DOCSLIB.ORG

The Four Pillars of Scholarly Publishing: the Future and a Foundation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Four Pillars of Scholarly Publishing: the Future and a Foundation View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Tennessee, Knoxville: Trace University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange School of Information Sciences -- Faculty Publications and Other Works School of Information Sciences 4-7-2014 The four pillars of scholarly publishing: The future and a foundation. Jarrett EK Byrnes Edward B. Baskerville Bruce Caron Cameron Neylon Carol Tenopir University of Tennessee - Knoxville See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_infosciepubs Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation Byrnes, Jarrett EK, Edward B. Baskerville, Bruce Caron, Cameron Neylon, Carol Tenopir, Mark Schildhauer, Amber Budden, Lonnie Aarssen, and Christopher Lortie. “The four pillars of scholarly publishing: The future and a foundation.” Ideas in Ecology and Evolution Vol. 7, no. 1 (2014). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Information Sciences at Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Information Sciences -- Faculty Publications and Other Works by an authorized administrator of Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Jarrett EK Byrnes, Edward B. Baskerville, Bruce Caron, Cameron Neylon, Carol Tenopir, Mark Schildhauer, A.E. Budden, Lonnie Aarssen, and Christopher Lortie This article is available at Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange: https://trace.tennessee.edu/ utk_infosciepubs/154 Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 7: 27–33, 2014 doi:10.4033/iee.2014.7.7.f © 2014 The Author. © Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 2014 iee Received 24 April 2013; Accepted 18 February 2014 Future of Publishing The four pillars of scholarly publishing: The future and a foundation Jarrett E.K. Byrnes, Edward B. Baskerville, Bruce Caron, Cameron Neylon, Carol Tenopir, Mark Schildhauer, Amber Budden, Lonnie W. Aarssen, and Christopher J. Lortie Jarrett E.K. Byrnes ([email protected]), Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA USA 02139 Edward B. Baskerville, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI USA 48109 Bruce Caron, New Media Research Institute, Santa Barbara, CA USA 93101 Cameron Neylon, PLOS, Carlyle House, Cambridge, UK Carol Tenopir, School of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, TN USA 37996 Mark Schildhauer, National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA USA 93101 Amber Budden, National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA USA 93101 Lonnie W. Aarssen, Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston ON, Canada K7L 3N6 Christopher J. Lortie, Department of Biology, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, ON, Canada M3J 1P3 Abstract participating in the process. These four pillars will guide the development of better tools and practices for discov- Scholarly publishing has embraced electronic distribut- ering and sharing scientific knowledge in a modern ion in many respects, but the tools available through the networked world. The current traditional scholarly pub- Internet and other advancing technologies have pro- lishing model arose in the 1600s, and though it has found implications for scholarly communication beyond served its purpose admirably and well, it is time to move dissemination. We argue that to best serve science, the forward by embracing open, rapid transparent publicat- process of scholarly communication must embrace these ion and review. advances and evolve. Here, we consider the current state of the process in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Many forms of Government have been tried and will be (EEB) and propose directions for this evolution and tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that potential change. We identify four pillars for the future democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been of scientific communication: (1) an ecosystem of said that democracy is the worst form of government scholarly products, (2) immediate and open access, (3) except all those other forms that have been tried from open peer review, and (4) full recognition for time to time. ~Winston Churchill To see reviewer comments on the initial submitted version of this manuscript, see http://goo.gl/zO1FyW To make comments on the published manuscript, or initiate new discussions, go to http://goo.gl/zOTqFe iee 7 (2014) This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. 27 Introduction the literature they need; this access is crucial for their everyday work (Tenopir 2012). Similarly, the impact of We live in an age of rapid communication open to an high quality science is actually increased when it is ever-growing pool of information and ideas, yet our made open access (Gargouri et al. 2010). Recently the current system of communicating the results of scholar- predominant discussions about open access have moved ly activities dates back to the 1660s and still reflects past whether science needs open access or not and right many of the restrictions of that time. It limits access to on to the details of how it will be funded and how those outside the ivory tower via paywalls, keeps the existing journals and societies will adapt to the change. review process behind the closed doors of anonymity, As we concede that access must be open for the sake of and operates at a speed often far slower than what is good science, we naturally should ask what other possible. Is this a model for 21st-century publishing? Or aspects of the publishing process should also be opened do the general principles of rapid open access that have up. become apparent with the growth of the information age Here, we propose four pillars for a more open future provide a template for a form of scholarly commun- of scholarly