The document discusses several topics related to scholarly publishing including:
1. The traditional peer review process and concerns about timeliness and limiting creativity.
2. Emerging models like open access publishing and how it is growing significantly.
3. Challenges to fully transitioning to open access models like resistance from publishers and prestige factors for researchers.
4. The potential for the semantic web and Web 3.0 to further transform scholarly publishing by enabling more machine-readable content and new ways for researchers from different fields to connect.
1. “ How to attack manuscripts like an editor or reviwer“
2. “Pipeline” Model of Publishing 1
Author Publisher Library User
1 Kahin, Brian. Institutional and Policy Issues in the Development of the Digital Library. 1995.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.120> . Web. 1 May 2010.
3. Proportions of Article Output in SMT 2
4% 2%
30%
64%
Commercial Publishing Companies
Learned Societies
University Presses
Government Research Department
2 Professional Scholarly Publishing. Publishing Facts. 2010.
<http://www.pspcentral.org/pubFacts/pubFacts_008.cfm > . Web. 1 May 2010.
4. Building a collective knowledge base
Communicating information
Validating the quality of research
Distributing rewards
Building scientific communities
3 Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age. 2007. <
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107>. Web. 1 May 2010.
5. 20,000-25,000 peer-reviewed journals
More than 1 Mio articles published
annually
80% of papers subject to peer review
were reviewed by 2 or more reviewers
Active reviewers referee an average of 8
papers/year
4 Professional Scholarly Publishing. Publishing Facts. 2010.
<http://www.pspcentral.org/pubFacts/pubFacts_008.cfm > . Web. 1 May 2010.
6. Average acceptance rate for journals is
about 50%.
› About 20% are rejected prior to peer review
poor quality (13%)
out of scope (8%))
› 30% are rejected following peer review.
Of the 50% accepted, 40% are
accepted subject to revision.
5 Professional Scholarly Publishing. Publishing Facts. 2010.
<http://www.pspcentral.org/pubFacts/pubFacts_008.cfm > . Web. 1 May 2010.
7. Author
Editor
Referee
6 Peters, John. The Hundred Years War Started Today: An exploration of electronic peer review. 1995. <
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.117>. Web. 1 May 2010.
8. “Single Blind” Reviews
› the reviewer knows the identity of the author,
but the reviewer‟s identity is kept confidential
“Double Blind” Reviews
› neither the reviewer nor the author‟s identities
are disclosed to the other
“Open” Peer Reviews
› author and the reviewer are both aware of
each other‟s identity at the time of the review
7 Peters, John. The Hundred Years War Started Today: An exploration of electronic peer review. 1995. <
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.117>. Web. 1 May 2010.
9. The lack of timely publication
› Four to six months is fast for a scholarly
journal; two years not uncommon
The formulaic approach often adopted
by reviewers limits creativity
8 Peters, John. The Hundred Years War Started Today: An exploration of electronic peer review. 1995. <
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.117>. Web. 1 May 2010.
10. Eliminating the tradition of blinding the
reviewers‟ identities
Making the full peer-review record public
› BioMed Central
Opening the review process to anyone who
wishes to provide comments
› Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence
(ETAI)
› Atmospheric Chemistry and Physcs
Treating publications as organic documents
that evolve over time
9 Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age. 2007. <
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107>. Web. 1 May 2010.
11. Serve to facilitate communication
among scholars
Provides at least the same level of
quality control as traditional peer review
Fosters scientific communities
10 Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age. 2007. <
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107>. Web. 1 May 2010.
12. Paper format = subscription model
› Individual subscriber
› Institutional subscriptions
Online journals = “big deals”
› License fees
“Open Access” = new funding models
› community service model
› author-side payments
11 Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age. 2007. <
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107>. Web. 1 May 2010.
13. Access to material via the
Internet in such a way that the
material is free for all users to
read and use
A grass-roots movement of
scientists advocating the
publication of scientific journals
openly on the Web started in
the mid-1990s
Open
The advantages of Open Access
Access Logo
12 Björk, Bo-Christer and Turid Hedlund. Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their Business
Model to Open Access. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.102>. Web. 1 May 2010.
14. No. Of Peer-Reviewed OA Journals 13
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
No. Of Peer-
2000 Reviewed OA
1500 Journals
1000
500
0
2002 2009
13 Björk, Bo-Christer and Turid Hedlund. Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their Business
Model to Open Access. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.102>. Web. 1 May 2010.
15. The desire to share information with
fellow researchers
Open access as a condition of a funding
grant
Article was rejected by Journals
Reservations about working with large
organizations suspicions about the
concept of intellectual property
14 Esposito, Joseph J. Open Access 2.0: Access to Scholarly Publications Moves to a New Phase. 2009. <
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.203>. Web. 1 May 2010.
16. Changing the business model has proven to be
much more difficult and time-consuming than
envisaged 5–10 years ago (Book Help)
Industry with a few dominant publishers
Customers (i.e. University libraries) have a
strong pressure to buy subscriptions and
licenses from all the leading publishers
For publishing researchers, prestige of the
journal often more important than OA
Author charges a new type of cost for
universities or research funders
15 Björk, Bo-Christer and Turid Hedlund. Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their Business
Model to Open Access. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.102>. Web. 1 May 2010.
