DOCSLIB.ORG

Contents Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Contents Introduction Scholarly Communication in Sociology by Philip N. Cohen University of Maryland MIT Libraries Visiting Scholar April 20191 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Scholarly communication ....................................................................................................................... 3 How to use this primer ........................................................................................................................... 5 How it works ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Formats .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Working papers ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Preprints ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Conferences ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Journals and books ............................................................................................................................... 8 Peer review .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Journals ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Books ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Innovations in peer review .................................................................................................................. 14 Rights and licenses ................................................................................................................................ 15 1 The earlier versions benefited from comments by Micah Altman, Josh Bollick, Monica Granados, Isaac Leslie, Omar Lizardo, Jessica Polka, Dan Rudmann, Judy Ruttenberg, Kyle Siler, Peter Suber, Sara Thomas, Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, Kim Weeden, and Micah Zeller. 1/47 Professional norms and obligations ................................................................................................... 15 Copyright and licenses ........................................................................................................................ 16 Data, code, and other research materials ........................................................................................... 18 Who pays, who profits .............................................................................................................................. 20 Academic associations .......................................................................................................................... 22 For-profit publishers ............................................................................................................................ 25 Open access models ............................................................................................................................... 28 Gold, Platinum .................................................................................................................................... 28 Hybrid ................................................................................................................................................. 30 Green .................................................................................................................................................. 31 Pirate OA ............................................................................................................................................ 31 Preprint repositories ........................................................................................................................... 32 Libraries and metadata ............................................................................................................................ 33 Bibliometrics .......................................................................................................................................... 35 Impact factor ....................................................................................................................................... 35 Individual citation measures ............................................................................................................... 37 Altmetrics ............................................................................................................................................ 39 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 41 Research ................................................................................................................................................. 41 Policy ...................................................................................................................................................... 43 Ownership ........................................................................................................................................... 43 Incentives ............................................................................................................................................ 44 Investment ........................................................................................................................................... 45 Personal .................................................................................................................................................. 45 Education ............................................................................................................................................ 45 Open practices .................................................................................................................................... 45 The value of our work ......................................................................................................................... 46 2/47 Introduction Overview Scholarly publishing takes place in an institutional arena that is opaque to its practitioners. As readers, writers, reviewers, and editors, we have no clear view of the system within which we’re working. Researchers starting their careers receive (if they’re lucky) folk wisdom and mythology handed down from advisor to advisee, geared more toward individual success (or survival) than toward attaining a systemic perspective. They may learn how to get their work into the right journals or books, but often don’t learn why that is the outcome that matters for their careers, how the field arrived at that decision, and what the alternatives are – or should be. Gaining a wider perspective is important both for shaping individual careers and for confronting the systematic problems we face as a community of knowledge creators and purveyors. This primer starts from the premise that sociologists, especially those early in their careers, need to learn about the system of scholarly communication. And that sociology can help us toward that goal. Understanding the political economy of the system within which publication takes place is necessary for us to fulfill our roles as citizens of the research community, as people who play an active role in shaping the future of that system, consciously or