publishing: (1) a widening of our definition ication that is both higher in quality and allows for the of scholarly products, (2) immediate open access to more rapid and efficient dissemination and revision of these products at the start of their assessment and refine- ideas? Can we improve our science by changing the ment, (3) open public review for scholarly products, and foundations of scientific discourse? With the rapid rise (4) an improved ability to assess scholarly products and of scholarly discourse online (Fox 2012), the time is the overall contributions of scholars. These pillars right to examine how we can improve the system. Here, (Figure 1) do not stand alone, but meet at a common we present a framework that provides the foundation for foundation: the need to link products together to better these considerations. enable discovery of relevant information. Embracing The debate on open-access publishing reflects the these core principles, we believe, will enhance both the ongoing changes in how scientists interface with content speed and quality of the scientific enterprise. and how their expectations for access have shifted, and moreover points the way towards more significant An Ecosystem of Scholarly Products changes to the system. Many scientists have already recognized that open access enables better science, Scholarly publishing in EEB is largely limited to a because it guarantees that researchers have the access to single species of product—namely the narrative paper in Figure 1. A brief overview of the four pillars of the future of scholarly publishing built atop the foundation of net- worked discover of new work. iee 7 (2014) 28 one of only a few forms. This monoculture of scholarly scientific process in EEB. We are cutting off a mode of production is curious, particularly given that an entire scholarly production, and limiting the information avail- subfield of ecology is devoted to the demonstration that able to scientists in the future—and by future, we may diversity can often lead to higher levels of ecosystem mean as little as a year, as blogs can have very limited function (Loreau et al. 2001). Importantly, scientific life-spans (i.e. sometimes only a year). If the purpose of dialog has eclipsed this singular modality in many scholarly communication is to forward EEB by ensuring respects with critical discoveries emerging more freely the dissemination of critical information to future schol- in dynamic discussion via blogs and social media. The ars, this distributed, undervalued set of shared products narrative paper artifact is a product of print publication must change. Beyond just creating new recognized and is increasingly seen as only one vehicle for science venues for this work, a line on a scholars CV listing a knowledge and practice to emerge in a digital world. In data product, software package, non-journal publicat- its recent white paper, the Force11 association has ions, and other scholarly resource needs to be valued in envisioned two aspects of new science artifacts: artifacts the same way as a narrative product for hiring, granting that capture the “relationships between knowledge, funds, and tenure evaluations. These are all building claims, and data,” and artifacts that promote the reprod- blocks for the future of progress in EEB. It is time that ucibility of science workflows (Bourne et al. 2012). It we begin to recognize them as such. is time for EEB to move beyond the devaluation of alternative types of scholarly product and embrace the larger ecosystem of scholarly products lest this infor- Immediate Access mation be lost, neglected, or generally undervalued. Fortunately, we have already begun to recognize that Once a researcher or research team deems the fruits there is more than one scholarly product that is of value of their scientific labor ready for the limelight, it’s time to advancing science. Publication of data has become for them to begin the cycle of peer review. The critique increasingly commonplace, with whole journals devoted of scientific work by one’s peers is the cornerstone of to data papers (e.g., Dataset Papers in Ecology scientific publishing (Goodman et al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reading Peer Review
    EVE This Element describes for the first time the database of peer review reports at PLOS ONE, the largest scientific journal in ET AL. the world, to which the authors had unique access. Specifically, Reading Peer Review this Element presents the background contexts and histories of peer review, the data-handling sensitivities of this type PLOS ONE and Institutional of research, the typical properties of reports in the journal Change in Academia to which the authors had access, a taxonomy of the reports, and their sentiment arcs. This unique work thereby yields a compelling and unprecedented set of insights into the evolving state of peer review in the twenty-first century, at a crucial political moment for the transformation of science. It also, though, presents a study in radicalism and the ways in which Reading Peer Review Peer Reading PLOS’s vision for science can be said to have effected change in the ultra-conservative contemporary university. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core. Cambridge Elements in Publishing and Book Culture Series Editor: Samantha Rayner University College London Associate Editor: Leah Tether University of Bristol Publishing and Book Culture Academic Publishing Martin Paul Eve, Cameron Neylon, Daniel ISSN 2514-8524 (online) ISSN 2514-8516 (print) Paul O’Donnell, Samuel Moore, Robert Gadie, Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.33.14, on 25 Sep 2021 at 19:03:04, subject to the Cambridge CoreVictoria terms of use, available Odeniyi at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms and Shahina Parvin. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108783521 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core.
