Preview

Библиосфера

Расширенный поиск

Публикация научных работ: десять горячих тем

https://doi.org/10.20913/1815-3186-2019-3-3-25

Полный текст:

Аннотация

Публикация является перепечаткой и переводом статьи, впервые опубликованной в журнале Publications, 2019, 7(2), 34; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020034. Этот обзор был получен журналом 11 марта 2019, принят 8 мая и опубликован 13 мая 2019 г. Перевод О. Л. Лаврик ©

Меняющийся мир научных коммуникаций и новая волна открытой науки или открытых исследований выявили ряд спорных и горячо обсуждаемых тем. Дискуссии, основанные на фактических данных, регулярно заглушаются дезинформирующей или раздутой риторикой, которая не приносит пользы развивающейся системе научных коммуникаций. Цель статьи – предоставить фактическую базовую основу для десяти наиболее спорных тем, чтобы помочь сформировать и развернуть дискуссию, обновить практику и политику. Рассматриваются вопросы, связанные с препринтами и их «вылавливанием» для рецензирования, практикой передачи авторских прав, функцией рецензирования, хищническими издателями и законностью «глобальных» баз данных (БД). Аргументы и данные несомненно станут мощным инструментом против дезинформации в более широких академических кругах, политике и практике и дадут информацию об изменениях в быстро развивающейся системе научного издания.

Об авторах

Д. П. Теннант
Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education (IGDORE)
Франция


Г. Крейн
Rutgers University
Соединённые Штаты Америки


Т. Крик
Swansea University
Великобритания


Х. Давила
Universidad de Los Andes
Венесуэла


А. Энхбаяр
Simon Fraser University
Канада


Й. Хавеманн
IGDORE
Германия


Б. Крамер
Utrecht University
Нидерланды


Р. Мартин
North Carolina State University
Соединённые Штаты Америки


П. Масуццо
IGDORE
Бельгия


Э. Нобес
INASP
Великобритания


К. Райс
Oslo Metropolitan University
Норвегия


Б. Ривера-Лопес
Universidad de Las Américas
Чили


Т. Росс-Хеллауэр
Graz University of Technology and Know-Center GmbH
Австрия


С. Саттлер
Imperial College London
Великобритания


П. Д. Такер

Испания
Freelance Science Journalist


М. Ванхолсбек
Université Libre de Bruxelles
Бельгия


Список литературы

1. Alperin J. P., Fischman G. (eds.) Hecho en Latinoamérica: acceso abierto, revistas académicas e innovaciones regionals. FLACSO Brasil, 2015. 122 p. URL: http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/clacso/se/20150722110704/HechoEnLatinoamerica.pdf (accessed 16.02.2019).

2. Vincent-Lamarre P., Boivin J., Gargouri Y., Larivière V., Harnad S. Estimating open access mandate effectiveness: the MELIBEA score. Journal of the Association of Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(11), 2815–2828. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23601.

3. Ross-Hellauer T., Schmidt B., Kramer B. Are funder open access platforms a good idea? PeerJ Preprint, 2018. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Are-funder-OpenAccess-platforms-a-good-idea-Ross-Hellauer-Schmidt/a3a3745d1a16d1928f9ac063d621a43ac5de9927 (accessed 16.02.2019). DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.26954v1.

4. Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication: report of the expert group to the European Commission. Publications Office of the European Union. URL: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/464477b3-2559-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1 (accessed 16.02.2019).

5. Matthias L., Jahn N., Laakso, M. The two-way street of open access journal publishing: flip it and reverse it. Publications, 2019, 7(2), 1–29. DOI: 10.3390/publications7020023.

6. Ginsparg P. Preprint Déjà Vu. EMBO Journal, 2016, 35(24), 2620–2625. DOI: 10.15252/embj.201695531.

7. Neylon C., Pattinson D., Bilder G., Lin J. On the origin of nonequivalent states: how we can talk about preprints. F1000Research, 2017, 6, 608, 1–9. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11408.1.

8. Tennant J. P., Bauin S., James S., Kant J. The evolving preprint landscape: introductory report for the Knowledge Exchange working group on preprints. URL: https://osf.io/cyfn7/(accessed16.02.2019). DOI:10.31222/osf.io/796tu.

9. Balaji B. P., Dhanamjaya M. Preprints in scholarly communication: re-imagining metrics and infrastructures. Publications, 2019, 7(1), 1–23. DOI: 10.3390/publications7010006.19

10. Bourne P. E., Polka J. K., Vale R. D., Kiley R. Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission. PLoS Computational Biology, 2017, 13, e1005473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005473.

