How To Attack Manuscripts Like An Editor or Reviwer

How to attack manuscripts like an editor or reviwer
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Single Blind Reviews

the reviewer knows the identity of the author,
but the reviewers identity is kept confidential
Double Blind Reviews

neither the reviewer nor the authors identities
are disclosed to the other
Open Peer Reviews

author and the reviewer are both aware of
each others identity at the time of the review
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
Eliminating the tradition of blinding the reviewers identities Making the full peer-review record public

Opening the review process to anyone who wishes to provide comments

Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence
BioMed Central
Treating publications as organic documents that evolve over time
(ETAI) Atmospheric Chemistry and Physcs
Serve to facilitate communication among scholars Provides at least the same level of quality control as traditional peer review Fosters scientific communities
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
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 The advantages of Open Access
Open Access Logo
12 Bjrk, 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.
No. Of Peer-Reviewed OA Journals 13

4500 4000
3500
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
No. Of PeerReviewed OA Journals
2002
2009
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.
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

Changing the business model has proven to be much more difficult and time-consuming than envisaged 510 years ago (Book Help)
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
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.
Features of Google Scholar

Ranking system

Search Find Locate Learn
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.
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.
The future internet: Service Web 3.0
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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. Bjrk, 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, dont perish: the scholars 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.

How To Attack Manuscripts Like An Editor or Reviwer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How To Attack Manuscripts Like An Editor or Reviwer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How to attack manuscripts like an editor or reviwer

Pipeline Model of Publishing 1

Proportions of Article Output in SMT 2

Average acceptance rate for journals is about 50%.

Of the 50% accepted, 40% are accepted subject to revision.

Single Blind Reviews

but the reviewers identity is kept confidential

Double Blind Reviews

are disclosed to the other

Open Peer Reviews

each others identity at the time of the review

The lack of timely publication

journal; two years not uncommon

The formulaic approach often adopted by reviewers limits creativity

Opening the review process to anyone who wishes to provide comments

Treating publications as organic documents that evolve over time

(ETAI) Atmospheric Chemistry and Physcs

Paper format = subscription model

Online journals = big deals

Open Access = new funding models

Open Access Logo

No. Of Peer-Reviewed OA Journals 13

No. Of PeerReviewed OA Journals

Keep SSP members and interested parties aware of new

17 Scholarly Kitchen. About. . <http://www.scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about> Web. 1 May 2010.

Features of Google Scholar

Search Find Locate Learn

18 Google Scholar. About. . <http://www.scholarl.google.com/about> Web. 1 May 2010.

The future internet: Service Web 3.0

'Tim Berners-Lee & James Hendler

You might also like