3 edition of Future of Scholarly Communication found in the catalog.
|The Physical Object|
|Pagination||xvi, 114 p. :|
|Number of Pages||88|
nodata File Size: 3MB.
Catalogue of the first annual exhibition and sale of about two hundred and twenty head of Jersey, Guernsey, Ayshire, & Kerry cattle
This holds for the providers of the current format who continually invent patches for the extant system. I guess this also reveals that I think of scholarly communications very broadly! Opinions on The Scholarly Kitchen are those of the authors. Nevertheless, such a practice undeniably addresses pressing issues of peer reviewer recruitment, in particular in relation to speeding up the publication process and reducing the extra costs incurred by additional rounds of peer review.
Common Ground at the Nexus of Information Literacy and Scholarly Communication - ed. While there has been a vast amount published in areas closely related to mega-journals — particularly regarding OA, and the role of peer review — the body of formal literature specifically discussing mega-journals Future of Scholarly Communication relatively sparse, and centred around a few core authors.
Notwithstanding their broad scope, biomedical disciplines have dominated mega-journals in terms of the number of articles published.
Some focused on science others on humanities, some on journals others on books. More commonly, however, mega-journals practice confidential pre-publication peer review albeit based on soundness only but also provide opportunities for post-publication comment and discussion.
Scale has, however, created problems. — is more vocal, featuring a range of views and, at times, heavily polarised debate. The report is divided into eight chapters and can be read in its entirety online 733 pages or can be downloaded in a PDF file, as can any individual chapter.
Since PLOS ONE has always accepted submissions across the whole of STM, it is not clear whether this is a policy-driven focus or simply a de facto one.
This is the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon. However, critics of mega-journals argue forcefully that such metrics are still underdeveloped and cannot in any case substitute for the filtering provided by expert peer review comments on. As already observed, the relative lack of detailed research into the mega-journal phenomenon means understanding their current place in the publishing landscape is challenging.
Further recommended reading on scholarly communication and academic libraries:• Future of Scholarly Communication: Forging an inclusive and innovative research infrastructure for scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities, 2021. Furthermore, the sample used by comprised a number of titles including SAGE Open which covers HSS disciplines.
Future of Scholarly Communication results were reviewed, and a total of seven peer-reviewed articles were found to focus on mega-journals. However, the wide range of perspectives on mega-journals and the complexity of the issues to which they give rise serve to demonstrate that characterising the debate in such binary terms may not be helpful.
Mega-journals themselves are heterogeneous in terms of their characteristics — they are not necessarily a homogenous genre.
Citation , , , , and 2017 , "Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? In this model, the mega-journal provides a financial subsidy to the highly selective titles enabling them to sustain the costs of rejecting a large proportion of submissions.
In other cases, there may be a desire to experiment, or to imitate other publishers in this area, without clear expectations of likely outcomes.
In the case of F1000, observation of mega-journals being midway between a journal and an archive has particular relevance, since articles are deposited and made public before peer-review.