Upload
chrisgraflinkedin
View
539
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Adapted from a presentation on 15 March to a very interested audience in Basingstoke - loads of questions!
Citation preview
Editors, peer reviewers,
authors, publishers:
Who’s who?
Chris Graf
Wiley-Blackwell
+44 1865 476 393
• Editors
• Peer reviewers
• Editorial boards
• Authors (loads on authors)
• Publishers
Editors
Objective Subjective
Good enough?
Editors
• Serve a journal‟s interests
– Which depend on…
• Most encourage enquiries
• Editor‟s word is (nearly) always final
Peer reviewers
Analysis (expand in comments to editor as required)
Rating (higher score=better) 4
(high) 3 2
1
(low)
1. Relevance to practising clinician
2. Originality
3. Validity (hypothesis, study design, methods,
statistics)
4. Conclusion (reasonable? supported by results?)
5. Tables/figures (appropriate? informative?)
6. Writing clear and accurate (title, abstract, text)
7. Please enter your total score here 22
Editorial board
• Advice
• Direction
• Network
• Sometimes peer review
• Sometimes authors
• Sometimes…
Authors (1999)
• 2,500/11,500 responded
• What authors want
– Motivations when authors publish
– Considerations when choosing a journal
Swan A. „What Authors Want‟: the ALPSP research study on the motivations and concerns of
contributors to learned journals. Learned Publishing. 1999;12(3):170-172
Authors (1999): Motivations
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Tell peers Career Personal prestige
Funding Financial reward
Authors' first choice Authors' second choice
Swan A. „What Authors Want‟: the ALPSP research study on the motivations and concerns of
contributors to learned journals. Learned Publishing. 1999;12(3):170-172
Authors (1999): Choices
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Swan A. „What Authors Want‟: the ALPSP research study on the motivations and concerns of
contributors to learned journals. Learned Publishing. 1999;12(3):170-172
Authors (2003): Online
• 1,250 authors
• Views on electronic publishing
– Print more important than online
– Speed through online not a priority
– Peer-review process is the most valued
– Followed by provision of citation-linking
Swan A, Brown S. Authors and electronic publishing: what authors want from the new
technology. Learned Publishing (2003)16,28–33
Authors (2004): Online
• 3,787/107,500 responded
• Views on electronic publishing
– “many aspects of author behaviour are
highly conservative”
Ian Rowlands, Dave Nicholas and Paul Huntington. Scholarly communication in the digital
environment: what do authors want? Learned Publishing (2004)17, 261–273
Authors (2005): Mismatch
• “a big gap between the scholars‟
views on journal publishing…
• … and journal publishers‟ views…
… partly ascribed to a
misunderstanding of the publishing
process”
Nicholas, D., Jamali, M., Hamid, R., Huntington, P. and Rowlands, I. In their very own words:
Authors and scholarly journal publishing. Learned Publishing (2005)18:212–220.
Authors (2006)
• 5,513 authors on issues relating to
the scholarly communication system
Ian Rowlands and Dave Nicholas. The changing scholarly communication landscape: an
international survey of senior researchers Learned Publishing (2006), 19, 31–55
Authors (2006)
Ian Rowlands and Dave Nicholas. The changing scholarly communication landscape: an
international survey of senior researchers Learned Publishing (2006), 19, 31–55
Authors (2006)
Ian Rowlands and Dave Nicholas. The changing scholarly communication landscape: an
international survey of senior researchers Learned Publishing (2006), 19, 31–55
Authors (2008): Quality
• 13 authors, focus groups
• Perceptions of journal quality
• Three most important attributes
– Reputation
– Time to publication
– Readership
John J. Regazzi, Selenay Aytac. Author perceptions of journal quality. Learned Publishing,
(2008)21:225–235
Authors (2008): Quality
John J. Regazzi, Selenay Aytac. Author perceptions of journal quality. Learned Publishing,
(2008)21:225–235
Authors (2010): No change?
• 160 interviewees, 45 institutions
• Needs and practices
– “[scholarly communication habits], which
rely heavily on various forms of peer
review, may override the perceived
„opportunities‟ afforded by new
technologies, including those falling into
the Web 2.0 category”
Harley Diane et al. (2010). Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An
Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines. UC Berkeley: Center for Studies
in Higher Education. http://escholarship.org/uc/cshe_fsc
Publishers
• Run an editorial business
• May publish under contract, may
publish an “owned” journal
• Line of independence between
publisher and editor
Publishers
• Care about
– Brand, reputation
– Their journal editors, Impact Factor,
authors, readers and readership, ethics
– What they publish, their products
– Money
Publishers
• Spot gaps
– Some research is still hard to publish
– Archives of Drug Information
– Allows pharma to “publish the results of
studies and make freely accessible to
the public the results of research studies
that would otherwise remain unavailable
on-file”
Publishers
• Make things happen
– New author services, e.g. EXPEDITED
– Slides, audio, video, Twitter, YouTube
– Datasets?
– Enhanced Articles
1957
2004
2010
www.justgiving.co.uk/cyclemadagascar