Scholarly Communications in Global PerspectiveMulti-level influence of global context: Government realities and expatriate assignments

Indiana Tech Global Leadership Immersion Weekend, April 25, 2015

Nina CollinsReference Librarian

Scholarly Communications

“Scholarly communication is the process of sharing, disseminating and publishing research findings of academics and researchers so that the generated academic contents are made available to the global academic communities” (UNESCO, p. 6).

UNESCO, (2015). “Scholarly communication”, Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Scholarly Publishing

2015 marks the 350th anniversary of the first scientific paper!

1665, Royal Society of London published the first issue of “Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society”.

Laid the foundation and began the practice of peer review

Available online at: https://www.force11.org/meetings/force2015/350

Bodleian Libraries, Oxford

Scholarly Publishing Business Model

Editors of journals are gatekeepers to knowledge

Peer Reviewers as well

Pay Walls

Journals require subscriptions for access

Who Pays?!

Creators of the scholarly works must sign away all copyrights to their works.

Authors of scientific research have to pay for access.

Publishers cover the costs of publishing. They do not pay the creators of the works, so profits go to publishers.

Rising Costs of Journal Subscriptions

Serials Crisis

“Between 1986 and 2004, journal expenditures of North American research libraries increased by a staggering 273%, with the average journal unit cost increasing by 188%. During this same period, the U.S. Consumer Price Index rose by 73%, meaning that journal costs have outstripped inflation by a factor of almost 4” (Newman, 2009).

273% increase!

Open Access

“By Open Access, we mean the free, immediate, availability on

the public Internet of those works which scholars give to the world

without expectation of payment – permitting any user 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.”

Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC),(2013)

Who Benefits from Open Access

Researchers

Increases discoverability of relevant literature and provides new avenues of discovery

Increases visibility and impact of an author’s works

Increases citations of scholarly works (Gargouri, 2010)

Enhances interdisciplinary research

Increases the pace of research and innovation

Researchers and medical practitioners in developing nations!

SPARC. Why Open Access? http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/open-access/why-oa

Who Benefits from Open Access

Educational Institutions

Supports the mission of the institution—advances knowledge

Provides access to STEM resources (expensive)

Provides access for community colleges and K-12 institutions

Increases democratization AND competitiveness of institutions

SPARC. Why Open Access? http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/open-access/why-oa

Who Benefits from Open Access

Students

Provides access to resources students need, regardless of institutional budget constraints

Enriches quality of education

Provides resources to help enhance education of work force

Businesses

Public

Research Funders

SPARC. Why Open Access? http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/open-access/why-oa

Open Access Business ModelsGreen, Gold, Delayed, Hybrid

Green Open Access

Creators are allowed to place a preprint copy of the manuscript on an

institutional repository

Freely available to all

Costs of maintaining the repository are funded by the institution

Only works when the institution has a repository, and encourages faculty to

archive their scholarly content on the repository

Most traditional publishers support Green OA

Gold Open Access

“Author pays” model, used by online journals

The costs of publication are funded by the authors, in the form of “author fees”, or “article processing fees”

Author fees vary significantly based on the discipline and the publisher

Many OA publishers have policies for waiving the author fees for scholars in developing nations, or who cannot afford the fee

The fee is sometimes paid by the research sponsor (Institution or funding agency)

Delayed and Hybrid Models

NIH uses a delayed OA model

Many traditional, for profit, publishers are offering OA options

Government Mandates and Policies

FASTR bill

Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act

U.S. OSTP memo

Finch Report (2014)

Research Councils UK (RCUK) Open Access Policy adopted

Institutional Mandates and Policies

Predatory Publishers

Use the author-pays model of Gold Open Access

Are not limited to Open Access publications. Can include conferences, or traditional publishing business models

Engage in unethical publishing practices

Look like legitimate publishers

(Beall, 2013)

Unethical Publishing Practices(Beall, 2013)

Unethical Practices: Deception

The websites look like legitimate publishers (ex.)

The journal/publisher name mimics an established journal/publisher (ex.)

Journal name does not reflect geographic location (ex.)

