Joe Esposito, a management consultant for the publishing and digital services industries, gives his own insight on the controversy regarding CiteScore, Elsevier new basket of metrics to be used by researchers and librarians to assess the value of a journal.
The Public Knowledge Project announced that his Open Journal Systems is now being used by more than 10,000 active journals around the world. This makes OJS one of the leading online publishing platform. These 10,000 journals have published over 420,000 articles, the vast majority of which are open access. Latin America and the Caribbean account for 3,295 journals, making it the largest region of use.
Furthermore, PKK joined recently the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), alongside ISSN International Centre, DOAJ, INASP, Knowledge Unlatched, SciELO, SPARC Europe, and others.
Click here to know more about this recent membership.
This new service noticeably provides each journal with its own portal within Springer Nature’s Figshare repository, giving each journal its own data repository. Articles published in SpringerOpen and BioMed Central journals can now show a widget for previewing and browsing additional files, enabling readers to see this enhanced content in line with the article in the same browser window.
Elsevier recently announced CiteScore metrics, a free citation reporting service for the academic community. This service is similar, in many ways, to the Impact Factor. Both CiteScore and the Impact Factor are journal-level indicators built around a ratio of citations to documents. The specifics in how each indicator is constructed makes them different enough such that they should not be considered substitutes, says Phil Davis, an independent researcher and publishing consultant. The controversy is open.
Jisc Collections and Elsevier signed an agreement which grants a 5-year subscription access to around 1,850 journals on Elsevier’s ScienceDirect e-platform. Furthermore, both parties have agreed to cooperate on several Open Science opportunities, leveraging Elsevier’s technology and analytics capabilities to help make science in the UK more collaborative and efficient.
A feedback from the Peer Review Week organising committee members. Their responses show a clear understanding of the importance of peer review and a firm commitment to supporting more recognition for review in future.
After receiving allegations of plagiarism confined to two journals, Springer and BioMed Central immediately commenced an extensive investigation across their entire portfolio. A total of 58 articles published across seven journals have been spotted and will be gradually retracted by the joint Research Integrity Group.
This is an examination on how some straightforward changes to publisher practices might enable simpler workflows within libraries. It looks at the scope for transformational change in academic publishing as a result of open access (OA), and argues that publishers that explore radically new business models will be in a position to flourish in the future.
Taylor & Francis Group published Peer review: a global view. It brings together primary research on researchers’ motivations behind publishing in peer reviewed journals and in undertaking peer review, and their attitudes and opinions towards peer review training and support. Including findings from an online survey as well as focus groups held in China, South Africa and the UK, this supplement forms part of one of the largest research studies into peer review in recent years.
Authors of scholarly papers often have little problem with piracy of their material if said piracy might increase the number of people reading their work. As a matter of fact, publishers assume financial risk for scholarly and academic authors. This article from Scholarly Kitchen asks therefore the question: “What if publishers paid research authors to publish, on a widespread basis, and in amounts that would be meaningful?” Positive and negative aspects of such an idea are explored at length.
