Questions related to Scholarly Communication
one of the main benefits of a Special Issue is the rigorous yet rapid peer review process from submission to reaching a decision. The quick publication process can help researchers avoid getting scooped else we have seen reviews period of 1 -2 years in some journals. Moreover, many at times articles are rejected after 3-6 months citing out-of-scope reasons and special issues are helpful in choosing a particular jopurnal.
In your opinion how do special issues are impacting research and individual researchers?
The theme of the above-noted article is comparable to this already published article: An author’s guide to mastering academic writing skills: Discussion of a medical manuscript.
I mean one is not so aware of journals in the discipline of Education and Teaching that may be suited for such scientific content? Or rather journals that bridge the gap between Education and Medicine?
Please fill out this survey on research productivity during the pandemic.
Thank you for your time.
#neurosurgery #research #productivity #pandemic #covid #collaboration
I have personally experience that its relatively tough to publish in a good journal in social science, for example let us suppose in the field of finance, marketing and so on. In comparison i have seen that in natural sciences the publication chances and frequency are higher. What are the possible reasons for this?
People are searching for certainty in Science and that’s the opposite of what leads to scientific breakthroughs. How to deal with this?
Differentiating Science from Pseudoscience is becoming a challenge at so many levels these days. How can we separate the two and acknowledge a grey area in between?
Especially for newcomers to tertiary education, do they need to focus on research + present + write + publish like the oldtimers, or do they just need to focus 100% on their online teaching activities?
A preprint is a version of a scientific manuscript posted on a public server prior to formal peer review. As soon as it's posted, the preprint becomes a permanent part of the scientific record, citable with its own unique DOI.
Many interesting topics and controversies are discussed on ResearchGate. There are opinions from experts across the globe. Can these discussions be summarized as an article? Would there be a need for an ethical approval? Is consent required from various contributors?
I have just published a book with a big international science publisher (CRC Press, a branch of Taylor and Francis). The multi-author edited book is nice and hopefully useful for many (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321016401_Grasslands_of_the_world_diversity_management_and_conservation), but the experiences with the publisher were so disappointing that some co-authors and I decided to start a public discussion on writing scientific books in the age of greedy publishers.
Here are some key facts of our collaboration with CRC/Francis and Taylor:
· The communication with the publisher was very unreliable and inefficient: e.g. did we receive various requests multiple times and the publisher “forgot” about previous written agreements.
· The typesetting as the only service provided by the publisher was very poor: about 90% of the changes made by the publisher introduced errors into previously correct text or tables and it was very time-consuming for us to find all these errors and remove them again.
· Instead of paying the authors a honorarium for their work, the publisher forced us to pay for the colour figures in our articles.
· The publisher refused to give the authors a complimentary print copy of their book (only the editors got one).
· First the publisher wanted to provide an electronic version of the chapter/book only to each corresponding author, not to all authors, and only after serious negotiations they accepted to provide e-books to all authors. We assumed that these would be functional pdf’s, but instead they received the books in a very weird e-book format with a display in an ugly and hardly readable layout (e.g. all text in bold), not allowing proper printing nor sharing parts of the content (e.g. single pages or figures) with others. This means that the authors did not receive any printed or electronic copy of that exactly corresponds to the published version of their own work.
I am extremely frustrated about the behaviour of CRC/Francis and Taylor and consider the last point as being at the edge of unethical. My feeling is that CRC might only reflect the strategy of most international science publishers to maximise profit by pressing money out of both authors and readers/libraries, while at the same time minimising the service they provide. On the other hand my gut feeling tells me that nowadays with cheap print-on-demand technology and the possibility to distribute printed or open access e-books without the need to involve a big marketing/distribution machinery should allow for other solutions.
Therefore, I would like to ask you two questions:
· Did you make similar experiences with other science publishers, or are they better or even worse?
· Do you see ways how those among us who would like to continue to write nice and useful books can do this without sacrificing themselves to profit-maximisation strategy of the big international science publishers?
