Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing

Publications

Jacinto Davila¹  Harry Crane²  Ryan Martin³  Bárbara Rivera-López⁴  PaulD. Thacker⁵  Johanna Havemann⁶  Paola Masuzzo⁷  Andy Nobes⁸  JonathanP. Tennant⁹  Tony Ross-Hellauer^1,10  Susanne Sattler^1,11  Curt Rice^1,12  Asura Enkhbayar^1,13  Tom Crick^1,14  Marc Vanholsbeeck^1,15  Bianca Kramer^1,16 

[1] CESIMO, Universidad de Los Andes, Mérida 5101, Venezuela;Department of Statistics and Biostatistics, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08901, USA;Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, CA 27607, USA;Dirección General de Asuntos Académicos, Universidad de Las Américas, Sede Providencia, Manuel Montt 948, Chile;Freelance Science Journalist, Madrid, Spain;IGDORE, 10115 Berlin, Germany;IGDORE, 9000 Ghent, Belgium;INASP, Oxford, OX1 1RR, UK;Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education (IGDORE), 75008 Paris, France;Institute for Interactive Systems and Data Science, Graz University of Technology and Know-Center GmbH, Graz 8010, Austria;National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, SW3 6LY, UK;Oslo Metropolitan University, 0010 Oslo, Norway;Scholarly Communications Lab, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Colombia, V6B 5K3, Canada;School of Education, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK;Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels 1050, Belgium;Utrecht University Library, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3512, The Netherlands;

关键词: peer review;    copyright;    open access;    open science;    scholarly communication;    web of science;    Scopus;    impact factor;    research evaluation;   

DOI  :  10.3390/publications7020034

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

The changing world of scholarly communication and the emerging new wave of ‘Open Science’ or ‘Open Research’ has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly debated topics. Evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. This article aims to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices, and policies. We address issues around preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, predatory publishers, and the legitimacy of ‘global’ databases. These arguments and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and will inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system.

【 授权许可】

Unknown