Learned Publishing Volume 27 No 4 October 2014
ISSN 0953-1513, Online ISSN: 1741-4857
Editorial: US DOE public access plan: in search of the right fit
pp242 [free access]
Cross Ref's Text and Data Mining Services
ABSTRACT. CrossRef (http://www.crossref.org/) is an association of scholarly publishers that develops shared infrastructure to support more effective scholarly communications. In May 2014, CrossRef launched CrossRef Text and Data Mining Services for its members. This article covers the thinking behind CrossRef launching this service, and the particular problems it aims to address around the collection of full-text content for the purposes of text and data mining (TDM). It explains the technical aspects of the service for researchers and lets publishers know what they need to provide to CrossRef in order to participate and how to do so. It will also describe the pilot of CrossRef’s TDM Services, and information on publisher uptake since the launch and how this can be measured, and the costs for joining or using the service.
Point of View
Communication or competition: what motivates researchers to write articles for journals?
Research Information Network
Unpublishable research: examining and organizing the 'file drawer'
Andrew TSOU, Jutta SCHICKORE and Cassidy R. SUGIMOTO
ABSTRACT. It is well known that a number of research outcomes are not reported (the so-called ‘file drawer problem’). It is generally assumed that what is not reported are ‘negative results’. Our study approaches the issue from a new angle by exploring what researchers perceive to be ‘unpublishable’. A survey regarding ‘unpublishables’ was sent out to 2,535 faculty members at Indiana University. Forty of these individuals consented to in-depth interviews, which more fully explored these academics’ views on the issue of unpublishable work. Our results indicate that there are several types of research besides negative results that are perceived to be unpublishable yet worthy of publication. Moreover, there is a great diversity within and across disciplines as to what constitutes ‘unpublishable’ research. Respondents indicated that academic discourse would benefit from the formal dissemination of papers that included inconclusive or null results, as well as replication and refutation studies. The results of our study suggest that there is a perceived gap in scholarly communication, which is to the detriment of science. These results can be used by administrators, educators, and publishers in order to refine scholarly communication practices so as to create a more robust, accurate literature and to inform future generations of researchers.
Point of View
How to spot fake open access journals
Saeed MEHRPOUR and Yaser KHAJAVI
Shiraz University, Iran
Uploading garbage file to the DOI system of a journal: a new type of misconduct
Kyu Won JUNG, Elizabeth WAGER and Sun HUH
Hanyang University, Sideview, UK and Hallym University. Korea
ABSTRACT. We report an unusual case in which garbage files were uploaded to the DOI system of a Korean scholarly journal (Journal of Educational Evaluation of Health Professions). This was a deliberate attack to disrupt the journal so that the DOI pages were directed to an invalid page. It was a mysterious type of attack that had never previously occurred in the DOI system. This behaviour can therefore be considered as a new type of misconduct. From the legal viewpoint, this action may be considered a criminal offence, under Korean law, to disrupt a national institute which publishes a journal on the basis of its constituting interference with a government office in the execution of its duties. We report this strange case so that publishers and editors can be alert to this new type of cyber-crime and to help them prevent any reoccurrence.
'The Stone Age came to an end not for the lack of stones...'
© Bob Campbell 2014
Comparing 'papers cited rates' with other measures for science journal evaluation
GAI Shuang-Shuang, LIU Xue-Li, ZHANG Shi-Le and LIU Rui-Yuan
Xinxiang Medical University, People's Republic of China
ABSTRACT. Thirty-six ophthalmology journals indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) in 2003 were selected to study the role of the ‘papers cited rate’ in scientifi c journal evaluation. The 2-year, 3-year, 5-year, 8-year, and 10-year cited rates of these papers were calculated to analyze statistically the correlations with impact factor, 5-year impact factor, immediacy index, eigenfactor score, article influence score, and total cites. The results of questionnaires sent to 8,525 ophthalmologists were used to analyse the correlations between the papers cited rates for different years and traditional bibliometric indicators. The results showed that eigenfactor score and total cites were better than other indicators, and impact factor was better than the 5-year impact factor. The 2-year and 3-year cited rates of papers were reasonable for evaluating science journals, and the 2-year cited rate was better than the 3-year cited rate. The 5-year (and more than 5 years) cited rates were not significant in evaluating science journals.
How is the discipline of publishing studies accommodated within universities
Alison BAVERSTOCK and Jackie STEINITZ
ABSTRACT. This paper offers an overview, both internationally and with a particular concentration on the UK, of how the profession-orientated discipline of publishing studies (PS) is accommodated and established within those universities where it is offered. It presents a combination of data, gained from a survey of professionals teaching PS, desk research into courses of PS in the UK, and from Heidi and HESA. The findings offer information on the size of the field, the location, the employability of graduates and associated staffing and research support structures. While of interest to publishing studies perse, it should also be relevant to those working within other profession-orientated disciplines; to those considering the employability of graduating students; and to those considering the value of postgraduate studies.
The peer-review process in the English-language advertising journals: a survey of US academics
University of Oklahoma
This study examined the views of advertising academics regarding the peer-review process in English-language advertising journals. Three issues were examined. First, how do advertising academics assess the peer-review process in advertising journals on the following dimensions: fairness, anonymity (truly double-blind), timeliness, and effectiveness in improving the quality of research? Second, how do they perceive the ethicality of review process behaviors? Third, what steps do they suggest for improving the quality or integrity of the peer review process? Data was collected through a survey of US-based advertising academics. The findings reveal that advertising academics believe that, for the most part, advertising journals are succeeding at fairness, protecting anonymity, improving the research of submitters, and avoiding ethical infractions in the review process. However, advertising academics would like to see improvements in timeliness as well as in incentives and guidelines provided to participants in the peer-review process.