and Recommendations for Research Organisations and Funders Guidelines and Recommendations for Research Organisations and Funders Open Access Monitoring: Guidelines and Recommendations for Research Organisations and Funders 4 Open Access Monitoring: Guidelines and Recommendations for Research Organisations and Funders Table of Contents 1. Introduction 7 2. WHY Measure Publication Status? 8 2.1 Setting basic parameters – Recommendations 9 3. WHAT to Measure? 10 3.1 Demarcating target publications 11 3.2 Sampling sets of publications – Recommendations 13 4. HOW to Collect and Interpret Data on Publications? 14 4.1 Persistent and unique identifiers 15 4.2 Collecting data on publications 15 4.3 Interpretation and reporting 18 4.4 Gathering and interpreting data on publications – Recommendations 21 5. Sustainable and Comparable Monitoring 22 6. Conclusion and General Recommendation 22 5 Open Access Monitoring: Guidelines and Recommendations for Research Organisations and Funders Science Europe and its Member Organisations are committed to supporting and contributing to a smooth and rapid transition to Open Access at national and European level. They work together to develop the best possible solutions to practical aspects of the transition, and support the implementation of full Open Access policies that are adapted to different contexts. Science Europe’s Member Organisations share insights, methods, sources, tools, and best practices to adapt the system and develop a culture of sharing. For more information on Science Europe’s activities on Open Access, please visit its website at https://scieur.org/oa 6 Open Access Monitoring: Guidelines and Recommendations for Research Organisations and Funders 1. Introduction The global transition to Open Access has This briefing paper aims to support decision- accelerated in the past few years. This transition makers at RFOs and RPOs develop new monitoring is complex and involves a variety of approaches exercises or assess and improve existing processes and multifaceted strategies. Many research to measure the Open Access status of publications. stakeholders, including but not limited to It is not a technical manual but seeks to bridge the research funders (RFOs) and research performing gap between the technical aspects of Open Access organisations (RPOs), have adopted Open Access monitoring and the strategic decisions necessary to policies and established supporting measures implement such an exercise. such as provision of funding and development of infrastructures and services to foster It proposes three main steps an organisation should the transition. take to develop a monitoring exercise. It begins by defining the purpose of the exercise, continues The availability of data and information on the current with identifying the scope of publications for which state of scholarly publishing, be it institutional, information is needed to inform the purpose, and national, and/or in an international context, is finishes with practical considerations for data invaluable to help advance Open Access, including collection, interpretation, and reporting. For each to inform policy development, implementation, step, the briefing identifies specific challenges and and evaluation. provides general recommendations on how to navigate them. Examples of different monitoring To gather such information, monitoring exercises exercises have been selected to represent different are conducted, taking stock of publication output use cases, organisational setups, data sources, and and measuring its Open Access status. Given the strategies of interpretation. complexity of the scholarly publishing system, this is no trivial task and involves a multitude of decisions. This briefing paper focuses on monitoring scholarly research articles, but many of the considerations also apply to academic books and other publication types, although differences are acknowledged, such as metadata availability. Monitoring the costs of Open Access publishing is recognised as an essential issue for RFOs and RPOs. of Science Europe Member However, this is not included in the scope of this Organisations who responded to document due to the diverse funding and financial a 2018 internal survey, declared practices at national and institutional levels. that they planned to (further) develop Open Access monitoring mechanisms in the future. Out of 36 Member Organisations, 26 responded to the survey on Monitoring Compliance with Open Access Policies. 7 Open Access monitoring exercises serve a range of purposes, from taking a snapshot of publication numbers, status, and venues, to trying to evaluate the impact of existing policy measures. Achieving actionable results by collecting and analysing a set of data on scholarly publications must take organisation-specific demands and requirements into account. To set up an effective monitoring exercise, its aims must be defined as clearly as possible. 8 Open Access Monitoring: Guidelines and Recommendations for Research Organisations and Funders 2. WHY Measure Publication Status? Assessing the Open Access status of scholarly are they published? How accessible and reusable publications emanating from particular funders or are they? institutions is crucial to the timely transition to Open Access in the scholarly publishing system. Before devising and implementing a monitoring exercise, an organisation should clearly define There are numerous guidelines and examples that the objectives and information it wants to extract. can inform the development of an Open Access Requirements can differ considerably, for example, strategy or policy at institutional, organisational, or between monitoring at national or institutional level even national level.1 However, general guidelines or and between RFOs and RPOs. orientations for Open Access strategy development may not be enough. If an Open Access strategy or policy is already in place, information requirements could be derived Implementing an Open Access policy and identifying from this. Additional external requirements may measures to support it require current knowledge also have an influence, for example, discussions on the status quo of scholarly publishing: How many on scientific impact and communicating science to publications are there each year? By whom? Where broader audiences. 2.1 Setting basic parameters – Recommendations Organisations setting up a monitoring exercise 3. Scope and level of granularity: Should should, at the very least, address the following four results be reported on the level of individual key aspects: scholars, institutes, organisations, nations or a combination of all these? 1. Purpose: Should results guide policy development, evaluation, compliance 4. Timeframe: Will results for one point in assessments, implementation of supporting time suffice or does the analysis need to be measures, negotiations with publishers or repeated, investigating changes over time? communication towards individual disciplines, institutions or scholars? Having a solid idea of what needs to be achieved by a given monitoring exercise is essential. With this 2. Comparability: Should outputs of the in place, organisations should then decide on what monitoring exercise be compared to pre- to monitor and how to collect and interpret data existing monitoring outputs, which might on publications. prescribe a specific approach and methodology? Monitoring national progress towards Open Access Universities UK In 2017 the multi-stakeholder Universities UK Open Access Coordination Group published its second report looking at UK progress towards Open Access. Using Scopus data and various other data sources, the report considered trends in various aspects of Open Access publication such as publication status, licensing, and costs.A A. https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Pages/monitoring-transition-open-access-2017.aspx 1. An example is the Science Europe Principles on Open Access to Research
Recommended publications
  • A Scientometric Analysis

