Previous Issue

Table of Contents

Publications, Volume 7, Issue 2 (June 2019)

  • Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
  • You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
  • PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Readerexternal link to open them.
View options order results:
result details:
Displaying articles 1-13
Export citation of selected articles as:
Open AccessArticle
Did the Research Faculty at a Small Canadian Business School Publish in “Predatory” Venues? This Depends on the Publishing Blacklist
Publications 2019, 7(2), 35; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020035
Received: 5 February 2019 / Revised: 11 April 2019 / Accepted: 14 May 2019 / Published: 20 May 2019
Viewed by 245 | PDF Full-text (202 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text | Supplementary Files
Abstract
The first ever quantitative paper to claim that papers published in so-called “predatory” open access (OA) journals and publishers were financially remunerated emerged from Canada. That study, published in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing (University of Toronto Press) in 2017 by Derek Pyne [...] Read more.
The first ever quantitative paper to claim that papers published in so-called “predatory” open access (OA) journals and publishers were financially remunerated emerged from Canada. That study, published in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing (University of Toronto Press) in 2017 by Derek Pyne at Thompson Rivers University, garnered wide public and media attention, even by renowned news outlets such as The New York Times and The Economist. Pyne claimed to have found that most of the human subjects of his study had published in “predatory” OA journals, or in OA journals published by “predatory” OA publishers, as classified by Jeffrey Beall. In this paper, we compare the so-called “predatory” publications referred to in Pyne’s study with Walt Crawford’s gray open access (grayOA) list, as well as with Cabell’s blacklist, which was introduced in 2017. Using Cabell’s blacklist and Crawford’s grayOA list, we found that approximately 2% of the total publications (451) of the research faculty at the small business school were published in potentially questionable journals, contrary to the Pyne study, which found significantly more publications (15.3%). In addition, this research casts doubt to the claim made in Pyne’s study that research faculty members who have predatory publications have 4.3 “predatory” publications on average. Full article
Open AccessFeature PaperReview
Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing
Publications 2019, 7(2), 34; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020034
Received: 11 March 2019 / Revised: 23 April 2019 / Accepted: 8 May 2019 / Published: 13 May 2019
Viewed by 5585 | PDF Full-text (5679 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
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 [...] Read more.
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. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Frontiers for Openness in Scholarly Publishing)
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Publish-and-Flourish: Using Blockchain Platform to Enable Cooperative Scholarly Communication
Publications 2019, 7(2), 33; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020033
Received: 17 November 2018 / Revised: 1 April 2019 / Accepted: 24 April 2019 / Published: 5 May 2019
Viewed by 260 | PDF Full-text (791 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Scholarly communication is today immersed in publish-or-perish culture that propels non-cooperative behavior in the sense of strategic games played by researchers. Here we introduce and describe a blockchain based platform for decentralized scholarly communication. The design of the platform rests on community driven [...] Read more.
Scholarly communication is today immersed in publish-or-perish culture that propels non-cooperative behavior in the sense of strategic games played by researchers. Here we introduce and describe a blockchain based platform for decentralized scholarly communication. The design of the platform rests on community driven publishing reviewing processes and implements cryptoeconomic incentives that promote cooperative user behavior. The key to achieve cooperation in blockchain based scholarly communication is to transform today’s static research paper into a modifiable research paper under continuous peer review process. We introduce and discuss the implementation of a modifiable research paper as a smart contract on the blockchain. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Scientific Production and Productivity for Characterizing an Author’s Publication History: Simple and Nested Gini’s and Hirsch’s Indexes Combined
Publications 2019, 7(2), 32; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020032
Received: 5 December 2018 / Revised: 9 April 2019 / Accepted: 22 April 2019 / Published: 4 May 2019
Viewed by 289 | PDF Full-text (1845 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text | Supplementary Files
Abstract
In this study, I developed operational versions of Gini’s and Hirsch’s indexes that can be applied to characterize each researcher’s publication history (PH) as heterodox, orthodox, and interdisciplinary. In addition, the new indicators warn against anomalies that potentially arise from tactical or opportunistic [...] Read more.
