-
B – No-fault peer review charges16 June 2011Harnad S. No-fault peer review charges: the price of selectivity need not be access denied or delayed. D-Lib Magazine 2010;16(7/8)(doi: 10.1045/july2010-harnad) Funds to pay the costs of open access (OA) publishing are short and about 80% of journals are subscription-based. Paying to publish might inflate acceptance rates and lower quality standards. A solution could be […]
-
B – New trends of institutional repositories16 June 2011Priti J. New trends and future applications/directions of institutional repositories in academic institutions. Library Review 2011;60(2):125-141(doi: 10.1108/0024531111113078) A review of the recently published literature about current trends and future applications of institutional repositories (IRs) including the benefits and obstacles of setting up an IR. They have been increasingly recognised as a vital tool for scholarly […]
-
B – OA report in 201016 June 2011André F, Creppy R, Barthet E et al. OA report in 2010. Madrid: FECYT; 2010 This report arises from the activities of the Southern European Libraries Link (SELL), which represents library consortia of six countries (France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey). One of its main goals is “to draw common policies towards information acquirement […]
-
B – Open access publishing: what authors want16 June 2011Nariani R, Fernandez L. Open access publishing: what authors want. College & Research Libraries (accepted: June 5, 2011; anticipated publication date: March 2012) The study wanted to ascertain whether authors were aware of library support for article processing fees and whether they are satisfied with open access (OA) publishing. Results indicate that authors are increasingly […]
-
B – Open peer review: sharing reviewers’ signed reviews on the web10 June 2011van Rooyen S, Delamothe T and Evans SJW. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal 2010;341:c5729(doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5729) The results of the study suggests that telling peer reviewers that their signed reviews might be available on the BMJ‘s website had […]
-
B – 10 lessons to get your paper published10 June 2011Hall PA. Getting your paper published: an editor’s perspective (review). Annals of Saudi Medicine 2011;31(1):72-76(doi: 10.4103/0256-4947.75782) A short review based on a personal perspective on the issue of writing scientific papers in the biomedical field. It is based on the author’s own experiences as a reviewer and an editor. By means of 10 simple lessons […]
-
B – Open access to research10 June 2011Harnad S. Open access to research: changing researcher behavior through university and funder mandates. JEDEM Journal of Democracy and Open Government 2011;3(1):33-41 A somewhat conservative perspective on “edemocracy” as public access to scholarly and scientific research is presented. The author suggests to maximise the usage and impact of research carried out in research institutions by […]
-
B – Access to knowledge in the age of intellectual property10 June 2011Krikorian G, Kapczynski A (Ed.). Access to knowledge in the age of intellectual property. New York: Zone Books;2010 In this volume, the editors have created the first anthology of the “access to knowledge” or “A2K” movement, mapping this emerging field of activism as a series of historical moments, strategies, and concepts. Intellectual property law has […]
-
B – Mandates and open access10 June 2011Kennan MA. Learning to share: mandates and open access. Library Management 2011;32(4/5):302-318doi: 10.1108/01435121111132301) The paper’s aim is to examine why open access (OA) is not practiced by all researchers, all the time, or more encouraged by library managers. It is suggested that sometimes a new actor such as a mandate or deposit policy is required, […]
-
Up-dated version of EASE Guidelines7 June 2011The updated version of EASE Guidelines, containing major editorial recommendations for authors and translators of scientific articles, is now available on-line in 14 languages: English and Arabic, Bangla, Chinese, Estonian, French, Italian, Korean, Polish, Portuguese (Brazilian), Romanian, Russian, Spanish, and Turkish. The last 2 updates (Japanese and Persian) will be displayed soon.https://www.ease.org.uk/guidelines/index.shtml
-
B – Quality and peer review of research26 May 2011Newton PD. Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role for editors. Accountability in Research 2010;17(3):130-145(doi: 10.1080/08989621003791945) This study describes shortcomings of the peer review process and provides situational, personal, social, and ethical factors influencing reviewers’ and editors’ behaviour. Editors need to know of potential influences on reviewers and also on themselves. Some data […]
-
B – Peer review quality in nursing journals26 May 2011Shattell MM, Chinn P, Thomas SP et al. Authors’ and editors’ perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 2010;42(1):58-65(doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01331.x) This study examined the quality of peer review in three scholarly nursing journals from the perspectives of authors and editors. In particular, it examined the extent to which […]