    [Show full text]
  • Ddawson2012.Pdf (700.6Kb)
    Open Science and Crowd Science: Selected Sites and Resources Diane (DeDe) Dawson Natural Sciences Liaison Librarian University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada [email protected] Table of Contents Introduction Open Science Crowd Science Methods and Scope Open Science – Definitions and Principles Open Science – Open Lab Notebooks of Individuals and Lab Groups Open Science – Blogs Crowd Science – Projects for Individuals or Small Teams Crowd Science – Volunteer Distributed Computing Projects The Main Software Organizations Selected Projects Further Sources for Projects Selected Examples of Collaborative Science Sites for Specialists Main Software & Online Tools for Open Science Open Science Conferences and Community Conferences Further Reading/Viewing Videos Reports and White Papers Open e-Books Selected Essays, Articles, and Interviews References Introduction “To take full advantage of modern tools for the production of knowledge, we need to create an open scientific culture where as much information as possible is moved out of people’s heads and laboratories, and onto the network” (Nielsen 2011, p.183). New Internet technologies are radically enhancing the speed and ease of scholarly communications, and are providing opportunities for conducting and sharing research in new ways. This webliography explores the emerging “open science” and “crowd science” movements which are making use of these new opportunities to increase collaboration and openness in scientific research. The collaboration of many researchers on a project can enhance the rate of data-collection and analysis, and ignite new ideas. In addition, since there are more eyes to spot any inaccuracies or errors, collaborative research is likely to produce better quality results. Openness early in the research process alerts others to the work resulting in less duplication of efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Science and the Role of Publishers in Reproducible Research
    Open science and the role of publishers in reproducible research Authors: Iain Hrynaszkiewicz (Faculty of 1000), Peter Li (BGI), Scott Edmunds (BGI) Chapter summary Reproducible computational research is and will be facilitated by the wide availability of scientific data, literature and code which is freely accessible and, furthermore, licensed such that it can be reused, inteGrated and built upon to drive new scientific discoveries without leGal impediments. Scholarly publishers have an important role in encouraGing and mandating the availability of data and code accordinG to community norms and best practices, and developinG innovative mechanisms and platforms for sharinG and publishinG products of research, beyond papers in journals. Open access publishers, in particular the first commercial open access publisher BioMed Central, have played a key role in the development of policies on open access and open data, and increasing the use by scientists of leGal tools – licenses and waivers – which maximize reproducibility. Collaborations, between publishers and funders of scientific research, are vital for the successful implementation of reproducible research policies. The genomics and, latterly, other ‘omics communities historically have been leaders in the creation and wide adoption of policies on public availability of data. This has been throuGh policies, such as Fort Lauderdale and the Bermuda Principles; infrastructure, such as the INSDC databases; and incentives, such as conditions of journal publication. We review some of these policies and practices, and how these events relate to the open access publishinG movement. We describe the implementation and adoption of licenses and waivers prepared by Creative Commons, in science publishinG, with a focus on licensing of research data published in scholarly journals and data repositories.
