Can monies spent globally on journal subscriptions be completely transitioned to an OA business model to free the journals?
recent rapid growth in open access publishing, and the clear benefits
that open access presents to society as a whole leads to the question:
can all subscription based scientific journals in the world be
transitioned to open access in a sustainable way? Is there enough money
currently in the system for such a transition, and would there be any
economic impact? A recent eye-opening study published by the Max Planck
Digital Library delves into this issue and provides some very concrete
answers based on real expenditures in subscriptions and on the real
costs of open access services.
overload is a major barrier researchers face to capture and ingest the
knowledge that is being discovered and created by science. The challenge
is how to develop ways to create overviews of the knowledge that has
been published related to specific areas of interest. The Lazarus
initiative is introduced.
assessing manuscripts eLife editors look for a combination of rigour
and insight, along with results and ideas that make other researchers
think differently about their subject.
online open access peer reviewed journal eLife publishes articles in
biomedicine and life sciences. The nonprofit publication emerged from
the ideas of its founders to create a publication model that met the
needs of the academic community regarding editorial policy. The journal
relies on a staff of Senior Editors made of renowned, experienced
researchers, which are active in their fields. Its peer review process
is innovative and aims to ensure clear assessment goals as well as
constructive and consolidated comments made by Editor and reviewers.
evaluation in recent decades has been increasingly conducted through
metrics and indicators, which are gradually replacing the assessment by
peers. Researchers gathered at the 19th International Conference on
Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2014) held in September 2014 in
Leiden, Netherlands, in order to advise on the use of metrics in
research assessment drafted a set of rules – the Leiden Manifesto. Know
the last decade, the topic of scholarly communication has attracted the
interest of researchers in all fields of knowledge. One of the most
studied topics is the assessment of peer review, including its
qualitative and quantitative aspects, its ability to detect and curb
unethical practices, the appreciation of its methods of assessment and
how technology can facilitate and improve the process, while meeting the
challenges brought about by the age of digital publishing.
review is seen as one of the pillars – if not the most important – of
scientific communication. Despite the difficulties in going through the
review process, the authors believe that the process improves the
quality of the manuscript, and they want to be published on refereed
journals that have a sound evaluation mechanism. Recent cases of
attempted manipulation of the peer review process by fake reviews
concern the international scientific community, however, it does not
undermine its credibility and trust. The peer review crisis can be an
opportunity to strengthen and improve the process.
current science publisher Elsevier may have the same name as the
venerable publishing house that published the work of great scientists
in the 16th and 17th century, but there is in fact no historical
connection other than the name.
double-blind peer review system is chosen by most researchers as an
effective and efficient mechanism by eliminating subjective judgment as
well as authorship and affiliation biases, allowing to focus on the
quality of the manuscript. Nature reports that authors can, from now on,
choose this form of review for their manuscripts. Here are discussed
the most common forms of peer review, its features, advantages and
disadvantages, including those regarding SciELO Brazil journals.
have been discussing what would be the impact of making the review
process of grant proposals more open and transparent, in order to
support the preparation of better proposals and acknowledge the work of
the reviewers. A recently published paper in Nature examines the impact
of two articles on the open availability of the review of research
proposals and the possibility of changing the assessment after
publication of the results.
Analysis | SciELO in Perspective