17. Oxford University Press offers “Oxford
Open” to 90 journals and 6 fully open
access journals.
Wiley-Blackwell offers Online Open,
which covers almost all of their1,264
journals.
Springer offers Open Choice to all of its
1,470 peer-reviewed online journals and
full open access to a number of them
› BioMed Central
16 Björk, Bo-Christer and Turid Hedlund. Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their Business
Model to Open Access. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.102>. Web. 1 May 2010.
18. The Scholarly Kitchen is a moderated and
independent blog
Established in Feb 2008 by the
Society for Scholarly Publishing to:
› Keep SSP members and interested parties aware of new
developments in publishing
› Point to research reports and projects
› Interpret the significance of relevant research in a
balanced way
› Suggest areas that need more input by identifying gaps in
knowledge
› Translate findings from related endeavors
› Attract the community of STM information experts
interested in these things and give them a place to
contribute
17 Scholarly Kitchen. About. . <http://www.scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about> Web. 1 May 2010.
19.
20. Features of Google Scholar
› Search
› Find
› Locate
› Learn
Ranking system
› weighing the full text of each document,
› where it was published
› who it was written by
› how often and how recently it has been cited in
other scholarly literature.
18 Google Scholar. About. . <http://www.scholarl.google.com/about> Web. 1 May 2010.
21. Concerns about the definition of
"scholarly" in determining inclusion or
exclusion, and the currency of the
content
Not restricted to peer-reviewed content:
too much or too little useful content
One opportunity open to Google
Scholar is to offer searches that
recognize the context of the words used
in searching.
19 Friend, Frederick J. Google Scholar: Potentially Good for Users of Academic Information. 2007. <
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0009.105>. Web. 1 May 2010.
23. The Web was designed as an information space,
not only to be useful for human-human
communication, but also that machines would
be able to participate and help users
communicate with each other.
Computers are better at handling carefully
structured and well-designed data, yet even
where information is derived from a database
with well-defined meanings, the implications of
those data are not evident to a robot browsing
the web.
More information on the web needs to be in a
form that machines can „understand‟ rather than
simply display.
20 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web’. 2001.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
24. Semantic Web Technology involves
asking people to make some extra
effort, in repayment for which they will
get substantial new functionality
A new set of languages is now being
developed to make more web
content accessible to machines.
21 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web’. 2001.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
25. Tools for publishing papers on the web will
automatically help users to include more of
this machine-readable markup
Whereas current tools using XML (Extensible
Markup Language) can allow a user to assert
general descriptions the new languages will
be able to express more details
Papers that include this new markup
language will be found by new and better
search engines, and users will thus be able to
issue significantly more precise queries.
22 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web’. 2001.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
26. The semantic web will facilitate the
development of automated methods for
helping users to understand the content
produced by those in other scientific
disciplines
On the semantic web, one will be able
to produce machine-readable content
that will provide a self-evolving translator
that allows one group of scientists to
directly interact with the technical data
produced by another
23 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web’. 2001.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
27. The Semantic Web will allow users to
create relationships that allow
communication when the commonality
of concept has not (yet) led to a
commonality of terms.
The semantic web will provide unifying
underlying technologies to allow these
concepts to be progressively linked into
a universal web of knowledge
24 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web’. 2001.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
28. “The very notion of a journal of medicine
separate from a journal of bioinformatics,
separate from the writings of physicists,
chemists, psychologists will someday become
as out of date as the print journal is
becoming to our graduate students. “
“Does this sound like a crazy science-fiction
dream? A decade ago, who would have
believed a web of text, conveyed by
computer, would challenge a 200-year-old
tradition of academic publishing?”
'Tim Berners-Lee & James Hendler
25 Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web’. 2001.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May 2010
29. Arnold, Kenneth. The Body in the Virtual Library: Rethinking Scholarly Communication.
1995. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.104>. Web. 1 May 2010.
Berners-Lee, Tim and James Hendler. Scientific publishing on the 'semantic web’. 2001.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm. Web. 1 May
2010.
Björk, Bo-Christer and Turid Hedlund. Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could
Change Their Business Model to Open Access. 2009. <
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.102>. Web. 1 May 2010.
Esposito, Joseph J. Open Access 2.0: Access to Scholarly Publications Moves to a New
Phase. 2009. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.203>. Web. 1 May 2010.
Friend, Frederick J. Google Scholar: Potentially Good for Users of Academic Information.
2007. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0009.105>. Web. 1 May 2010.
Kahin, Brian. Institutional and Policy Issues in the Development of the Digital Library. 1995.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.120> . Web. 1 May 2010.
Moxley, Joseph M. How to Attack Manuscripts like an editor or reviewer. 1992. Publish,
don‟t perish: the scholar‟s guide to academic writing and publishing. Print.
Nadasdy, Zoltan. Electronic Journal of Cognitive and Brain Science: A Truly All-Electronic
Journal: Let Democracy Replace Peer Review. 1997. <
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0003.103>. Web. 1 May 2010.
Peters, John. The Hundred Years War Started Today: An exploration of electronic peer
review. 1995. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.117>. Web. 1 May 2010.
Peters, Paul. Redefining Scholarly Publishing as a Service Industry. 2007. <
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.309>. Web. 1 May 2010.
Solomon, David J. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age.
2007. < http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107>. Web. 1 May 2010.