Authors & Editors

04/21/2019

Beginning 2019, I stopped using this Facebook account for Authors & Editors. Please go to authorseditors.com for most current information and the blog postings of Authors & Editors.

11/15/2017

FREE Open Access Course on Scholarly Publishing: Navigate the Sea of Scholarly Communications
Using wikispaces online technology, a team of experts from The Australian National University present a five-module, online, free course for novice scholars to understand scholarly communications. Topics covered include finding a best-fit publisher, predatory publishing, data citations, bibliometrics, open access, and online research identity. See http://scholarlycommunicationseas.wikispaces.com/home
Contact: Roxanne Missingham, FALIA, PFHEA, University Librarian (Chief Scholarly Information Services)
University Library, Level 3, JB Chifley Building 15, The Australian National University
Acton ACT 2601, Australia
T: +61 2 6125 2003
E: [email protected]
W: http://anulib.anu.edu.au/

11/12/2017

Avoiding Predatory Publishers in the Post-Beall World: Tips for Writers and Editors
Ray Hunziker, Senior Editor at ProEd Communications has written a “Practical Matters” article in a recent AMWA Journal (v32, no. 3: 113-115, 2017, fil:///C:/Users/New/Downloads/AvoidingPredatoryPublishers.pdf ) to help authors and editors discern credible journals. An infographic summarizes typical practices of predatory publishers, journals, meetings, and congresses. Authors and editors beware if the journal or publisher you are considering has a majority of the characteristics listed on the infographic! Additional resources are also suggested.

11/07/2017

Science of Science Communication III FREE Live Webcast
November 7, 2017

With so many complex and sometimes uncertain scientific issues facing our society, there has never been a more critical time to communicate science effectively. Watch the National Academy of Sciences Arthur M. Sackler Colloquia on the Science of Science Communication III live online November 16 - 17 to hear from researchers, practitioners, content experts, and philanthropists, all vested in ensuring that evidence-based science communication thrives. Register to watch the livestream - https://ssc3_webcast.eventbrite.com

Evolving from past colloquia, this Colloquium will focus on the consensus study report, Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda, as a framework for advancing both research and practice in science communication. The Colloquium will explore ways to build capacity for and foster the use of evidence-based strategies for engaging the public with science and ensuring its appropriate use. Additionally, this third Colloquium will tackle the tough and often overlooked organizational and infrastructure changes needed to make research-based communication the norm.

View the full agenda here: http://www.cvent.com/events/the-science-of-science-communication-iii-inspiring-novel-collaborations-and-building-capacity/agenda-f1b4c0b15f4c44de8aa974181ebe212f.aspx

Register to watch the livestream here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/science-of-science-communication-iii-webcast-registration-36280589219

Join the conversation on online with .

Support for the Colloquium is provided by The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Rita Allen Foundation, Science Sandbox – a Simons Foundation initiative, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, The Kavli Foundation, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Burroughs Wellcome Fund and Penn State Science Communication Program.

The National Academy of Sciences Arthur M. Sackler Colloquia on the Science of Science Communication began in 2012 with an effort to survey the state of the art of empirical social science research in science communication and focused on the communication dynamics surrounding issues in science, engi...

09/21/2017

Bibliometrics used in promotion and tenure?
September 21, 2017
Whether and how bibliometrics can legitimately be included in promotion and tenure reviews of faculty is a topic of regular debate. The Primary Research Group (PRG) published (9/20/2017) its International Survey of Research University Faculty: Use of Bibliometric Ratings, Identifiers & Indicators” (ISBN 978-157440-472-2). The report examines data from 325 faculty employed by noted universities in the British Commonwealth and the United States, and the study examined faculty views of certain indicators, whether these are trustworthy, and their frequency of use. For example, faculty in literature and languages had more difficulty finding data on their journals’ impact factors. For a summary of the report’s key findings and how to obtain a copy of the report check the PRG website at http://www.primaryresearch.com/AddCart.aspx?ReportID=453 .