In this study, I developed operational versions of Gini’s and Hirsch’s indexes that can be applied to characterize each researcher’s publication history (PH) as heterodox, orthodox, and interdisciplinary. In addition, the new indicators warn against anomalies that potentially arise from tactical or opportunistic citation and publication behaviors by authors and editors, and can be calculated from readily available information. I split the original Hirsch index into nested indexes to isolate networking activity, as well as to distinguish scientific production (number of articles) from scientific productivity (rate of production), and used nested Gini indexes to identify intentional and successful intertopical and interdisciplinary research. I applied the most popular standardizations (i.e., per author and per year), and used simple methodologies (i.e., least-squares linear and cubic fitting, whole-career vs. subperiods, two-dimensional graphs). I provide three representative numerical examples based on an orthodox multidisciplinary PH, a heterodox PH from the social sciences, and an orthodox unidisciplinary PH from the physical sciences. Two additional numerical examples based on PHs from the life and health sciences show that the suggested PH characterization can be applied to different disciplines where different publication and citation practices prevail. Software is provided to help readers explore the use of these indicators. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
English as the Language for Academic Publication: on Equity, Disadvantage and ‘Non-Nativeness’ as a Red Herring
Publications 2019, 7(2), 31; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020031
Received: 23 January 2019 / Revised: 13 April 2019 / Accepted: 22 April 2019 / Published: 29 April 2019
Viewed by 503 | PDF Full-text (226 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Within the fields of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP), the question of whether English as an Additional Language (EAL) scholars are disadvantaged by the pressure to publish in English continues to be debated. In this paper, [...] Read more.
Within the fields of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP), the question of whether English as an Additional Language (EAL) scholars are disadvantaged by the pressure to publish in English continues to be debated. In this paper, I challenge this orthodoxy, raising questions about the evidence upon which it is based. Within a framework of ‘verbal hygiene’, I will argue that the attention accorded to ‘non-nativeness’ may be disproportionate to its significance for publication success. I conclude by proposing some reorientations for researchers and practitioners in the field that encompass non-linguistic structures of inequity. Full article
Open AccessArticle
Balancing Multiple Roles of Repositories: Developing a Comprehensive Repository at Carnegie Mellon University
Publications 2019, 7(2), 30; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020030
Received: 27 February 2019 / Revised: 15 April 2019 / Accepted: 22 April 2019 / Published: 26 April 2019
Viewed by 624 | PDF Full-text (855 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text | Supplementary Files
Abstract
Many academic and research institutions today maintain multiple types of institutional repositories operating on different systems and platforms to accommodate the needs and governance of the materials they house. Often, these institutions support multiple repository infrastructures, as these systems and platforms are not [...] Read more.
Many academic and research institutions today maintain multiple types of institutional repositories operating on different systems and platforms to accommodate the needs and governance of the materials they house. Often, these institutions support multiple repository infrastructures, as these systems and platforms are not able to accommodate the broad range of materials that an institution creates. Announced in 2017, the Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) Libraries implemented a new repository solution and service model. Built upon the Figshare for Institutions platform, the KiltHub repository has taken on the role of a traditional institutional repository and institutional data repository, meeting the disparate needs of its researchers, faculty, and students. This paper will review how the CMU Libraries implemented the KiltHub repository and how the repository services was redeveloped to provide a more encompassing solution for traditional institutional repository materials and research datasets. Additionally, this paper will summarize how the CMU University Libraries surveyed the current repository landscape, decided to implement Figshare for Institutions as a comprehensive institutional repository, revised its previous repository service model to accommodate the influx of new material types, and what needed to be developed for campus engagement. This paper is based upon a presentation of the same title delivered at the 2018 Open Repositories Conference held at Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from Open Repositories 2018)
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessCase Report
Building a Dataset Search for Institutions: Project Update
Publications 2019, 7(2), 29; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020029
Received: 13 February 2019 / Revised: 6 April 2019 / Accepted: 22 April 2019 / Published: 24 April 2019
Viewed by 297 | PDF Full-text (40594 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Most out-of-the-box institutional repository systems do not provide the workflows and metadata features required for research data. Consequently, many libraries now support two institutional repository systems—one for publications, and one for research data—even when there are nearly a thousand data repositories in the [...] Read more.
