SHARE’s recent summer meeting provided some interesting insights into the organization’s priorities and its ambition to provide a strong, open, and collaborative infrastructure that will maximize the impact of scholarly research. Reasons to be cheerful indeed!
The conversation about the lack of gender diversity at the top of scholarly publishing is gathering pace, and was the topic of several sessions at this year’s SSP conference. This post compiles some of the advice given by women at different stages of their publishing career to attendees at one of those sessions.
Today’s students and early career researchers and professionals will be critical to the future success of our scholarly societies and associations. How well are they being served at present and how can we ensure their support in future?
The recent ORCID-CASRAI conference in Barcelona brought together over 150 researchers, research administrators, funders, publishers, vendors, and others working in scholarly communications to discuss research evaluation, with a particular focus on social science and humanities – resulting in some interesting conversations and observations
Demonstrating the value of scholarly research is increasingly critical to academic success. This interview with Oxfam’s Deborah Hardoon shows that there’s much we can learn from organizations outside of academia about maximizing research impact .
Results from a new survey – one of the largest of its kind – shed light on why people choose to belong to scholarly societies. And why they don’t…
April sees the first Advancing Research Communication & Scholarship conference, described by the organizers as providing a “broad and collaborative forum for addressing and affecting scholarly and scientific communication. Find out more about this new meeting in our interview with two ARCS 2015 Board members, Robin Champieux and Jill Emery
In an increasingly open world, should more subscription journals be converted to OA? And if so, why, how, and when?
The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers recently launched a consultation, requesting feedback from all stakeholders about their draft principles on article sharing on scholarly communication networks. Find out more about how and why these principles are needed and what the consultation hopes to achieve, n this interview with Fred Dylla, Executive Director and CEO of the American Institute of Physics, and project lead for the initiative.
Despite recent criticisms, peer review remains central to scholarly communication – but identifying and maintaining a steady stream of trained and knowledgeable peer reviewers is increasingly challenging. With researchers under more pressure than ever to publish or perish, some journal editors would like to see more support and recognition for peer review from their institutions and funders.
With increased pressure from funding bodies and others for researchers to make their data open, as well as their research articles, it’s important to understand who is already sharing what data, how, why – and why not…
We’ve got DOIs (digital object identifiers) to help identify research articles, images, and other digital objects, and ORCIDs (Open Researcher and Contributor IDs) to help disambiguate the authors of those objects. Now there’s a new initiative to create a contributor taxonomy that identifies who’s done what in the creation of published research – find out more in our interview with Amy Brand, one of the brains behind the concept.
Despite the increase in open access publishing, public access initiatives like Research4Life, INASP, the UK’s Access2Research pilot, and more are still playing a valuable role in making research publications more widely available, both to researchers outside of the developed world, and to the general public.
What do societies really think about Open Access? A recent survey, though small, provides some initial answers…
At a time when more research articles are more readily available to more readers globally than ever before, it’s crucial we are confident that those papers meet the highest standards and, that on those occasions where they don’t, there is a sound system in place to revise or retract them. So what can we do to make the publishing process more sound?