not. Responsible citizenship requires learning about the institutional actors in the system and how they are governed, as well as who pays and who profits within the field, and who wins or loses. Scholarly communication Before we can understand the political economy of scholarly communication, we need to know something about the structure of the information itself. To get to that point it’s helpful to step outside the discipline and see it from the perspective of libraries. Libraries are responsible for collecting, describing, disseminating, and preserving our research. In keeping with that perspective, I use the general term, scholarly communication rather than simply, “publishing.” Publishing is that thing you do to get your research out to readers, while scholarly communication is the system that encompasses that activity – “the system through which research and other scholarly writings are created, evaluated for quality, disseminated to the scholarly community, and preserved for future use.”2 Researchers share their work with various audiences through working papers, preprints, conference presentations, journal articles, and books. In addition to these research products, sociologists also blog, tweet, podcast, speak, and write for nonacademic publications about research. There once was a discrete, formal scholarly record,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “Altmetrics” Using Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook
    Pre-Print Version Altmetrics of “altmetrics” using Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook, Google-plus, CiteULike, Blogs and Wiki Saeed-Ul Hassan, Uzair Ahmed Gillani [email protected] Information Technology University, 346-B Ferozepur Road, Lahore (Pakistan) Abstract: We measure the impact of “altmetrics” field by deploying altmetrics indicators using the data from Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook, Google- plus, CiteULike, Blogs and Wiki during 2010- 2014. To capture the social impact of scientific publications, we propose an index called alt-index, analogues to h-index. Across the deployed indices, our results have shown high correlation among the indicators that capture social impact. While we observe medium Pearson’s correlation (ρ= .247) among the alt-index and h-index, a relatively high correlation is observed between social citations and scholarly citations (ρ= .646). Interestingly, we find high turnover of social citations in the field compared with the traditional scholarly citations, i.e. social citations are 42.2% more than traditional citations. The social mediums such as Twitter and Mendeley appear to be the most effective channels of social impact followed by Facebook and Google-plus. Overall, altmetrics appears to be working well in the field of “altmetrics”. Keywords: Altmetrics, Social Media, Usage Indicators, Alt-index Pre-Print Version Introduction In scholarly world, altmetrics are getting popularity as to support and/or alternative to traditional citation-based evaluation metrics such as impact factor, h-index etc. (Priem et. al., 2010). The concept of altmetrics was initially proposed in 2010 as a generalization of article level metrics and has its roots in the #altmetrics hashtag (McIntyre et al, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Draft 3 August 2010 Jorge L
    DATA SHARING, LATENCY VARIABLES AND THE SCIENCE COMMONS Draft 3 August 2010 Jorge L. Contreras* ABSTRACT Over the past decade, the rapidly decreasing cost of computer storage and the increasing prevalence of high-speed Internet connections have fundamentally altered the way in which scientific research is conducted. Led by scientists in disciplines such as genomics, the rapid sharing of data sets and cross-institutional collaboration promise to increase scientific efficiency and output dramatically. As a result, an increasing number of public “commons” of scientific data are being created: aggregations intended to be used and accessed by researchers worldwide. Yet, the sharing of scientific data presents legal, ethical and practical challenges that must be overcome before such science commons can be deployed and utilized to their greatest potential. These challenges include determining the appropriate level of intellectual property protection for data within the commons, balancing the publication priority interests of data generators and data users, ensuring a viable economic model for publishers and other intermediaries and achieving the public benefits sought by funding agencies. In this paper, I analyze scientific data sharing within the framework offered by organizational theory, expanding existing analytical approaches with a new tool termed “latency analysis.” I place latency analysis within the larger Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, as well as more recent variations of that framework. Latency analysis exploits two key variables that characterize all information commons: the rate at which information enters the commons (its knowledge latency) and the rate at which the knowledge in the commons becomes be freely utilizable (its rights latency).
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Scholarly Communication: US Efforts to Bring Warring Factions to Common Purpose in Support of Scholarship
    Information Services & Use 33 (2013) 27–36 27 DOI 10.3233/ISU-130689 IOS Press The future of scholarly communication: US efforts to bring warring factions to common purpose in support of scholarship John Vaughn ∗ Association of American Universities, Washington, DC, USA Abstract. Key stakeholders in scholarly communication have been at odds over the purpose, mission and business models of publishing. This piece reviews developments in the United States but with a particular focus on efforts at reestablishing common purpose, such as (1) the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable created in June 2009 by the Chairman of Science and Technology Committee of the US House of Representatives; (2) the Task force of the Association of American Universities and Association of Research Libraries established in 2012 to focus on university presses, scholarly journals and institutional repositories; and (3) the Office of Science and Technology Policy Memorandum of February 22, 2013 on Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research. Keywords: Open Access, Public Access, scholarly publishing 1. Towards collaborative action Anyone interested in scholarly communication probably has noted the parallels in the conduct and publication of research, such as • The importance of quality, e.g. the peer review of research grant proposals and of papers submitted to publication; • The increased internationalization, e.g. scholars collaborate in international networks and journals recruit editors and reviewers globally; and • The increased volume, i.e. the rapid global expansion of research drives the growth of published outcomes. In the United States, for scholars, libraries and institutions the premise is that “dissemination of knowl- edge is as important to the university mission as its production” [4].