This study presents data from 325 faculty of major universities in the USA, Canada, the UK, Ireland and Australia about how they view bibliometric indicators such as the h-index, how trustworthy they are believed to be and how often they are checked or calculated.

09/07/2017

Following the 8th International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication, Peer Review Week (September 11-17, 2017) at https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com/activities/ , kicks off its 3rd year of topics related to peer review. This event consists of online, virtual, and in-person activities sponsored by about 28 organizational “team members”, who share in interest in the peer review of scholarly publications. Like the 8th International Congress, the 2017 theme is transparency in peer review; the 2016 theme was “credit for peer reviewing” (links available; while the inaugural event in 2015 is mentioned, no links exist to its theme or materials). Besides the ability to participate in a variety of examinations on the current topic on who and what should be transparent in peer review, the background materials provided at http://www.pre-val.org/prw/ make a good place to start for those interested in participating.

As background to Peer Review Week, a useful introduction to the topic of transparency in peer review was published on the website of The Scholarly Kitchen at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/08/03/transparent-peer-review-mean-important/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScholarlyKitchen+%28The+Scholarly+Kitchen%29 .

Under the Microscope: Transparency in Peer Review – Panel after the Peer Review Congress What: To kick off the week’s activities, Peer Review Week organisers will run a panel discussion as a …

09/05/2017

Follow the upcoming 8th International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication (September 10-12, 2017) at http://www.peerreviewcongress.org/index.html
Sign up for email alerts and updates on the topic of "enhancing the quality and credibility of science".

Our aim is to encourage research into the quality and credibility of peer review and scientific publication, to establish the evidence base on which scientists can improve the conduct, reporting, and dissemination of scientific research.

07/07/2017

Copyrights: Formerly the domain of the author(s), the publisher, and the government, in the U.S., as in many former British colonies, copyright is NOT an inalienable ("god-given") right: it is granted by the U.S. Constitution as a right to be defined by Congress (US Constitution. Article I Section 8. Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” July 4, 1788). The framers of the Constitution believed that democracy was best served by the flow of information to all. Consequently, they formed the law of the land so that an author had only a limited time to claim rewards (fame, money, citation) from their intellectual property put into a fixed form. Authors granted their copyright by contractual agreement or by specific license to publishers; publishers in turn protected the copyrights they held. The government set the particulars on how long and what constituted a copyright.

Over time, Congress lengthened the time to span across generations and provided additional interpretations of copyright. Copyright in the U.S. is administered by the Library of Congress, not the Executive branch.
The Library of Congress Copyright Office maintains a detailed website, including circulars and educational information on practices (such as fair use) at https://www.copyright.gov/ . Every author should know and understand the basics of copyright in their home country.

No such thing as "international copyright" exists. Each country is responsible for formulating its law on copyright; international conventions that govern copyright are listed and discussed at https://www.copyright.gov/international-issues/

"Formerly" is used above with reference to digital or print publication prior to the emergence of the Internet in the 1983-1990 years. The world of copyright in the United States changed dramatically after the passage of the Copyright Act of 1976 (Pub. Law 94-553, 10/19/78) which substantially revised earlier law, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA, PL-105-304, 10/28/98), which with amendments contains today's copyright law (Scroll down to see the law's compilation at https://www.copyright.gov/title17/ )

In a subsequent post, the emergence of businesses that deal in copyright management will be examined.

A searchable database of court opinions to make the principles and applications of fair use more accessible and understandable

07/04/2017

Predatory Publishing Resources: On January 17, 2017, Jeffrey Beall withdrew his blog, Scholarly Open Access: Critical Analysis of Open Access Publishing from the Internet, reportedly because of “threats and politics”. Professor Beall, an academic librarian at Auraria Library, University of Colorado, Denver, began compiling the list in 2009.