11. Sarabipour S., Debat H. J., Emmott E., Burgess S. J., Schwessinger B., Hensel Z. On the value of preprints: an early career researcher perspective. PLoS Biology, 2019, 17, e3000151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151.

12. Powell K. Does it take too long to publish research? Nature, 2016, 530(7589), 148–151. DOI: 10.1038/530148a.

13. Vale R. D., Hyman A. A. Priority of discovery in the life sciences. eLife 2016, 5, e16931. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.16931.

14. Crick T., Hall B., Ishtiaq S. Reproducibility in research: systems, infrastructure, culture. Journal of Open Research Software, 2017, 5(1), 1–2. DOI: 10.5334/jors.73.

15. Gentil-Beccot A., Mele S., Brooks T. Citing and reading behaviours in high-energy physics. How a community stopped worrying about journals and learned to love repositories. ArXiv, 2009, arXiv:0906.5418, 1–13. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0111-1 (accessed 16.02.2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0111-1.

16. Curry S. Let’s move beyond the rhetoric: it’s time to change how we judge research. Nature, 2018, 554(7691), 147. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-01642-w.

17. Lariviere V., Sugimoto C. R. The journal impact factor: a brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effects. ArXiv, 2018, arXiv:1801.08992. URL: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1801/1801.08992.pdf (accessed 16.02.2019).

18. McKiernan E. C., Schimanski L. A., Nieves C. M., Matthias L., Niles M. T., Alperin J. P. Use of the journal impact factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. PeerJ Preprint, 2019. URL: https://peerj.com/preprints/27638 (accessed16.02.2019). DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27638v2.

19. Lariviere V., Kiermer V., MacCallum C. J., McNutt M., Patterson M., Pulverer B., Swaminathan S., Taylor S., Curry, S. A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions. BioRxiv, 2016, 062109. URL: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/062109v1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/062109.

20. Priem J., Taraborelli D., Groth P., Neylon C. Altmetrics: a manifesto. 2010. URL: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto (accessed 11.05.2019).

21. Hicks D., Wouters P., Waltman L., De Rijcke S., Rafols I. Bibliometrics: the Leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 2015, 520(7548), 429–431. DOI: 10.1038/520429a.

22. Falagas M. E., Alexiou V. G. The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 2008, 56, 223–226. DOI: 10.1007/s00005-008-0024-3.

23. Tort A. B. L., Targino Z. H., Amaral O. B. Rising publication delays inflate journal impact factors. PLoS 20 One, 2012, 7, e53374. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053374.

24. Fong E. A., Wilhite A. W. Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLoS One, 2017, 12, e0187394. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187394.

25. Adler R., Ewing J., Taylor P. Citation statistics. A Report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS). Statistical Science, 2009, 24(1), 1–14. DOI: 10.1214/09-STS285.

26. Lariviere V., Gingras Y. The impact factor’s Matthew effect: a natural experiment in bibliometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009, 61(2), 424–427. DOI: 10.1002/asi.21232.

27. Brembs B. Prestigious science journals struggle to reach even average reliability. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2018, 12, 37. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037.

28. Brembs B., Button K., Munafò M. Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2013, 7, 291. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291.

29. Vessuri H., Guédon J.-C., Cetto A. M. Excellence or quality? Impact of the current competition regime on science and scientifi publishing in Latin America and its implications for development. Current Sociology, 2014, 62(5), 647–665. DOI: 10.1177/0011392113512839.

30. Guédon J.-C. Open Access and the divide between “mainstream” and “peripheral. Como Gerir e Qualificar Revistas Científicas, 2008, 1–25. URL: http://eprints.rclis.org/10778/1/Brazil-final.pdf (accessed 16.02.2019).

31. Alperin J. P., Nieves C. M., Schimanski L., Fischman G. E., Niles M. T., McKiernan E. C. How Significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion, and tenure documents? Humanities Commons. 2018. URL: https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:21015/ (accessed 11.05.2019). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6W950N35.

32. Rossner M., Epps H. V., Hill E. Show me the data. Journal of Cell Biology, 2007, 179(6), 1091–1092. DOI: 10.1083/jcb.200711140.

33. Owen R., Macnaghten P., Stilgoe J. Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 2012, 39(6), 751–760. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scs093.

34. Moore S., Neylon C., Eve M. P., O’Donnell D. P., Pattinson, D. “Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence. Palgrave Communications, 2017, 3, 16105. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.105.