    [Show full text]
  • Theorizing Moral Cognition: Culture in Action, Situations, and Relationships
    UCLA UCLA Previously Published Works Title Theorizing Moral Cognition: Culture in Action, Situations, and Relationships Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3xm4m3mw Author Luft, Aliza Publication Date 2020 DOI 10.1177/2378023120916125 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California SRDXXX10.1177/2378023120916125SociusLuft 916125research-article2020 Original Article Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World Volume 6: 1 –15 © The Author(s) 2020 Theorizing Moral Cognition: Culture in Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions Action, Situations, and Relationships DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120916125 10.1177/2378023120916125 srd.sagepub.com Aliza Luft1 Abstract Dual-process theories of morality are approaches to moral cognition that stress the varying significance of emotion and deliberation in shaping judgments of action. Sociological research that builds on these ideas considers how cross- cultural variation alters judgments, with important consequences for what is and is not considered moral behavior. Yet lacking from these approaches is the notion that, depending on the situation and relationship, the same behavior by the same person can be considered more or less moral. The author reviews recent trends in sociological theorizing about morality and calls attention to the neglect of situational variations and social perceptions as mediating influences on judgment. She then analyzes the moral machine experiment to demonstrate how situations and relationships inform moral cognition. Finally, the author suggests that we can extend contemporary trends in the sociology of morality by connecting culture in thinking about action to culture in thinking about people. Keywords cognition, culture, morality, perception, situations Preface As I write, there are places in the world where there aren’t enough hospital beds or respirators to allow all patients to This paper is about moral judgments in challenging and receive adequate medical care.
    [Show full text]
  • Enabling Research Through Open Access Policies
    THE SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING & ACADEMIC RESOURCES COALITION 21 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 296-2296 www.arl.org/sparc Enabling Research through Open Access Policies Heather Joseph, Executive Director SPARC Washington, DC USA The Issue • Funders invest in research with the expectation that it will result in improvements to the public good. • They increasingly recognize that dissemination is an essential component of the research process. • Research is cumulative - it advances through sharing results. The value of an investment in research is maximized only through use of its findings. www.arl.org/sparc 2 The Issue • Too often, the research results (either publicly or privately funded ) are simply not widely available to the community of potential users. • Internet provides new opportunity to bring information broader audience at virtually no marginal cost, and use it new, innovative ways. Result: Call for new framework designed to allow research results to be more easily accessed and used. www.arl.org/sparc 3 Without Open Access But Article Isn’t Available….. Usability is Key “By open access, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to the full text of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software or use them for any other lawful purpose…” - The Budapest Open Access Initiative www.arl.org/sparc 6 Greater Access is a Policy Concern “Governments would boost innovation and get a better return on their investment in publicly funded research by making research findings more widely available….
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Data Policies of Highly-Ranked Social Science
    1 Data policies of highly-ranked social science journals1 Mercè Crosas2, Julian Gautier2, Sebastian Karcher3, Dessi Kirilova3, Gerard Otalora2, Abigail Schwartz2 Abstract By encouraging and requiring that authors share their data in order to publish articles, scholarly journals have become an important actor in the movement to improve the openness of data and the reproducibility of research. But how many social science journals encourage or mandate that authors share the data supporting their research findings? How does the share of journal data policies vary by discipline? What influences these journals’ decisions to adopt such policies and instructions? And what do those policies and instructions look like? We discuss the results of our analysis of the instructions and policies of 291 highly-ranked journals publishing social science research, where we studied the contents of journal data policies and instructions across 14 variables, such as when and how authors are asked to share their data, and what role journal ranking and age play in the existence and quality of data policies and instructions. We also compare our results to the results of other studies that have analyzed the policies of social science journals, although differences in the journals chosen and how each study defines what constitutes a data policy limit this comparison. We conclude that a little more than half of the journals in our study have data policies. A greater share of the economics journals have data policies and mandate sharing, followed by political science/international relations and psychology journals. Finally, we use our findings to make several recommendations: Policies should include the terms “data,” “dataset” or more specific terms that make it clear what to make available; policies should include the benefits of data sharing; journals, publishers, and associations need to collaborate more to clarify data policies; and policies should explicitly ask for qualitative data.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Social Class and Status. the Network Embeddedness of Music Consumption