    A Scientometric Analysis

    Tropical Ecology 59(3): 431–443, 2018 ISSN 0564-3295 © International Society for Tropical Ecology www.tropecol.com Global research trends in ‘Ecology’: A scientometric analysis 1* 2 ANWESHA BORTHAKUR & PARDEEP SINGH 1Centre for Studies in Science Policy, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi-110067, India 2Department of Environmental Studies, PGDAV College, University of Delhi, New Delhi-110065, India Abstract: Ecological research has observed a near constant growth during the past few decades. Considering the significance and diversity of ecological research with regard to both its vastness and specificity, this paper is an attempt to map out the research activities in ‘ecology’ through a ‘scientometric analysis’ of the world research outputs. The aim was to identify and document the historical and current research trajectories in the subject. We recognize the fact that in the absence of an in-depth analysis of the trends in research, it is utterly possible that some areas of research get more than adequate attention from the global research and policy community while some equally important areas of the subject remain completely unaddressed or neglected. The study was carried out using two major databases – Scopus and SCImago for the 21 years period from 1996 to 2016 by means of a defined scientific method. Among the several interesting observations, we have found that apart from China, no countries and research institutes from the global south are listed among the top 10 research producing countries/institutes on ecology. Considering the fact that majority of the ecologically sensitive areas and biodiversity hotspots of the world are located in the developing world and have significance influences on the ecological processes across the globe, this calls for immediate attention from the research community.
  • Review of Sherpa Romeo and Sherpa Juliet

    Review of Sherpa Romeo and Sherpa Juliet

    James Madison University From the SelectedWorks of Elizabeth Price 2016 Review of Sherpa RoMEO and Sherpa Juliet. In Open Access Publishing & Scholarship edited by M. Mallon. Elizabeth Price, James Madison University Available at: https://works.bepress.com/elizabeth-price/10/ Subject: PSQ Internet Resources Column Email body: Elizabeth Price Research and Instruction Librarian Murray State University [email protected] SHERPA RoMEO and SHERPA JULIET www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo and http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet Visited: Spring 2016 Reviewer: Elizabeth Price, Research and Instruction Librarian, Murray State University SHERPA RoMEO is a searchable database of publisher’s policies to help academic researchers self-archive their work without violating their publishing agreements. Its companion site, SHERPA JULIET, is a database of funding agencies’ grant conditions that are related to the self-archiving or open access publishing of research publications and data. Both tools are based at the University of Nottingham and are part of how SHERPA Services “is investigating issues in the future of scholarly communication.” Of the two, RoMEO is relevant to a wider variety of researchers. Its primary goal is eliminating confusion for authors who support open access or want to make their peer-reviewed scholarship available to a wider audience. Using the basic search function, one can search by journal title, partial journal title, ISSN or publisher. RoMEO does not apply to book publication agreements. RoMEO uses colors to code different levels of self-archiving permissions. They apply to pre- prints (the draft of a manuscript submitted for peer-review), post-prints (the version of the manuscript submitted for printing after peer-review) and the publisher’s version/PDF (the version of record that is published on the publisher’s website).
  • The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity

    The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 47 Intellectual Property: From Biodiversity to Technical Standards 2015 The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity James S. Miller Missouri Botanical Garden Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Environmental Law Commons, and the Plant Sciences Commons Recommended Citation James S. Miller, The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 47 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 051 (2015), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol47/iss1/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity James S. Miller MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN In the mid-1980s, the convergence of several technological advances led to a serious resurgence of interest in surveying plant species for drug development. The emergence of methods to miniaturize in-vitro bioassays (a test used to quantify the biological effect of a chemical compound or extract against a specific disease target) run the bioassays with robotic equipment, and isolate and identify active compounds with a speed and precision never before possible.
  • CNRS ROADMAP for OPEN SCIENCE 18 November 2019

    CNRS ROADMAP for OPEN SCIENCE 18 November 2019

    CNRS ROADMAP FOR OPEN SCIENCE 18 November 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 4 1. Publications 6 2. Research data 8 3. Text and data mining and analysis 10 4. Individual evaluation of researchers and Open Science 11 5. Recasting Scientific and Technical Information for Open Science 12 6. Training and skills 13 7. International positioning 14 INTRODUCTION The international movement towards Open Science started more than 30 years ago and has undergone unprecedented development since the web made it possible on a global scale with reasonable costs. The dissemination of scientific production on the Internet, its identification and archiving lift the barriers to permanent access without challenging the protection of personal data or intellectual property. Now is the time to make it “as open as possible, as closed as necessary”. Open Science is not only about promoting a transversal approach to the sharing of scientific results. By opening up data, processes, codes, methods or protocols, it also offers a new way of doing science. Several scientific, civic and socio-economic reasons make Just over a year ago, France embarked on this vast transfor- the development of Open Science essential today: mation movement. Presented on 4 July 2018 by the Minister • Sharing scientific knowledge makes research more ef- of Higher Education,Research and Innovation, the “Natio- fective, more visible, and less redundant. Open access to nal Plan for Open Science”1 aims, in the words of Frédérique data and results is a sea change for the way research is Vidal, to ensure that “the results of scientific research are done, and opens the way to the use of new tools.
  • Is Sci-Hub Increasing Visibility of Indian Research Papers? an Analytical Evaluation Vivek Kumar Singh1,*, Satya Swarup Srichandan1, Sujit Bhattacharya2

    Is Sci-Hub Increasing Visibility of Indian Research Papers? an Analytical Evaluation Vivek Kumar Singh1,*, Satya Swarup Srichandan1, Sujit Bhattacharya2

    Journal of Scientometric Res. 2021; 10(1):130-134 http://www.jscires.org Perspective Paper Is Sci-Hub Increasing Visibility of Indian Research Papers? An Analytical Evaluation Vivek Kumar Singh1,*, Satya Swarup Srichandan1, Sujit Bhattacharya2 1Department of Computer Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, INDIA. 2CSIR-National Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies, New Delhi, INDIA. ABSTRACT Sci-Hub, founded by Alexandra Elbakyan in 2011 in Kazakhstan has, over the years, Correspondence emerged as a very popular source for researchers to download scientific papers. It is Vivek Kumar Singh believed that Sci-Hub contains more than 76 million academic articles. However, recently Department of Computer Science, three foreign academic publishers (Elsevier, Wiley and American Chemical Society) have Banaras Hindu University, filed a lawsuit against Sci-Hub and LibGen before the Delhi High Court and prayed for Varanasi-221005, INDIA. complete blocking these websites in India. It is in this context, that this paper attempts to Email id: [email protected] find out how many Indian research papers are available in Sci-Hub and who downloads them. The citation advantage of Indian research papers available on Sci-Hub is analysed, Received: 16-03-2021 with results confirming that such an advantage do exist. Revised: 29-03-2021 Accepted: 25-04-2021 Keywords: Indian Research, Indian Science, Black Open Access, Open Access, Sci-Hub. DOI: 10.5530/jscires.10.1.16 INTRODUCTION access publishing of their research output, and at the same time encouraging their researchers to publish in openly Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has become one accessible forms.
  • Supplementary Text and Figures