    [Show full text]
  • P L O S 2 0 1 3 / 2 0 1 4 P R O G R E S S U P D A
    PLOS 2013/2014 PROGRESS UPDATE 2 FrOM ThE ChAIr AnD CEO PLOS has been dedicated to leading a transformation in scientific research communication since its inception. The organization begins its second decade as a publisher by rededicating itself to creating and promoting the most effective means of scientific communication possible. In an age of constant and rapid change, PLOS believes that research assessment is in need of reinvention. One-time pre-publication review must be replaced by continual assessment that offers findings without unnecessary delay and fosters the evolution of scientific ideas over time. PLOS has taken important steps toward this ideal with open evaluation to explore alternative assessments of research outcomes, assessment of impact at the article level rather than by journal and by augmenting the depth of Article-Level Metrics through crowdsourcing of media coverage. Traditional publishing models and the static PDF are insufficient for 21 st century scientific communication. Integral to its effort to move beyond the article, PLOS implemented a new Data Policy that encourages scientific dialogue by ensuring access to the data that underlies the research findings. This in turn advances research through corollary improvements in quality, reproducibility and appropriate credit. Fortunately, growing momentum in Open Access research and policies frees scientific outputs from the constraints of traditional publishing models, accelerates dissemination of knowledge and engages communities in active dialogue and participation. PLOS exists because of the vital contributions of authors, readers, reviewers, editors, advisors, funders, librarians, policy advocates and staff. The active support of this extended community is critical to continue driving research communication towards its full potential.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Scholarship and the Need for Collective Action Knowledge Exchange
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2019 Open Scholarship and the need for collective action Knowledge Exchange Cameron Neylon, Curtin University, Australia Rene Belsø, DEIC, Denmark Magchiel Bijsterbosch SURF, the Netherlands Bas Cordewener Knowledge Exchange See next page for additional authors 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 Knowledge Exchange; Neylon,, Cameron; Belsø,, Rene; Bijsterbosch, Magchiel; Cordewener, Bas; Foncel, Jérôme; Friesike, Sascha; Fyfe, Aileen; Jacobs, Neil; Katerbow, Matthias; Laakso, Mikael; and Sesink, Laurents, "Open Scholarship and the need for collective action" (2019). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 128. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/128 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. Authors Knowledge Exchange; Cameron Neylon,; Rene Belsø,; Magchiel Bijsterbosch; Bas Cordewener; Jérôme Foncel; Sascha Friesike; Aileen Fyfe; Neil Jacobs; Matthias Katerbow; Mikael Laakso; and Laurents Sesink This article
    [Show full text]
  • How Can We Use Social Media Data Related to OA Monographs Alkim Ozaygen, Lucy Montgomery, Cameron Neylon, Katie Wilson, Richard Hosking, Karl Huang
    How Can We Use Social Media Data Related to OA Monographs Alkim Ozaygen, Lucy Montgomery, Cameron Neylon, Katie Wilson, Richard Hosking, Karl Huang To cite this version: Alkim Ozaygen, Lucy Montgomery, Cameron Neylon, Katie Wilson, Richard Hosking, et al.. How Can We Use Social Media Data Related to OA Monographs. ELPUB 2020 24rd edition of the International Conference on Electronic Publishing, Apr 2020, Doha, Qatar. 10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2020.18. hal-02544911 HAL Id: hal-02544911 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02544911 Submitted on 16 Apr 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. How Can We Use Social Media Data Related to OA Monographs 1 How Can We Use Social Media Data Related to OA Monographs Alkim Ozaygen, Lucy Montgomery, Cameron Neylon, Katie Wilson, Richard Hosking and Chun-Kai (Karl) Huang Introduction 1 Until the past decade, most studies exploring the quality, reach and impact of research outputs have focused on data relating to journal articles (Torres-Salinas et al. 2014). Relatively little work has been done to explore the extent to which altmetrics approaches are capable of producing meaningful information about the role of specialist scholarly books in the research and knowledge sharing practices of scholarly communities (Neylon et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Transforming Research Excellence New Ideas from the Global South