    PRZEGLĄD SOCJOLOGICZNY 2019 68(2): 81–105 ISSN 0033-2356; e-ISSN 2450-9351 https://doi.org/10.26485/PS/2019/68.2/4 Michał Cebula University of Wrocław BEYOND SOCIAL CLASS AND STATUS. THE NETWORK EMbEDDEDNESS OF MUSIC CONSUMPTION Abstract The relationship between stratification and music consumption patterns has become a vibrant field of study in recent years, not only in the sociology of music but also in sociology tout court. It is widely accepted that musical consumption is undergoing profound change, from a tight correspondence between social positions and tastes (the homology argument) to an omnivore- univore model marked by a greater diversity of preferences among those in higher social strata. What is less understood in both frameworks is how musical consumption is related to an individual’s social networks, net of other structural variables (e.g. class or status). Drawing on original quantitative data collected by the author, the paper tries to establish, first, whether diversity of personal networks is conducive to greater heterogeneity in musical preferences and knowledge, and second, what role “weak” and “strong” ties play. It is confirmed that people whose networks are richer in weak connections are more likely to be omnivores while this is not true in the case of strong ties. Some possible explanations of the findings, as well as directions of future studies, are outlined. Keywords: omnivorousness, musical tastes, social network, social capital, stratification of culture PhD, Department of Consumer Behaviour, Institute of Sociology; e-mail: [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6086-2233 82 MIChał CEbuLa INTRODUCTION answering the question “What is sociological about music?” Roy and Dowd [2010] make a point that music is a mode of interaction that expresses and con- stitutes social relations (of different kinds: subcultures, organizations, classes, even nations) with the context-specific intersubjective meanings it delivers and sustains.
    [Show full text]
  • An Initiative to Track Sentiments in Altmetrics
    Halevi, G., & Schimming, L. (2018). An Initiative to Track Sentiments in Altmetrics. Journal of Altmetrics, 1(1): 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29024/joa.1 PERSPECTIVE An Initiative to Track Sentiments in Altmetrics Gali Halevi and Laura Schimming Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, US Corresponding author: Gali Halevi ([email protected]) A recent survey from Pew Research Center (NW, Washington & Inquiries 2018) found that over 44 million people receive science-related information from social media channels to which they subscribe. These include a variety of topics such as new discoveries in health sciences as well as “news you can use” information with practical tips (p. 3). Social and news media attention to scientific publications has been tracked for almost a decade by several platforms which aggregate all public mentions of and interactions with scientific publications. Since the amount of comments, shares, and discussions of scientific publications can reach an audience of thousands, understanding the overall “sentiment” towards the published research is a mammoth task and typically involves merely reading as many posts, shares, and comments as possible. This paper describes an initiative to track and provide sentiment analysis to large social and news media mentions and label them as “positive”, “negative” or “neutral”. Such labels will enable an overall understanding of the content that lies within these social and news media mentions of scientific publications. Keywords: sentiment analysis; opinion mining; scholarly output Background Traditionally, the impact of research has been measured through citations (Cronin 1984; Garfield 1964; Halevi & Moed 2015; Moed 2006, 2015; Seglen 1997). The number of citations a paper receives over time has been directly correlated to the perceived impact of the article.
    [Show full text]
  • Will Sci-Hub Kill the Open Access Citation Advantage and (At Least for Now) Save Toll Access Journals?
    Will Sci-Hub Kill the Open Access Citation Advantage and (at least for now) Save Toll Access Journals? David W. Lewis October 2016 © 2016 David W. Lewis. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Introduction It is a generally accepted fact that open access journal articles enjoy a citation advantage.1 This citation advantage results from the fact that open access journal articles are available to everyone in the word with an Internet collection. Thus, anyone with an interest in the work can find it and use it easily with no out-of-pocket cost. This use leads to citations. Articles in toll access journals on the other hand, are locked behind paywalls and are only available to those associated with institutions who can afford the subscription costs, or who are willing and able to purchase individual articles for $30 or more. There has always been some slippage in the toll access journal system because of informal sharing of articles. Authors will usually send copies of their work to those who ask and sometime post them on their websites even when this is not allowable under publisher’s agreements. Stevan Harnad and his colleagues proposed making this type of author sharing a standard semi-automated feature for closed articles in institutional repositories.2 The hashtag #ICanHazPDF can be used to broadcast a request for an article that an individual does not have access to.3 Increasingly, toll access articles are required by funder mandates to be made publically available, though usually after an embargo period.