35. Csiszar A. Peer review: troubled from the start. Nature, 2016, 532(7599), 306–308. DOI: 10.1038/532306a.

36. Moxham N., Fyfe A. The Royal Society and the prehistory of peer review, 1665–1965. Historical Journal, 2017, 61(4), 863–889. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X17000334.

37. Moore J. Does peer review mean the same to the public as it does to scientists? Nature. 2006. URL: https://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05009.html (accessed 16.02.2019). DOI: 10.1038/nature05009.

38. Kumar M. A review of the review process: manuscript peer-review in biomedical research. Biology and Medicine, 2009, 1(4), 1–16.

39. Budd J. M., Sievert M., Schultz T. R. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA, 1998, 280(3), 296–297. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.296.

40. Ferguson C., Marcus A., Oransky I. Publishing: the peer-review scam. Nature, 2014, 515(7528), 480–482. DOI: 10.1038/515480a.

41. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2006, 99(4), 178–182. DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178.

42. Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 2017, 6, 588. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2.

43. Tennant J. P., Dugan J. M., Graziotin D. [et al.] A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 2017, 6, 1151. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3.

44. Wong V. S. S., Avalos L. N., Callaham M. L. Industry payments to physician journal editors. PLoS One, 2019, 14(2), e0211495. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211495.

45. Weiss G. J., Davis R. B. Discordant financial conflicts of interest disclosures between clinical trial conference abstract and subsequent publication. PeerJ, 2019, 7, e6423. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.6423.

46. Flaherty D. K. Ghostand guest-authored pharmaceutical industry–sponsored studies: abuse of academic integrity, the peer review system, and public trust. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 2013, 47(7/8), 1081–1083. DOI: 10.1345/aph.1R691.

47. DeTora L. M., Carey M. A., Toroser D., Baum E. Z. Ghostwriting in biomedicine: a review of the published literature. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 2019, 1–9. DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2019.1608101.

48. Squazzoni F., Brezis E., Marušić, A. Scientometrics of peer review. Scientometrics, 2017, 113(1), 501–502. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4.

49. Squazzoni F., Grimaldo F., Marušić A. Publishing: journals could share peer-review data. Nature, 2017, 546(7658), 352. DOI: 10.1038/546352a.

50. Allen H., Boxer E., Cury A., Gaston T., Graf C., Hogan B., Loh S., Wakley H., Willis M. What does better peer review look like? Defi tions, essential areas, and recommendations for better practice. Learned Publishing, 2019, 32, 163–175. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1222.

51. Tennant J. P. The state of the art in peer review. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 2018, 365(19), fny204. DOI: 10.1093/femsle/fny204.

52. Bravo G., Grimaldo F., López-Iñesta E., Mehmani B., Squazzoni F. The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nature Communications, 2019, 10(1), 322. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2.

53. Fang F. C., Casadevall A. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity, 2011, 79(10), 3855–3859. DOI: 10.1128/IAI.05661-11.

54. Moylan E. C., Kowalczuk M. K. Why articles are retracted: A retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ Open, 2016, 6(11), e012047. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012047.

55. Aarts A. A., Anderson J. E., Anderson C. J. [et al.] Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 2015, 349 (6251), aac4716. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716.

56. Munafò M. R., Nosek B. A., Bishop D. V. M., Button K. S., Chambers C. D., Du Sert N. P., Simonsohn U., Wagenmakers E.-J., Ware J. J., Ioannidis J. P. A. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 2017, 1(1), 0021. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021.

57. Fanelli D. Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA, 2018, 115(11), 201708272. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708272114.

58. Goodman S. N. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1994, 121(1), 11–21. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003.

59. Pierson C. A. Peer review and journal quality. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practice, 2018, 30(1), 1–2. DOI: 10.1097/JXX.0000000000000018.

60. Siler K., Lee K., Bero L. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA, 2015, 112(2), 360–365. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1418218112.

61. Caputo R. K. Peer review: a vital gatekeeping function and obligation of professional scholarly practice. Families in Society : Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 2018, 100(1), 6–16. DOI: 10.1177/1044389418808155.

62. Bornmann L. Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2011, 45(1), 197–245. DOI: 10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112.

63. Resnik D. B., Elmore S. A. Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: a possible role of editors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2016, 22(1), 169–188. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5.