Not indexed by reputable indexing and abstracting services, but claim to be

Coverage is misrepresented in abstracting & indexing services

List databases as abstracting/indexing services that are not true abstracting/indexing services

Make up citation metrics

List people on the editorial board who have not agreed to serve OR refuse to provide names of editorial board

Lie about location of publisher headquarters (ex. Avens Publishing Group)

(Beall, 2013)

Unethical Practices: Negligence and Non-adherence to standards

Inadequate peer-review

A publisher may list the same editor for all its journals

A journal has very broad coverage or subject matter

Author side fee

Spelling or Grammar errors

Licensing problems

Fleet Startup

Use email spam to solicit manuscripts

May not use ISSN or DOIs

Fail to provide contact information for the journal or the editors

Use AOL. Yahoo! Or Gmail addresses (ex.)

Poor website search functionality

Beall (2013)

Unethical Practices: Lack of transparency

Claim Peer review, when they do not practice adequate peer review

Little or no information about the peer review process

Fail to clearly state author side fees

Fail to list editorial board or contact information for editorial board

The only contact information for the editor is an online form, or an email through the website

Beall (2013)

Predatory Publishing Quick Check

Has the publisher started dozens of new Open Access titles all at once?

Do the published titles have very few papers (if any)?

Does the publisher send e-mails to myriad researchers asking for manuscript submissions or to serve on editorial boards?

Does the publisher fail to disclose the names of editorial board members or editors?

Is the publisher’s address NOT verifiable?

Is there very little evidence of peer review?

Crawford (2011)

Additionally:

Use the PET Project

Check Sherpa/Romeo

Ethics in Scholarship

Peer review stings

Bohannon, 2013

Scientific Paper Retractions

Barbash, 2015

Acceptance of nonsensical papers

“Get me off your f#@$!^* mailing list”

Citation cartels

Thompson Reuters bans Journals from IF measures (Jump, 2013)

Academic administrators loosing positions due to predatory publications (Beall, 2014)

Misrepresented results, under pressure to publish or secure funding

Data falsification (Extance, 2015)

Why care about ethics in scholarship?

Scholars

Administrators

Hiring Managers

General Public

Your professional career can be sunk before you begin

Administrators have recently lost their jobs for publishing in predatory journals

Unethical scholars working in higher education reflect poorly on the institution as well as the entire scientific community

False link between autism and vaccines

Scientific Knowledge is built upon previous knowledge

Discovery and visibility are important

Scholarly Communications Lifecycle

Discovery

Analysis

Write

Publication

Research Activity

Proposals

Idea

Partners,Funding

Simulate, Experiment,

Observe

Scholarly Communications Lifecycle

Discovery

Analysis

Write

Publication

Research Activity

Proposals

Idea

Partners,Funding

Simulate, Experiment,

Observe

Breakdowns in the scholarly communications lifecycle:1. Publication

1. Publication is not “the end” of the scientific process.2. Discovery

1. Scientific knowledge is built on previous knowledge.2. What happens when research is created and lost?

Scholarly Communications Lifecycle: Re-Discovery

Visibility of Scholarship is important (Salo, 2008)

Open Access

Research supports visibility and reuse (Gargouri, 2010)

Research also supports higher priced journals are more highly cited (Bosch and Henderson, 2013)

Publishing Open Access allows you to maintain copyright permissions

Global Perspective: North-South Divide

Although ¾ of the world’s population lives in the Global South, they are poor.

4/5 of the world’s wealth is held by the Global North.

Access to knowledge is limited by paywalls that are far beyond the reach of researchers in the Global South.

1986 paper documenting the likelihood of an Ebola outbreak in Liberia (Dahn, Mussah, and Nutt, 2015)

Open Access holds the potential to bridge this divide.

(Open Science Initiative Working Group, 2015)

Strategic PublishingHow to maximize visibility and impact of your scholarship

Copyright

Title 17, U.S. Code governs copyright

Copyright covers original works of creative expression in any fixed, tangible medium

Authors have the following rights

Reproduction

Translation, abridgement, revision

Distribution

Public Performance or display

Please note, I am not a lawyer and therefore cannot give legal advice.

Negotiate copyright with publishers

Be proactive. If you seek a position in higher education, your future employer may wish to archive your work on their IR!