    [Show full text]
  • Globalization, World Culture and the Sociology of Taste: Patterns of Cultural Choice in Cross-National Perspective
    Globalization, World Culture And The Sociology Of Taste: Patterns Of Cultural Choice In Cross-National Perspective Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation Authors Lizardo, Omar Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 27/09/2021 11:28:29 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/193871 1 GLOBALIZATION, WORLD CULTURE AND THE SOCIOLOGY OF TASTE: PATTERNS OF CULTURAL CHOICE IN CROSS-NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE By Omar Lizardo _________________________ A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For The Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College University of Arizona 2006 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Omar Lizardo entitled Globalization, World Culture And The Sociology Of Taste: Patterns Of Cultural Choice In Cross-National Perspective and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 08/18/06 Ronald L. Breiger _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 08/18/06 Kieran Healy _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 08/18/06 Erin Leahey Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • D2.2: Research Data Exchange Solution
    H2020-ICT-2018-2 /ICT-28-2018-CSA SOMA: Social Observatory for Disinformation and Social Media Analysis D2.2: Research data exchange solution Project Reference No SOMA [825469] Deliverable D2.2: Research Data exchange (and transparency) solution with platforms Work package WP2: Methods and Analysis for disinformation modeling Type Report Dissemination Level Public Date 30/08/2019 Status Final Authors Lynge Asbjørn Møller, DATALAB, Aarhus University Anja Bechmann, DATALAB, Aarhus University Contributor(s) See fact-checking interviews and meetings in appendix 7.2 Reviewers Noemi Trino, LUISS Datalab, LUISS University Stefano Guarino, LUISS Datalab, LUISS University Document description This deliverable compiles the findings and recommended solutions and actions needed in order to construct a sustainable data exchange model for stakeholders, focusing on a differentiated perspective, one for journalists and the broader community, and one for university-based academic researchers. SOMA-825469 D2.2: Research data exchange solution Document Revision History Version Date Modifications Introduced Modification Reason Modified by v0.1 28/08/2019 Consolidation of first DATALAB, Aarhus draft University v0.2 29/08/2019 Review LUISS Datalab, LUISS University v0.3 30/08/2019 Proofread DATALAB, Aarhus University v1.0 30/08/2019 Final version DATALAB, Aarhus University 30/08/2019 Page | 1 SOMA-825469 D2.2: Research data exchange solution Executive Summary This report provides an evaluation of current solutions for data transparency and exchange with social media platforms, an account of the historic obstacles and developments within the subject and a prioritized list of future scenarios and solutions for data access with social media platforms. The evaluation of current solutions and the historic accounts are based primarily on a systematic review of academic literature on the subject, expanded by an account on the most recent developments and solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Piracy of Scientific Papers in Latin America: an Analysis of Sci-Hub Usage Data
    Developing Latin America Piracy of scientific papers in Latin America: An analysis of Sci-Hub usage data Juan D. Machin-Mastromatteo Alejandro Uribe-Tirado Maria E. Romero-Ortiz This article was originally published as: Machin-Mastromatteo, J.D., Uribe-Tirado, A., and Romero-Ortiz, M. E. (2016). Piracy of scientific papers in Latin America: An analysis of Sci-Hub usage data. Information Development, 32(5), 1806–1814. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266666916671080 Abstract Sci-Hub hosts pirated copies of 51 million scientific papers from commercial publishers. This article presents the site’s characteristics, it criticizes that it might be perceived as a de-facto component of the Open Access movement, it replicates an analysis published in Science using its available usage data, but limiting it to Latin America, and presents implications caused by this site for information professionals, universities and libraries. Keywords: Sci-Hub, piracy, open access, scientific articles, academic databases, serials crisis Scientific articles are vital for students, professors and researchers in universities, research centers and other knowledge institutions worldwide. When academic publishing started, academies, institutions and professional associations gathered articles, assessed their quality, collected them in journals, printed and distributed its copies; with the added difficulty of not having digital technologies. Producing journals became unsustainable for some professional societies, so commercial scientific publishers started appearing and assumed printing, sales and distribution on their behalf, while academics retained the intellectual tasks. Elsevier, among the first publishers, emerged to cover operations costs and profit from sales, now it is part of an industry that grew from the process of scientific communication; a 10 billion US dollar business (Murphy, 2016).
    [Show full text]