Looking forward to your responses and hoping for a lively debate,
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Dengler
(ZHAW, Wädenswil, Switzerland)
Reviewers play a pivotal role in scholarly publishing. The peer review system exists to validate academic work, helps to improve the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation and has continued successfully with relatively minor changes for some 350 years (Elsevier, 2021). If you could change something to improve how the peer-reviewed process is traditionally done, what would you change?
One question scratches a corner of my mind, so I decided to ask it here. Do you think that sometimes peer review (single or double-blind) is too harsh and too cruel against the manuscript? Even though I have managed to publish some papers so far, I still get the impression that the reviewers seek a perfect paper. Even if the reviews stick to the ethical boundaries, being too hard can discourage beginners like me. Also, I think sometimes they do it deliberately to show the superiority of their knowledge and experience. Similarly, some comments can be the comments that have been provided just for the sake of providing something. What do you think about it? Thank you beforehand.
My question is: In many cases, we have seen that the published articles have a DOI link so is it necessary for a Published article? suppose we can just use the journal link or a site link where it is saved so why it is necessary for an article.
Because in some cases the mostly DOI links cannot work properly.
I was wondering if it were possible to get DOI for my published paper? and here is the answer from Cross Reference,
Hi Massoud Thank you for your interest in Crossref membership. Crossref is a membership organization for scholarly publishers and, unfortunately, membership is not open to individuals. This is because membership brings with it various obligations and long-term commitments (see our membership terms) which may be difficult for individuals to fulfill. If your content is published in a journal, please contact the journal publisher to see if they are already a Crossref member, or if they would like to join. If your content is published by your institution, perhaps your institution might consider Crossref membership, and you might then register your DOI through them? If you are looking for a DOI for unpublished work, you might consider using Figshare to register a DOI. I hope this helps.
Hello friends, my article has been published in AIJRPreprint online and it is also available on Google Scholar. Would it be count as a publication in my CV?
I would like to draw your attention to the "Stop Tracking Science" initiative (https://stoptrackingscience.eu/) and ask your opinion about their demands:
- Corporate tracking of academics must stop and can no longer be the subject of negotiations between research institutions and publishers.
- Open standards in scholarly communication must take precedence over solutions that promote monopolies of knowledge and provider lock-in.
- All actors in science governance must redesign their decision-making and evaluation instruments and overcome their fixation on bibliometric indicators.
It is possible to sign this petition.
When we decide to select a journal for publication of a research article. Sometimes we get confused among impact factor and quartile ranking. Some journals have high impact factor but low quartile ranking and vice-versa. So, Readers are requested to express their valuable suggestions for the same.
I have received comments from three reviewers. many of the comments are similar.
do i have to respond to the comments of all the three reviewers individually or can i write a consolidated response to all the three reviewers' comments.
please suggest me in this regard.
thanks in advance
What are the requirements for registering a scholarly publisher that contains many journals? Which country accepts that easily? Do I need a license?
I am publishing articles that use several different datasets to calculate results and I would like to share them so that other researchers can use the same data for post-process analysis and verification.
I am a student pursuing a Master's Degree in Library and Information Science, and for my thesis, I am exploring how academic professionals engage in scholarly communication and use open access resources.
Would you kindly consider taking this survey for my research? It should take no more than 5-10 minutes to complete.
The link to the survey can be accessed by clicking here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdN8iM6ceHnhEJaH1Aas2AXhAucqGeW7l_Rdy4ajYgzpkSMcQ/viewform
Please feel free to share with your colleagues or any individuals who you think may find this survey and research valuable. Additionally, I am more than happy to send a summary of my results to you when they come back if you are interested.
Thank you for your participation! Sincerely, Hannah Herrlich Hannah.Herrlich81@qmail.cuny.edu
I know it gives another chance to resubmit after major revision. But could corresponding author consider "Reject & Resubmit" as a simple reject, and submit the article to another journal? Should corresponding author ask for permission of previous journal?