    Supplementary Text and Figures

    SUPPLEMENTARY TEXT John P.A. Ioannidis1, Richard Klavans2, Kevin W. Boyack2 1 Departments of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, and Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University 2 SciTech Strategies, Inc. Contents Technical note on methods 1 References 7 Figures: trends over time and effects of co-authorship 8 Survey to hyperprolific authors for calendar years 2016: text of e-mail 12 Survey to hyperprolific authors for calendar year 2016: open responses 14 Request to contribute comments sent to all listed hyperprolific authors 18 Comments contributed by hyperprolific authors 20 Acknowledgments 119 Technical note on methods An author publishing the equivalent of one full paper every 5 days will end up publishing 73 papers in a calendar year. We selected this number as a threshold to define and study outlier, hyperprolific authors. Of course, published papers may reflect the final presentation of work that has happened over many years, but focusing on calendar years allows to study peaks in productivity and to use a clearly definable time unit. 1 We identified all author records in Scopus that included 73 or more published full papers in any single calendar year between 2000 and 2016. Full papers included in our analysis are the ones classified as Articles, Conference Papers and Reviews in Scopus. All other Scopus categories of published items (Editorials, Letters, Notes, Short Surveys, Errata, and so forth) were excluded. Papers take variable amounts of effort to produce. For items such as editorials, notes, letters to the editor, in theory large numbers of publications are possible to produce by authors who have a talent, proclivity or obsession for writing; such works may occasionally be very important and influential, but they take, on average, substantially less time to produce than Articles, Conference Papers and Reviews.
  • When Is Open Access Not Open Access?

    When Is Open Access Not Open Access?

    Editorial When Is Open Access Not Open Access? Catriona J. MacCallum ince 2003, when PLoS Biology Box 1. The Bethesda Statement on Open-Access Publishing was launched, there has been This is taken from http:⁄⁄www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm. a spectacular growth in “open- S 1 access” journals. The Directory of An Open Access Publication is one that meets the following two conditions: Open Access Journals (http:⁄⁄www. 1. The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, doaj.org/), hosted by Lund University worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit Libraries, lists 2,816 open-access and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital journals as this article goes to press medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship2, as (and probably more by the time you well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use. read this). Authors also have various 2. A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a copy of “open-access” options within existing the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard electronic format is deposited subscription journals offered by immediately upon initial publication in at least one online repository that is supported traditional publishers (e.g., Blackwell, by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well- Springer, Oxford University Press, and established organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, many others). In return for a fee to interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences, PubMed Central the publisher, an author’s individual is such a repository).
  • From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication

    From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2019 From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication Rob Johnson Research Consulting Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons Johnson, Rob, "From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication" (2019). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 157. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/157 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Insights – 32, 2019 Plan S and the future of scholarly communication | Rob Johnson From coalition to commons: Plan S and the future of scholarly communication The announcement of Plan S in September 2018 triggered a wide-ranging debate over how best to accelerate the shift to open access. The Plan’s ten principles represent a call for the creation of an intellectual commons, to be brought into being through collective action by funders and managed through regulated market mechanisms. As it gathers both momentum and critics, the coalition must grapple with questions of equity, efficiency and sustainability. The work of Elinor Ostrom has shown that successful management of the commons frequently relies on polycentricity and adaptive governance. The Plan S principles must therefore function as an overarching framework within which local actors retain some autonomy, and should remain open to amendment as the scholarly communication landscape evolves.
  • Market Power in the Academic Publishing Industry

    Market Power in the Academic Publishing Industry

    Market Power in the Academic Publishing Industry What is an Academic Journal? • A serial publication containing recent academic papers in a certain field. • The main method for communicating the results of recent research in the academic community. Why is Market Power important to think about? • Commercial academic journal publishers use market power to artificially inflate subscription prices. • This practice drains the resources of libraries, to the detriment of the public. How Does Academic Publishing Work? • Author writes paper and submits to journal. • Paper is evaluated by peer reviewers (other researchers in the field). • If accepted, the paper is published. • Libraries pay for subscriptions to the journal. The market does not serve the interests of the public • Universities are forced to “double-pay”. 1. The university funds research 2. The results of the research are given away for free to journal publishers 3. The university library must pay to get the research back in the form of journals Subscription Prices are Outrageous • The highest-priced journals are those in the fields of science, technology, and medicine (or STM fields). • Since 1985, the average price of a journal has risen more than 215 percent—four times the average rate of inflation. • This rise in prices, combined with the CA budget crisis, has caused UC Berkeley’s library to cancel many subscriptions, threatening the library’s reputation. A Comparison Why are prices so high? Commercial publishers use market power to charge inflated prices. Why do commercial publishers have market power? • They control the most prestigious, high- quality journals in many fields. • Demand is highly inelastic for high-quality journals.
  • Open Access Publishing