Most out-of-the-box institutional repository systems do not provide the workflows and metadata features required for research data. Consequently, many libraries now support two institutional repository systems—one for publications, and one for research data—even when there are nearly a thousand data repositories in the United States, many of which provide services and policies that ensure their trustworthiness and suitability for research data. Libraries are either increasing spending by purchasing data repository solutions from vendors, or replicating work by building, customizing, and managing individual instances of data repository software. This article gives an update on a potential solution to this issue: An in-progress prototype for an open source Dataset Search tool that promotes discovery and reuse of institutional research datasets through automatic metadata harvesting and search engine optimization. Once finished, the Dataset Search tool has the potential to support three key impacts: Increasing discovery, reuse, and citation of research data; reinforcing the idea that research data are a legitimate scholarly product; and promoting community-owned systems that require less resource expenditure. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from Open Repositories 2018)
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Evolution of a Service Management Framework: Spotlight at Stanford as a Use Case
Publications 2019, 7(2), 28; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020028
Received: 20 December 2018 / Revised: 16 March 2019 / Accepted: 22 April 2019 / Published: 24 April 2019
Viewed by 451 | PDF Full-text (9344 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Service management—the entirety of activities undertaken by an organization to design, plan, deliver, operate, and control information technology (IT) services offered to stakeholders—has long been applied successfully by the government and commercial sectors. In this article, service management is discussed in the context [...] Read more.
Service management—the entirety of activities undertaken by an organization to design, plan, deliver, operate, and control information technology (IT) services offered to stakeholders—has long been applied successfully by the government and commercial sectors. In this article, service management is discussed in the context of open-source software developed in an academic library setting, by exploring the creation and growth of the Spotlight at Stanford service framework. First, service management is briefly introduced as a guiding principle and philosophy, within the Stanford Libraries context. Second, the Spotlight at Stanford software is described. Third, people who are key players in both the delivery and use of the software are discussed. Fourth, processes including goals and activities of the Spotlight at Stanford service team are reviewed. Fifth, various accomplishments are listed, including how the service team has contributed to the successful adoption and development of the web application at Stanford University. Finally, lessons learned are discussed and directions are shared for the future development of the Spotlight at Stanford service framework. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from Open Repositories 2018)
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessDiscussion
Unpacking the Lore on Multilingual Scholars Publishing in English: A Discussion Paper
Publications 2019, 7(2), 27; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020027
Received: 7 February 2019 / Revised: 22 March 2019 / Accepted: 2 April 2019 / Published: 10 April 2019
Viewed by 333 | PDF Full-text (243 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
In the past three decades, a body of research on issues related to multilingual scholars writing for publication has emerged, paralleling the rise of pressures on scholars around the world to publish their work in high-status journals, especially those included in particular journal [...] Read more.
In the past three decades, a body of research on issues related to multilingual scholars writing for publication has emerged, paralleling the rise of pressures on scholars around the world to publish their work in high-status journals, especially those included in particular journal citation indexes; these indexes typically privilege the use of English. Researchers have investigated multilingual scholars’ experiences and perspectives, the social contexts of their work, policies on research publishing, aspects of the texts produced by multilingual scholars, the kinds of people scholars interact with while working to publish their research, their collaborations and networks, and pedagogical initiatives to support their publishing efforts. Nevertheless, as ongoing research is conducted, the existing research base has not always been consulted in meaningful ways. In this paper, we draw on the notion of ‘lore’ to identify some of the preconceptions or received wisdom about multilingual scholars and their writing that seem to be circulating, then argue for researchers to move beyond the ‘lore’ and make greater use of both findings from empirical research and related theoretical and methodological conversations. We identify directions for future research to be conducted. Full article
Open AccessArticle
Few Open Access Journals Are Compliant with Plan S
Publications 2019, 7(2), 26; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020026
Received: 15 January 2019 / Revised: 29 March 2019 / Accepted: 4 April 2019 / Published: 9 April 2019
Viewed by 1738 | PDF Full-text (272 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text | Supplementary Files
Abstract
Much of the debate on Plan S seems to concentrate on how to make toll-access journals open access, taking for granted that existing open access journals are Plan S-compliant. We suspected this was not so and set out to explore this using Directory [...] Read more.
Much of the debate on Plan S seems to concentrate on how to make toll-access journals open access, taking for granted that existing open access journals are Plan S-compliant. We suspected this was not so and set out to explore this using Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) metadata. We conclude that a large majority of open access journals are not Plan S-compliant, and that it is small publishers in the humanities and social sciences (HSS) not charging article processing charges (APC) that will face the largest challenge with becoming compliant. Plan S needs to give special considerations to smaller publishers and/or non-APC based journals. Full article
Open AccessArticle
Multilingual Research Writing beyond English: The Case of Norwegian Academic Discourse in an Era of Multilingual Publication Practices
Publications 2019, 7(2), 25; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020025
Received: 1 December 2018 / Revised: 11 February 2019 / Accepted: 28 March 2019 / Published: 4 April 2019
Viewed by 358 | PDF Full-text (486 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Although English is the dominant language of scholarly publication, many multilingual scholars continue to publish in other languages while they also publish in English. A large body of research documents how these multilingual scholars negotiate writing in English for publication. We know less, [...] Read more.