During peer review process, as we all know we modify our articles based on the reviewers comment that we get. But when we submit our revised version of the manuscript, is it necessary that the same reviewers- who participated in the first review based on whose comment that the revised version is prepared reviews the manuscript 2nd time also. This happened to me. One of the article, submitted to a good reputed journal of my discipline. In the first review, I got comments from three reviewer. Based on the comment I revised my manuscript and submitted. In the second review report, I got comments from two reviewer instead of three. There was co-relation of comments of one reviewer from the first review report (so can be guessed that the reviewer is same) but the comments from the 2nd reviewer were entirely new. The I prepared the 2nd revised version based on the 2nd review report, and submitted it. Now I got the 3rd review report, where I got some entirely new comments which didn't co-relate any way with the first and second review report.
If the same persons do not review the revised versions, then doesn't it violate the sole purpose of peer review also wasting a lot of valuable time. Can I ask more details about the process to the editor of the journal?
Due to Covid-19 pandemic, having virtual presentation as alternative tool in presenting papers in international conferences have risen tremendously. Conferences/meetings is an important event in a researchers life, because you can meet other researchers and have the chance to hear from plenary speaker. Did you experience virtual presentations? Please share your thoughts and experience! Thank you!
Suppose a paper have been reviewed by three different reviewer's.
Two reviewer's suggested acceptance of the article, and one suggests not to accept the article.
In such situations, what the editor does?
I came across this :
1) If the journal is indexed in Scimago Journal Ranking (SJR), then it is International Journal (scholarly quality)
What is your thought? How do you evaluate?
If one has a (maybe transient) link to an open access version of a paper, how can we post it? Of course one can upload the unedited manuscript, but we all know that the edited one is much nicer to read...
We published one apper and I got a link, but dont know where to post it:
I can't post it as supplement (file needed), nor anywhere on the article page and there is no format which can be used to created a new contribution...
I found a similar question but without a usable idea (besides building a document including the link)
Here are three websites that say they have continued the work of Beall's List, which was discontinued due to harassment.
https://beallslist.net/ -- Updated URL
If you have a publisher or a journal that you need to check, I suggest checking all three of these lists.
If you already use one or more of these sites, which do you think is best maintained?
To write a captivating, motivating and scientifically attractive application, what are the needed tips to have one?.
In the era of open access publication and the emergence of a huge number of journals that barely follow publishing ethics (no peer review/pay and publish). It becomes necessary that all journals must be screened by an authority based on editorial/reviewer board/scientific content and other criteria.
I have noted some online journals publishing >150 papers quarterly.
I want to know if there is reduction in value in terms of academic usefulness by converting an original article to short communication. Are these two article types the same?. Or, do they rate them differently in academic environment?
We are trying to develop the best tools for scholarly publishing. Please help us understand your needs and your wishes about scholarly publishing. Thanks so much!
I find that inequalities are increasing in the dissemination of knowledge due to the publication costs, despite the opportunities given by the plethora of journals. More specifically, what is the cost of knowledge? Is such a lucrative endeavor marginalizing the work and the thinking of brilliant minds who simply do not have the money resources to present their work? How can this inequality be resolved within the community of scholars and researchers?
The present scholarly communication has still the shape of the traditional publishing system. We are living in a digital, networked world, but we are still producing mostly paper-centric publications in digital formats. Will journals, books, and other channels of scholarly communication brought from a print world survive, or some other channels will be adopted with time?
I just discovered today that the publisher of a journal in which I had an article published in 2016 has reprinted that article in a huge four-volume compendium (listing no editor).
I am sure that our copyright contract gave them permission to do this, but should I treat it as a separate publication in my CV?
I do not believe that any changes have been made to the text of the original.
I have not come across this circumstance before.
- How and why?
- How does publications/impact factor (IF) or specialty of authors influences the publications of articles?
- If not then why journals require the ORCID/Scopus/Researcher ID or Loop ID of the author?