    Transforming Research Excellence New Ideas from the Global South Edited by Erika Kraemer-Mbula, Robert Tijssen, Matthew L. Wallace and Robert McLean AFRICAN MINDS Published in 2020 by African Minds 4 Eccleston Place, Somerset West, 7130 Cape Town, South Africa [email protected] www.africanminds.org.za All contents of this document, unless specified otherwise, are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. ISBNs: 978-1-928502-06-7 Print 978-1-928502-07-4 e-book 978-1-928502-08-1 e-pub Copies of this book are available for free download at www.africanminds.org.za ORDERS For orders from Africa: African Minds Email: [email protected] For orders from outside Africa: African Books Collective PO Box 721, Oxford OX1 9EN, UK Email: [email protected] Contents Preface and acknowledgements iv 01 Introduction | Erika Kraemer-Mbula, Robert Tijssen, Matthew L. Wallace and Robert McLean 1 Part 1 Theoretical and conceptual underpinnings 02 Redefining the concept of excellence in research with development in mind | Judith Sutz 19 03 The Republic of Science meets the Republics of Somewhere: Embedding scientific excellence in sub-Saharan Africa | Joanna Chataway and Chux Daniels 39 04 Re-valuing research excellence: From excellentism to responsible assessment | Robert Tijssen 59 05 Gender diversity and the transformation of research excellence | Erika Kraemer-Mbula 79 06 Research excellence is a neo-colonial agenda (and what might be done about it) | Cameron Neylon 92 Part 2 Research excellence in practice 07 Utility over excellence: Doing research in Indonesia | Fajri Siregar 119 08 Supporting research in Côte d’Ivoire: Processes for selecting and evaluating projects | Annette Ouattara and Yaya Sangaré 138 09 Sustaining research excellence and productivity with funding from development partners: The case of Makerere University | Vincent A.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access and Research Dissemination in Africa
    Open access and research dissemination in Africa Katie Wilson, Anthony Kiuna, Richard Lamptey, Susan Veldsman, Lucy Montgomery, Cameron Neylon, Richard Hosking, Karl Huang, Alkim Ozaygen To cite this version: Katie Wilson, Anthony Kiuna, Richard Lamptey, Susan Veldsman, Lucy Montgomery, et al.. Open access and research dissemination in Africa. ELPUB 2020 24rd edition of the International Conference on Electronic Publishing, Apr 2020, Doha, Qatar. 10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2020.20. hal-02544891 HAL Id: hal-02544891 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02544891 Submitted on 16 Apr 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Open access and research dissemination in Africa 1 Open access and research dissemination in Africa Katie Wilson, Anthony Kiuna, Richard Lamptey, Susan Veldsman, Lucy Montgomery, Cameron Neylon, Richard Hosking, Chun-Kai (Karl) Huang and Alkim Ozaygen Key objectives of the study 1 In this paper, we explore open access performance within Africa, and specifically in four African countries to understand the progress of higher education and research institutions towards openness. This includes contributions from Ghana, Rwanda and South Africa, investigating open research output and dissemination through repositories and open access published sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Albertopen Blog Zu Wissenschaftlichem Publizieren 2010–2018
    ALBERTopen Blog zu wissenschaftlichem Publizieren 2010–2018 ALBERTopen Warum ALBERTopen? Mo, 28 Jun 2010 14:13:09, admin, [category: forschungsdaten, category: literaturverwaltung, category: open-access, category: publizieren, category: verlagswesen, category: zeitschriften] Elektronisches Publizieren, sich verändernde Verlagslandschaften, in den Fokus rückende Forschungsdaten Die dynamische Entwicklung der digitaler Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie eröffnet Wissenschaft, Forschung und Lehre Chancen und Herausforderungen im Umgang mit Wissen und Information. "ALBERTopen" soll interessierten Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern die Möglichkeit geben Entwicklungen, Diskussionen und Werkzeuge in diesem Feld intensiver zu verfolgen. Der Blog will nicht nur informieren, sondern auch Raum für Diskussion bieten. Wir freuen uns über Anregungen, Fragen und Ideen. Zielgruppe sind alle Interessierten auf dem Telegrafenberg. Der Titel des Blogs "ALBERTopen" ist an die Suchmaschine "ALBERT" der Bibliothek des Wissenschaftspark Albert Einstein angelehnt. Das Wissensportal ALBERT bietet eine gemeinsame, übergreifende Suche in wissenschaftlichen Inhalten (unabhängig von der Kategorisierung als gedrucktes oder elektronisches Buch, als Zeitschrift, als Aufsatz aus verschiedenen Quellen - und impliziert Forschungsdaten). Entsprechend wollen wir in diesem Blog einen offenen, weiten Blick auf den laufenden Veränderungsprozess im gesamten Feld des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens bieten. Der Begriff "open" betont darüber hinaus das Potenzial
    [Show full text]
  • Excellence R Us: University Research and the Fetishisation of Excellence
