Some notes to the connection between reproducibility, academic publishing and… whatever.
See academic reading workflow for reader-oriented tips.
Zenodo “is an open dependable home for the long-tail of science, enabling researchers to share and preserve any research outputs in any size, any format and from any science.”
- Research. Shared. — all research outputs from across all fields of science are welcome!
- Citeable. Discoverable. — uploads gets a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) to make them easily and uniquely citeable…
- Flexible licensing — because not everything is under Creative Commons.
- Safe — your research output is stored safely for the future in same cloud infrastructure as research data from CERN’s Large Hadron Collider.
A major win is the easy DOI-linking of data and code for reproducible research. (for free)
Open Conference Systems (OCS) “is a free Web publishing tool that will create a complete Web presence for your scholarly conference. OCS will allow you to:
- create a conference Web site
- compose and send a call for papers
- electronically accept paper and abstract submissions
- allow paper submitters to edit their work
- post conference proceedings and papers in a searchable format
- post, if you wish, the original data sets
- register participants
- integrate post-conference online discussions
is an open access online scholarly publishing platform that employs open post-publication peer review. You guessed it! We think transparency from start to finish is critical in scientific communication. […]
Publish your research, class essays, peer reviews, grants, letters, how-to articles, conference summaries, conference talks, blogs - whatever format you choose.
Invite researchers and colleagues to review your work using The Winnower. The review period can be as long or as short as you need it to be.
Revise your work based on the reviews you receive. You can make as many or as little changes as necessary before archiving.
Once you are satisfied with your paper you can assign a digital object identifier (DOI). Metrics including Altmetrics, views, and reviews, will track the impact of your work.
Here’s a thing I would like to be said a little better, but think is important An Adversarial Review of “Adversarial Generation of Natural Language”: The argument is that even though it’s nice that arxiv avoids some of the problems of traditional publishing, it has some of the problems that traditional publishing tries to avoid. This was foreseeable.
Cameron Neylon runs a small cottage industry producing somewhat-pragmatic publishing critique from an institutional economics perspective:
we’d been talking about communities, cultures, economics, “public-making” but it was the word ‘club’ and its associated concepts, both pejorative and positive that crystalised everything. We were talking about the clubbishness of making knowledge – the term “Knowledge Clubs” emerged quickly – but also the benefits that such a club might gain in choosing to invest in wider sharing.
In the business setting this often leads incumbent publishers to a kind of spluttering defense of the value they create, while simultaneously complaining that the customer doesn’t appreciate their work. Flip the target slightly and we’d call this “missing the new market opportunity” or “failing to express the value offering clearly”.[…]
Lingua, the journal owned by Elsevier is at this point more or a failure. It has gone from one of the most important journals in analytical linguistics to no longer being in the field, and seems well on its way to becoming irrelevant. How does a company as competent in its business strategy as Elsevier let this happen? I would argue, as I did at the time that the former editorial board of Lingua resigned to form Glossa that it was a failure to understand the assets.
The neoliberal analysis of Lingua showed an asset generating good revenues, with good analytics and a positive ROI. The capitalist analysis focussed on the fixed assets and trademarks. But it turns out these weren’t what was creating value. What was creating value was the community, built around an editorial board and the good will associated with that.
- Afonso, A. (2013, December 11) How Academia Resembles a Drug Gang. Impact of Social Sciences.
- Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2013) The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 914–923. DOI.
- Bogich, T. L., Balleseteros, S., Berjon, R., Callahan, C., & Chen, L. (n.d.) On the marginal cost of scholarly communication.
- Clarke, M. (n.d.) The Changing Nature of Scale in STM and Scholarly Publishing. The Scholarly Kitchen.
- Falagas, M. E., Zarkali, A., Karageorgopoulos, D. E., Bardakas, V., & Mavros, M. N.(2013) The Impact of Article Length on the Number of Future Citations: A Bibliometric Analysis of General Medicine Journals. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e49476. DOI.
- Kitchen, S. (n.d.) Revisiting: The Price of Posting — PubMed Central Spends Most of Its Budget Handling Author Manuscripts. The Scholarly Kitchen.
- Potts, J., Hartley, J., Montgomery, L., Neylon, C., & Rennie, E. (2016) A Journal is a Club: A New Economic Model for Scholarly Publishing (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2763975). . Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network
- Schimmer, Ralf, Geschuhn, Kai Karin, & Vogler, Andreas. (2015) Disrupting the subscription journals’ business model for the necessary large-scale transformation to open access. DOI.
- Van Noorden, R. (2013) Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature, 495(7442), 426–429. DOI.