- Your opinion matters and will be gratefully appreciated.
- The h-index reflects both the number of publications and the number of citations per publication. For example: a scientist with an h-Index of 20 has 20 papers cited at least 20 times.
- The g-index looks at overall record of citations from higher-cited articles to be used to bolster lower-cited articles. For instance a scientist with 20 papers, 15 of which have no citations with the remaining five having respectively 350, 35, 10, 4 and 1 citations would have a g-index of 20, but a h-index of 4 (four papers with at least 4 citations each).
- Stated that, "By 1 January 2020 scientific publications that result from research funded by public grants provided by participating national and European research councils and funding bodies, must be published in compliant OA Journals or on compliant OA Platforms,”
- Let us suppose, if all the journals are OA then what about the scientists of low-income countries/limited funding/without funding.
The journal asked to please provide any relevant details regarding your previously considered manuscript (e.g., Editor’s name, manuscript ID, etc.) and to describe changes made to, and the rationale for reconsideration of the manuscript in your cover letter. Do you supply them with the information or just omit? Why would they ask this?
If there are no published translations available for a manuscript, can you translate the excerpt, to which you want to refer to, on your own? If yes will it suffice to mention in the footnote that the current quotation is YOUR rendered version of the actual text? Do you have to insert the text in its original language as well?
I'm asking because I just had an article come out in a journal that embargoes uploading an accepted manuscript on researchgate but allows me to post it to my personal web site.
Open access, open review, public review...too many faces for just one coin.
I read utmost interesting comments from several colleagues about the meaning and the potential dangerous side-effects of open access journals...we can discuss about them for years; also, we can discuss about the opportunity of open review but nobody says that just public reviews, as well as public authors' answers, would dramatically improve both review process and articles' quality.
Few, very few journals (either open or not open access) are working on this item and I hope that much more will do in the next future.
I find RG behaving strangely, the weekly read count of one of my popular papers is constant for past several weeks. What I find unusual that though the number of reads are shown but the are not credited to that particular paper, can someone explain. Further, my total reads count when was nearing 1,00,000, RG arbitrarily reduced it to 86 K, I could not understand the reason. If some friends could explain it, I would be grateful. Thank you
To be a peer-reviewed journal, it is assumed that blind reviews are necessary. Yet, I notice that some excellent journals online do list the names of an extensive review board on the home page or masthead of the paper copy. This is a great way to build the notoriety of the journal and at the same time, give recognition to the reviewers. However, there are differing views in my circle of colleagues as to whether to publish the names of our external reviewers. Thanks in advance for your comments.
I searched some articles about my question and I found the following most interesting tips. I hope it will help you guys too. Moreover, I'll be grateful if you could leave your valuable advice in a comment.
Planning your research schedule
1. Choose something to research/write about that you are passionately interested in. I find that most of my research and writing tends to spring from wanting to find out more or understand more about a particular phenomenon that intrigues me. In explaining it to myself I end up explaining it to others, hopefully in a new and interesting way that is worthy of publication.
2. Be organised – planning time use is essential when there are many demands on your time.
3. Make sure that you set aside one or more periods of time each week when you devote yourself to research and don’t let other demands impinge on this time.
4. So I can easily see what I need to do and by when, I use a white-board with a ‘to do’ list with tasks listed monthly and their deadlines. I rub off tasks as I complete them (usually with a great sense of accomplishment!). Very low tech, I know, but effective as a visual reminder.
5. Plan your research in chunks: this morning, today, this week, this month, next few months, this year, next three years. Have a clear idea for what you want to achieve in these time periods and try to stick to this as much as you can.
6. I don’t tend to think more than a year ahead when it comes to research outcomes I want to achieve, but I find it helpful to write up at least a one-year research plan at the beginning of each year. Some people may also want to prepare a 3- or 5-year research plan.