    Open Access Publishing

    Open Access The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Suber, Peter. 2012. Open access. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. [Updates and Supplements: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/ Open_Access_(the_book)] Published Version http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10752204 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA OPEN ACCESS The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series Information and the Modern Corporation, James Cortada Intellectual Property Strategy, John Palfrey Open Access, Peter Suber OPEN ACCESS PETER SUBER TheMIT Press | Cambridge, Massachusetts | London, England © 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology This work is licensed under the Creative Commons licenses noted below. To view a copy of these licenses, visit creativecommons.org. Other than as provided by these licenses, no part of this book may be reproduced, transmitted, or displayed by any electronic or mechanical means without permission from the publisher or as permitted by law. This book incorporates certain materials previously published under a CC-BY license and copyright in those underlying materials is owned by SPARC. Those materials remain under the CC-BY license. Effective June 15, 2013, this book will be subject to a CC-BY-NC license. MIT Press books may be purchased at special quantity discounts for business or sales promotional use.
  • Mapping the Future of Scholarly Publishing

    Mapping the Future of Scholarly Publishing

    THE OPEN SCIENCE INITIATIVE WORKING GROUP Mapping the Future of Scholarly Publishing The Open Science Initiative (OSI) is a working group convened by the National Science Communi- cation Institute (nSCI) in October 2014 to discuss the issues regarding improving open access for the betterment of science and to recommend possible solutions. The following document summa- rizes the wide range of issues, perspectives and recommendations from this group’s online conver- sation during November and December 2014 and January 2015. The 112 participants who signed up to participate in this conversation were drawn mostly from the academic, research, and library communities. Most of these 112 were not active in this conversa- tion, but a healthy diversity of key perspectives was still represented. Individual participants may not agree with all of the viewpoints described herein, but participants agree that this document reflects the spirit and content of the conversation. This main body of this document was written by Glenn Hampson and edited by Joyce Ogburn and Laura Ada Emmett. Additional editorial input was provided by many members of the OSI working group. Kathleen Shearer is the author of Annex 5, with editing by Dominque Bambini and Richard Poynder. CC-BY 2015 National Science Communication Institute (nSCI) www.nationalscience.org [email protected] nSCI is a US-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization First edition, January 2015 Final version, April 2015 Recommended citation: Open Science Initiative Working Group, Mapping the Future of Scholarly
  • A Quick Guide to Scholarly Publishing

    A Quick Guide to Scholarly Publishing

    A QUICK GUIDE TO SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING GRADUATE WRITING CENTER • GRADUATE DIVISION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA • BERKELEY Belcher, Wendy Laura. Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2009. Benson, Philippa J., and Susan C. Silver. What Editors Want: An Author’s Guide to Scientific Journal Publishing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. Derricourt, Robin. An Author’s Guide to Scholarly Publishing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. Germano, William. From Dissertation to Book. 2nd ed. Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. ———. Getting It Published: A Guide for Scholars and Anyone Else Serious about Serious Books. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016. Goldbort, Robert. Writing for Science. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2006. Harman, Eleanor, Ian Montagnes, Siobhan McMenemy, and Chris Bucci, eds. The Thesis and the Book: A Guide for First- Time Academic Authors. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. Harmon, Joseph E., and Alan G. Gross. The Craft of Scientific Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Huff, Anne Sigismund. Writing for Scholarly Publication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1999. Luey, Beth. Handbook for Academic Authors. 5th ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Luey, Beth, ed. Revising Your Dissertation: Advice from Leading Editors. Updated ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Matthews, Janice R., John M. Bowen, and Robert W. Matthews. Successful Scientific Writing: A Step-by-Step Guide for the Biological and Medical Sciences. 3rd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Moxley, Joseph M. PUBLISH, Don’t Perish: The Scholar’s Guide to Academic Writing and Publishing.