Although English is the dominant language of scholarly publication, many multilingual scholars continue to publish in other languages while they also publish in English. A large body of research documents how these multilingual scholars negotiate writing in English for publication. We know less, however, about the implications of such negotiations for other languages that scholars work in. We wanted to investigate trends in writing conventions in language other than English during a period when multilingual publication patterns have been common. Specifically, we examined changes in rhetorical patterns in the introduction sections of the 1994 and the 2014 volumes of three Norwegian-language journals in three different disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Our findings show that while certain features of our material might be interpreted as the result of a non-English discourse community adopting dominant Anglo-American models, the overall picture is more complex. Our study indicates that we need more research that examines cross-linguistic textual practices that focus on English and any other languages that scholars may work in. We also consider the possible pedagogical implications of such a focus. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Transparent Attribution of Contributions to Research: Aligning Guidelines to Real-Life Practices
Publications 2019, 7(2), 24; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020024
Received: 8 February 2019 / Revised: 27 March 2019 / Accepted: 29 March 2019 / Published: 3 April 2019
Viewed by 908 | PDF Full-text (568 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text | Supplementary Files
Abstract
Research studies, especially in the sciences, may benefit from substantial non-author support without which they could not be completed or published. The term “contributorship” was coined in 1997 to recognize all contributions to a research study, but its implementation (mostly in biomedical reports) [...] Read more.
Research studies, especially in the sciences, may benefit from substantial non-author support without which they could not be completed or published. The term “contributorship” was coined in 1997 to recognize all contributions to a research study, but its implementation (mostly in biomedical reports) has been limited to the inclusion of an “Author Contributions” statement that omits other contributions. To standardize the reporting of contributions across disciplines, irrespective of whether a given contribution merits authorship or acknowledgment, the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) was launched in 2014. Our assessment, however, shows that in practice, CRediT is a detailed authorship classification that risks denying appropriate credit for persons who contribute as non-authors. To illustrate the shortcomings in CRediT and suggest improvements, in this article we review key concepts of authorship and contributorship and examine the range of non-author contributions that may (or may not) be acknowledged. We then briefly describe different types of editorial support provided by (non-author) translators, authors’ editors and writers, and explain why it is not always acknowledged. Finally, we propose two new CRediT taxa and revisions to three existing taxa regarding both technical and editorial support, as a small but important step to make credit attribution more transparent, accurate and open. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Frontiers for Openness in Scholarly Publishing)
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle
The Two-Way Street of Open Access Journal Publishing: Flip It and Reverse It
Publications 2019, 7(2), 23; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020023
Received: 8 February 2019 / Revised: 8 March 2019 / Accepted: 28 March 2019 / Published: 3 April 2019
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 4388 | PDF Full-text (4558 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text | Supplementary Files
Abstract
As Open access (OA) is often perceived as the end goal of scholarly publishing, much research has focused on flipping subscription journals to an OA model. Focusing on what can happen after the presumed finish line, this study identifies journals that have converted [...] Read more.
As Open access (OA) is often perceived as the end goal of scholarly publishing, much research has focused on flipping subscription journals to an OA model. Focusing on what can happen after the presumed finish line, this study identifies journals that have converted from OA to a subscription model, and places these “reverse flips” within the greater context of scholarly publishing. In particular, we examine specific journal descriptors, such as access mode, publisher, subject area, society affiliation, article volume, and citation metrics, to deepen our understanding of reverse flips. Our results show that at least 152 actively publishing journals have reverse-flipped since 2005, suggesting that this phenomenon does not constitute merely a few marginal outliers, but instead a common pattern within scholarly publishing. Notably, we found that 62% of reverse flips (N = 95) had not been born-OA journals, but had been founded as subscription journals, and hence have experienced a three-stage transformation from closed to open to closed. We argue that reverse flips present a unique perspective on OA, and that further research would greatly benefit from enhanced data and tools for identifying such cases. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Frontiers for Openness in Scholarly Publishing)
Figures

Figure 1

Publications EISSN 2304-6775 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top