7. Be strategic about every bit of research time available. Think about the best use of your time. Difficult cognitive tasks requiring intense thought often need a lengthy period of time, so plan to do these when this is available to you. Easy or less time-intensive tasks such as correcting proofs, editing or formatting a journal article or chapter for submission or reading some materials and taking notes can be fitted in smaller periods of time.
Making a start
1. Use whatever research time you have to do something, however, small the task.
2. Make a start. Once you have an idea for a piece of writing, create a file for it on your computer and write down anything, however rough and however brief, even if it is just a provisional title and some notes about possible content. It can always be polished and developed later or even discarded if you decide eventually not to go ahead with the idea.
3. Organise your writing into different computer files: articles in progress, submitted articles, accepted articles, conference papers, blog posts, book proposals, grant applications etc.
4. Organise your PDF journal article collection under topics in files on your computer.
5. If you are feeling unenthusiastic or have hit a wall – leave that piece of writing for a while and work on another piece of writing.
6. If no external deadline has been set, set yourself deadlines and try to meet these as much as you can, so that you can then move on to the next piece of writing.
Getting the most out of your writing
1. Use your writing in as many different ways as you can – conference papers, articles/chapters, books, blog posts. Turn the small (unrefereed) pieces into bigger (refereed) pieces whenever you can and vice versa. What starts out as a blog post can be later developed into an article, for example. Conversely, some of the main arguments of an article can be used in one or more blog posts.
2. Never let a conference/seminar paper stay a conference/seminar paper – turn it into an article/book chapter as soon as you can. If there is simply not enough substance for a piece that is the length of a journal article or book chapter, consider polishing and referencing the paper appropriately. Once it is at a standard where you consider it ready to be available to others, publish it on your university’s e-repository as a working paper. That way, anyone will be able to access the paper digitally and reference it.
3. Decide on an appropriate journal as you are writing an article and tailor the argument/length to the journal’s requirements before you finish it.
4. Once you think that you have finished a piece of writing and are ready to submit it, put it aside for a least a day and come back and read it again with fresh eyes. You will most probably notice something that could be improved upon. Once you have done this and are feeling happy with the piece, go ahead and submit. As another commentator has argued, you need to conquer your fear and send your writing off into the world: ‘we owe it to the words we have written to send them away’.
5. Receiving feedback from academic referees on a writing piece or research proposal can sometimes be demoralising. Don’t let negative comments get you down for long. Grit your teeth and revise and resubmit as soon as you can, however tedious it feels. See this as an opportunity to make your piece the very best it can be. If the article has been rejected, take a good hard look at whether the referees’ comments are valid and if necessary, revise and then submit it to another journal. Remember that all successful academic writers have received negative feedback at times: that is simply part-and-parcel of academic writing and publishing.
6. Rather than simply deleting material when you are editing a piece of writing, make ‘edits’ computer files into which to ‘paste’ this material when you cut it (I make several edits files under topics). You never know when you may be able to use this material somewhere else.
7. Think about how one writing piece can lead to another as you are writing it.
8. Make sure that your abstract is well-written and will lead others to your work (see here for guidelines on writing an effective abstract).
9. Keep on top of the latest research published in the journals you use for your research. One easy way to do this is to sign up to email alerts with the publishers of the journals and you will be notified by them of the contents of each new issue.
Connect for inspiration
1. The inspiration for research can come from many places. Attending conferences and seminars and reading the latest academic literature in your field are all extremely important, but so are other strategies. As a sociologist, I have generated many ideas from listening to good quality radio programs, reading newspapers and my favourite online sites and blogs regularly and engaging in social media such as Twitter and Facebook with people interested in the topics I research (see more on social media at no. 25).
2. Connect, connect, connect. Publicise your research and make connections with other researchers as much as you can. Make contact with others working in areas related to your interests even if they are in different departments or in other universities. Join relevant research networks or start your own.