In a recent article, Jeffrey Beall* explains what happened to "Beall's Lists" of predatory journals and publishers.
*Jeffrey Beall. What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica 2017;27(2):273-9. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.029

Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers is archived on the Internet (January 2017) at
http://web.archive.org/web/20170111172023/https://scholarlyoa.com/2017/01/03/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2017/
Beall's blog, Scholarly Open Access, is archived on the Internet at https://web.archive.org/web/20170112125427/https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

Jeffrey Beall on strategies to distinguish predatory from legitimate journals on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBwgj5lc0dE

06/29/2017

Authors, editors, and publishers have been struggling with a number of major issues surrounding access to scholarly research and its dissemination. The issues are interrelated and complex, and they've evolved during the transition from analog to digital publishing. Each participant formerly had a well-defined "domain" in the process. Things started to change rapidly about 2003 and the pace of change has accelerated since.

Historically, at least four broad issues affect access to scholarly literature:
Copyrights that vary by country (Government controlled rights for intellectual property from authors licensed to publishers, public domain, fair use)
Costs and value added to the writing (Publishers, authors, users: who pays for services like editing, printing, marketing, sales, distribution, indexing, archiving, and tools to access)
Archives (Libraries, repositories, catalogs, warehouses; how is knowledge preserved and retrieved; methods to access)
Peer reviews and responses (Monitoring progress in the body of knowledge.)

Each of these topics will be covered in subsequent posts.

06/25/2017

A recent posting to the blog of the Council of Science Editors (CSE) sought consensus on whether research results disclosed in a personal blog constituted duplicate publication. The answer is more complex than one might think...

The core to be understood: it is ethical practice that research results should only be published ONCE.

Duplicate publication* (also known as redundant publication" is the publishing (i.e., "making public") of essentially the same research results in two or more outlets--journals, books, blogs, preprints, open access archives, etc. This unethical practice originates with authors who deliberately seek to pad their publication lists for tenure, promotion, or other professional recognition.

A variation of duplicate publication is aptly termed "salami science": publishing in separate papers the research results that should appear related and together in one report of those results.

Duplicate publication and salami science are unethical for a number of reasons. First, the practice makes the body of scientific knowledge more difficult to integrate and follow (more time is needed for literature searches and reviews!). Next, it squanders resources: properly peer reviewed and edited manuscripts receive considerable value added before publication; retractions or notifications must be published subsequent to a duplicate publication. Finally, inflating citation metrics misleads other researchers, editors, and publishers by giving more importance to a result than is warranted.

Knowledgeable authors, editors, peer reviewers, and publishers recognize their respective responsibilities toward duplicate publication. At each step in the publication process, manuscripts are vetted: ultimately, the authors will suffer if they are reputed to practice duplicate publication.

*For more information see CSE, Scientific Style and Format, 8th ed., 2014, Sec. 2.4., p. 15-17.

05/21/2017

NASEM_DBASSE [[email protected]] at the U.S. National Academies of Sciences wants to let you know of an exciting opportunity related their recently released report, Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda (See http://www.nasonline.org/programs/sackler-colloquia/upcoming-colloquia/Science_Communication_III.html ). . .

With support from the Rita Allen Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences is pleased to offer two awards of $37,500 each to support the formation and development of collaborative science communication researcher-practitioner partnerships. These awards are intended to facilitate the efforts of science communication researchers and practitioners to plan collaborative projects that pursue shared research interests aligned with the recently released consensus report, Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Those receiving awards will present details about their collaborations at a special session of the Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium on the Science of Science Communication III to be held on November 16-17, 2017. Additional support for the Colloquium is provided by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania and the Burroughs Wellcome Fund.

To apply for these awards, researchers and practitioners who have agreed to work in partnership should submit a proposal by June 1, 2017. Visit the colloquium website for more details. (Scroll down for the link to download the proposal.)

We have received enthusiastic responses to the report so far, and are hoping that this will be a productive step in building the capacity to address important challenges in science communication. We hope that you will consider applying or sharing this information with researchers and practitioners who you believe would be interested in applying for these awards.

Organized by Karen Cook, Stanford University; Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon University; Alan Leshner, American Association for the Advancement of Science (Emeritus); and Dietram Scheufele, University of Wisconsin–Madison