    1 Excellence R Us: University Research and the Fetishisation of Excellence Samuel Moore, Cameron Neylon, Martin Paul Eve, Daniel Paul O’Donnell, Damian Pattinson1 Abstract The rhetoric of “excellence” is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organisations, from art history to zoology. But what does “excellence” mean? Does it in fact mean anything at all? And is the pervasive narrative of excellence and competition a good thing? Drawing on a range of sources we interrogate “excellence” as a concept and find that it has no intrinsic meaning as used in the academy. Rather it functions as a linguistic interchange mechanism or boundary object. To investigate whether linguistic function is useful we examine how excellence rhetoric combines with narratives of scarcity and competition and show that hypercompetition that arises leads to a performance of “excellence” that is completely at odds with the qualities of good research. We trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, as well as diversity to the stories we tell ourselves as researchers and offer an alternative rhetoric based on soundness. “Excellence” is not excellent, it is a pernicious and dangerous rhetoric that undermines the very foundations of good research and scholarship. Introduction: The Ubiquity of Excellence Rhetoric “Excellence” is the gold standard of the University world. Institutional mission statements proclaim, in almost identical language, their “international reputation for [educational] excellence” (Baylor, Imperial College London, Loughborough University, Monash University, The University of Sheffield are amongst many examples of institutions using these words), or the extent to which they are guided by principles of “excellence” (University of Cambridge, Carnegie Mellon, Gustav Adolphus, University College London, Warwick, again, among many).
    [Show full text]
  • DIVERSIFYING READERSHIP THROUGH OPEN ACCESS: a USAGE ANALYSIS for OA BOOKS White Paper
    springernature.com Illustration inspired by the work of John Dewey Open Research DIVERSIFYING READERSHIP THROUGH OPEN ACCESS: A USAGE ANALYSIS FOR OA BOOKS White paper Open Research: Journals, books, data and tools from: Contents Foreword - Springer Nature .............................................1 Authors Ros Pyne Foreword - COARD ....................................................1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7310- Executive summary ...................................................2 3153 Introduction .........................................................4 Christina Emery Methodology and data overview.........................................6 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3903- Results .............................................................7 6724 Part 1: OA vs non-OA usage . 7 Mithu Lucraft Part 2: Geographic usage patterns for OA and non-OA books .............10 https://orcid.org/0000-0003- Case study ..........................................................18 0355-6576 Discussion and conclusion .............................................21 Alkim Özaygen Limitations ..........................................................23 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6813- Acknowledgements . 25 8362 Contacts ............................................................25 Lucy Montgomery Glossary ............................................................26 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6551- Appendices ..........................................................28 8140 Appendix 1: Selection of non-OA comparator titles .....................28
    [Show full text]
  • Innovations in Peer Review[Version 3; Peer Review: 2 Approved]
    F1000Research 2017, 6:1151 Last updated: 17 MAY 2019 REVIEW A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] Jonathan P. Tennant 1,2, Jonathan M. Dugan 3, Daniel Graziotin4, Damien C. Jacques 5, François Waldner 5, Daniel Mietchen 6, Yehia Elkhatib 7, Lauren B. Collister 8, Christina K. Pikas 9, Tom Crick 10, Paola Masuzzo 11,12, Anthony Caravaggi 13, Devin R. Berg 14, Kyle E. Niemeyer 15, Tony Ross-Hellauer 16, Sara Mannheimer 17, Lillian Rigling 18, Daniel S. Katz 19-22, Bastian Greshake Tzovaras 23, Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza 24, Nazeefa Fatima 25, Marta Poblet 26, Marios Isaakidis 27, Dasapta Erwin Irawan 28, Sébastien Renaut 29, Christopher R. Madan 30, Lisa Matthias 31, Jesper Nørgaard Kjær 32, Daniel Paul O'Donnell 33, Cameron Neylon 34, Sarah Kearns 35, Manojkumar Selvaraju 36,37, Julien Colomb 38 1Imperial College London, London, UK 2ScienceOpen, Berlin, Germany 3Berkeley Institute for Data Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA 4Institute of Software Technology, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany 5Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium 6Data Science Institute, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA 7School of Computing and Communications, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK 8University Library System, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 9Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD, USA 10Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, UK 11VIB-UGent Center
    [Show full text]