3. Strengthen your online presence. Think about using social and other digital media to promote your research, engage with the community and make academic connections. Set up a profile on Academia.edu at the barest minimum. Make sure your university webpage is kept up-to-date with your latest publications and research projects. Write blog posts (if you don’t want to commit to your own blog, do guest posts for others’ blogs or for online discussion forums), sign up to Twitter and relevant Facebook pages, put your PowerPoints on SlideShare, make Pinterest boards (see here for my introduction to social media for academics).
4. Use digital bookmarking sites such as Scoop.it, Pinterest, Delicious or Bundlr to save interesting material you have found on the web (see here for a discussion of using tools like these for academic work).
5. Use a computerised online reference manager such as Endnote, Zotero or Mendeley. Get in the habit of loading citations straight into this each time as soon as you come across them.
6. Think carefully about who you collaborate with on research before agreeing to do so. Good collaborators will add immensely to your own work: bad ones will make your life difficult and you won’t be happy with the outputs you produce.
7. Seek out the advice or mentorship of more experienced academics whose research you respect.
8. Take regular walks/runs/bike rides. This will not only keep you physically fit but will also provide a mental space to think through an argument or come up with new ideas. Some of my best ideas have come when I have been in motion and my thoughts are unencumbered.
This blog was originally published on Deborah’s blog, ‘This Sociological Life’, and is reprinted here.
We recently received an offensive review which accused us of plagiarism, dishonesty and fabricating observations. Three editors considered this a fair review, and a representative of the publisher did not reply to an email asking her to pass on my complaints to an authority policing unethical reviews. Throughout my correspondence with the editors they acted as though I was asking for our paper to be reconsidered. I had made it clear that this was not the case. This strategy was used to avoid having to respond to my complaints about the reviews and editorial handling of our paper.
I'm an undergraduate currently studying the problems faced by acute care services in terms of human resources.
As part of a narrative synthesis, I'm querying several databases using key terms in relation to the issue.
Is it necessary to report the number of articles hit upon during search strategy? I have used broad terms, and remained flexible in my approach, in order to ensure I don't miss important literature.
It's a multidisciplinary issue, spanning areas of health policy, social sciences, anthropology, and economics. I've found a couple hundred of papers that I intended to full-text review, but am not sure whether I need to report how many hits were produced on initial querying of databases (> 20,000 papers between the databases, with multiple duplications between).
I'm confused about how to report this in my methodology (search strategy). I want to state the terms I used, and the numbers of papers I reviewed, but it seems conventional for many papers to report the database output in numbers of papers as well. Is this necessary for a narrative synthesis?
I know the acceptance rate is low, but we think we have 40% odds to get accepted. But my student would need the (conditional) acceptance or rejection notice no later than 8 months from now, just to have time to submit to another journal if it is rejected.
If there a very good work and the authors have some problem in the writing with English, how can they share their work with someone in the same specialization to improve the writing and share publishing with him?
Is cross-writing a good way for publishing and minimizing the time for publishing? is this reality that some journals can accept your paper quickly if their a big name on the paper?
IS Academic"Ghost authoring" or 'Ghostwriting' a form of plagiarism or a form form of academic fraud?
WIKIPEDIA defines A ghostwriter as 'a person who is hired to author books, manuscripts, screenplays, speeches, articles, songs, blog posts, stories, reports, white papers, or other texts that are officially credited to another person.... Usually, there is a confidentiality clause in the contract between the ghostwriter and the credited author that obligates the former to remain anonymous. Sometimes the ghostwriter is acknowledged by the author or publisher for his or her writing services, euphemistically called a "researcher" or "research assistant", but often the ghostwriter is not credited.'
The American Medical Writers Association :
"Ghost authoring" refers to making substantial contributions without being identified as an author. "Guest authoring" refers to being named as an author without having made substantial contributions. "Ghostwriting" refers to assisting in presenting the author's work without being acknowledged. The term "ghostwriting" is often used to encompass all three of these practices.
What if you are finding a number of in-text citations are not matching what authors actually said in student manuscript? It's a very uncomfortable situation and I'm wondering how you dealt with it in terms of reviewing the paper.