Influence of Scholarship: Bibliometrics

Pay attention to Citation Metrics

Impact Factor

Eigenfactor

Article Influence

Look for High Impact Journals

Lower acceptance rate

(Bosch and Henderson, 2013)

Altmetrics

“Alternative metrics” include discussions about scholarly research that occur on social media

How many times has the article been shared on social media? Comments about the research?

Social Media for scholarly inquiry

Academic.edu

Research Gate

Mendeley

Best Practice: deposit your work on an institutional repository, then link to this version from other social media outlets!

Researcher ID/ ORCHID ID

Ensures all of your publications are attributed to the exact same person

Resources and Tools

For more information:

See the McMillen Library LibGuide on Choosing and Evaluating Journals

Use the PET Project (Publisher Evaluation Tool)

Visit Jeffrey Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers

For detailed information about a journal’s open access policies, visit Sherpa/Romeo

To assess journal impact, visit Eigenfactor

For Fun: see SCIgen, the scientific paper generator

Open Access Creative Commons Licenses

Use the SPARC Author Addendum to negotiate copyrights

ORCHID ID, Researcher ID

Contact Nina Collins, Reference Librarian:

nkcollins@indianatech.edu

260.422.5561 x 2223

References

Barbash, F. (2015, March 28). “Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal”. The Washington Post.Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/

Beall, J. (2014, February 20). Iceland professor in hot water for publishing in predatory journals. Scholarly Open Access: Critical analysis of scholarly open access publications. Retrieved from http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/02/20/iceland-professor-in-hot-water-for-publishing-in-predatory-journals/

Beall, J. (2014, January 24). University of Pristina Rector under fire for publishing in predatory journals. Scholarly Open Access: Critical analysis of scholarly open access publications. Retrieved from http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/24/university-of-pristina-rector-under-fire-for-publishing-in-predatory-journals/

Beall, J. (2013). Unethical Practices in Scholarly, Open-Access Publishing. Journal of Information Ethics, 22(1), 11-20. doi: 10.3172/JIE.22.1.11

Bohannon, J. (2013, October 4). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6). Retrieved from https://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

Bosch, S. and Henderson, K. (2013). “The winds of change: Periodical price survey 2013”. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/04/publishing/the-winds-of-change-periodicals-price-survey-2013/#_

Bot, B., Ratan, K. and Jackson, K. (2014). “ACRL-SPARC Forum: Evaluating the quality of open access content.” Proceedings from American Library Association Annual Conference. Las Vegas, NV.

Crawford, W. (2011). ALA Editions Special Reports : Open Access : What You Need to Know Now. Chicago, IL, USA: American Library Association Editions

References

Dahn, B., Mussah, V., and Nutt, C. (2015). “Yes, we were warned about ebola”. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/opinion/yes-we-were-warned-about-ebola.html?_r=1

Extance, A. (2015, March 16). “Data falsification hits polymer mechanochemistry papers”. Chemistry World. Retrieved from http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/03/data-falsification-hits-polymer-mechanochemistry-papers

Gargouri, Y., et al. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, Open Access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PLoS One, 5(10).

Jump, P. (2013). “Journal citation cartels on the rise.” The Times Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/journal-citation-cartels-on-the-rise/2005009.article

Newman, K. (2009). “The cost of journals.” University Library: University of Illinois at Urbana0Champaign. Retrieved from http://www.library.illinois.edu/scholcomm/journalcosts.html

Open Science Initiative Working Group. (2015). “Mapping the future of scholarly publishing”. National Science Communication Institute (nSCI). Retrieved from http://nationalscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/OSI-report-Feb-2015.pdf

Salo, D. (2008). “Innkeeper at the roach motel.” Library Trends: 57(2).

SPARC, (2013). Why Open Access? Retrieved from http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/open-access/why-oa

Straub, D., & Anderson, C. (2010). Journal Quality and citations: common metrics and considerations about their use. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), iii-xii.

Suber, P. (2012). MIT Press Essential Knowledge : Open Access. Cambridge, MA, USA MIT Press

Van Noorden, R. (2013). “The true cost of science publishing”. Nature. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-science-publishing-1.12676