Hello, can someone agree to be a reviewer for my new article that should be published on a peer-review basis ? I can of course in return do the same for someone who needs a reviewer.
The article is about metal-nanoparticles on grapheneoxide as catalyst.
Thank You in advance !
I have formatting problem with Endnote style.
When I cite single or references in my word document through Endnote. Every citation has a blank space before reference number (e.g., Traditionally, the stereo-typed medical teachers were presumed to possess teaching capabilities based on knowledge of content and due to their own experience of how they were taught3, 4). Instead of 3,4, Endnote inserted citations are 3, 4.
Kindly guide me, How I will edit my endnote style to fix this unnecessary space?
The Elsevier's freely accessible online journal metric, Citescore, includes double the journals than the traditional 'impact factor' and thus shall be more welcomed by the academics worldwide. Does your institute accept and even encourage the use of Citescore at the moment? If not, what are the factors exist that hinder the acceptance?
Many Academician and researchers think that number, quality and citation does not matter. But another school of thought relates quality of a paper to number of citation. What can be some successful strategies to increase the number of citations?
Are those free online software's editing, proofreading services for scientific manuscripts truth worthy enough? Formatting of the paper would be an added value service. What about the confidentiality factor? I need info on the latest actual updates. Thanks in advance.
I noticed recently that many on-line publishers are publishing articles with high plagiarisms that can reach sometimes more than 40 %. In addition, authors tend to ignore previous similar work which means that they do not cite them. What should the research community do about it? is there legal responsibility on the publisher?
I am conducting a rapid review and my final search has resulted in 2 papers (one of which is the systematic review I am basing my study on). How do I summarise the systematic review findings without just repeating what the author has said? In regards to the 2 papers they found also?
Scientist work on subject area and identify the focused outcome. The research work needs multiple people work in same subject and sometimes same problem. The second scenario the duplication of research work and even the slightly changed or variation in research data publish in different publication. In these two scenario, people have lot of discussion, about wastage of resources for duplication of research work. Your expert suggestion to improve the mechanism for monitoring of scientific research work.
I am seeking advice on how to start a new publishing establishment (company, firm or trust) for publishing peer review open access journals?
1- Do I need office, business bank account, accountant etc.. for registration in the beginning?
2- What company has a good experience and cost effective for designing the website?
3- What is the best indexing service and how much that cost?
4- Anyone would like to participate?
Situation: Someone will be listed as a coauthor of a manuscript. Weeks/Months/Years before the manuscript is going to be submitted, he accepted a new position in a new institute/lab/town.
Question: What affiliation should be mentioned? The affiliation at the time of submission or at the time of data generation?
I think, current affiliation would be right. Am I right? Is there a rule for these situations?
I'm just curious, why is a journal not indexed anymore in Pubmed (e.g. only archived for several early volumes)? However, it is still indexed by Thomson Reuters.
Research policies in many different countries seem to follow similar trends, such as increased emphasis on bibliometric evaluation. I'm trying to find out where these trends originate and how they change.
Wiley and several other publishers talk about their partnerships with scholarly associations, but none of of them provide a list of these associations that I have found. Do you know of a source which lists the Scholarly Associations which publish with each company ?
Just curious what other scientists think about the "fully open" and "peer review of peer review" website Peerage of Science. If you don't know about it, here are a few links explaining it:
Do you think Peerage of Science is useful and will solve some of the problems of traditional peer review journals? What obstacles do you think this model faces?
I'd like to gather ideas to develop institutional repositories. What new services can librarians provide to researchers and what can they do to increase the visibility of these repositories?
Thanks for your help !
Would you describe the process, including your criteria for establishing the reliability of a channel? Have your criteria changed over the years, and if so, how? Does this differ for traditional channels such as journal articles or books and non-traditional channels such as blogs or tweets, and if so, why? Do you rate different traditional channels differently, and if so, why? Do you rate different non-traditional channels differently, and if so, why?
In other words, is altmetrics useful for building academic reputation?