64. Feynman R. P. Cargo cult science. URL: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm (accessed 13.02.2019).

65. Fyfe A., Coate K., Curry S., Lawson S., Moxham N., Røstvik C. M. Untangling academic publishing: a history of the relationship between commercial interests, academic prestige and the circulation of research. The Idealis. 2017. URL: https://theidealis.org/untangling-academic-publishing-a-history-of-the-relationship-between-commercial-interests-academic-prestige-and-the-circulation-of-research/ (accessed 11.05.2019).

66. Priem J., Hemminger B. M. Decoupling the scholarly journal. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 2012, 6, 19, 1–13. DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00019.

67. McKiernan E. C., Bourne P. E., Brown C. T. [et al.] Point of view: how open science helps researchers succeed. eLife, 2016, 5, e16800. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.16800.

68. Bowman N. D., Keene J. R. A layered framework for considering open science practices. Communication Research Reports, 2018, 35(4), 363–372. DOI: 10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273.21

69. Crane H., Martin R. The RESEARCHERS.ONE Mission. RESEARCHERS.ONE, 2018. URL: https://www.researchers.one/article/2018-07-1 (accessed 11.05.2019).

70. Brembs B. Reliable novelty: new should not trump true. PLoS Biology, 2019, 17, e3000117. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117.

71. Stern B. M., O’Shea E. K. A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences. PLoS Biology, 2019, 17, e3000116. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000116.

72. Crane H., Martin R. In peer review we (don’t) trust: how peer review’s filtering poses a systemic risk to science. RESEARCHERS.ONE, 2018. URL: https://www.researchers.one/article/2018-09-17 (accessed 11.05.2019).

73. Silver A. Pay-to-view blacklist of predatory journals set to launch. Nature, 2017. URL: https://www.nature.com/news/pay-to-view-blacklist-of-predatory-journals-set-to-launch-1.22090 (accessed 11.05.2019). DOI: 10.1038/nature.2017.22090.

74. Djuric D. Penetrating the Omerta of predatory publishing: the Romanian connection. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2015, 21(1), 183–202. DOI: 10.1007/s11948014-9521-4.

75. Strinzel M., Severin A., Milzow K., Egger M. “Blacklists” and “whitelists” to tackle predatory publishing: a cross-sectional comparison and thematic analysis. mBio, 2019, 10(3), e00411-19. DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00411-19.

76. Shen C., Björk B.-C. “Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 2015, 13(1), 230. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2.

77. Perlin M. S., Imasato T., Borenstein D. Is predatory publishing a real threat? Evidence from a large database study. Scientometrics, 2018, 116(1), 255–273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2750-6.

78. Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 2013, 342(6154), 60–65. DOI: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60.

79. Olivarez J. D., Bales S., Sare L., Van Duinkerken W. Format aside: applying Beall’s criteria to assess the predatory nature of both OA and non-OA library and information science journals. College and Research Libraries, 2018, 79(1), 52–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.1.52.

80. Shamseer L., Moher D., Maduekwe O., Turner L., Barbour V., Burch R., Clark J., Galipeau J., Roberts J., Shea B. J. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine, 2017, 15(1), 28. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9.

81. Crawford W. GOAJ3: gold open access journals 2012–2017. Livermore, Cites & Insights Books, 2018. 186 p.

82. Eve M. Co-operating for gold open access without APCs. Insights, 2015, 28(1), 73–77. DOI: http://doi. org/10.1629/uksg.166.

83. Björk B.-C., Solomon D. Developing an effective market for open access article processing charges. URL: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtp055910.pdf (accessed 13.06.2014).

84. Oermann M. H., Conklin J. L., Nicoll L. H., 22 Chinn P. L., Ashton K. S., Edie A. H., Amarasekara S., Budinger S. C. Study of predatory open access nursing journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2016, 48(6), 624–*632. DOI: 10.1111/jnu.12248.

85. Oermann M. H., Nicoll L. H., Chinn P. L., Ashton K. S., Conklin J. L., Edie A. H., Amarasekara S., Williams B. L. Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals. Nursing Outlook, 2018, 66(1), 4–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.005.

86. Topper L., Boehr D. Publishing trends of journals with manuscripts in PubMed Central: changes from 2008– 2009 to 2015–2016. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 2018, 106(4), 445–454. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2018.457.

87. Kurt S. Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learned Publishing, 2018, 31(2), 141–147. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1150.

88. Frandsen T. F. Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature. Learned Publishing, 2019, 32(1), 57–62. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1214.

89. Omobowale A. O., Akanle O., Adeniran A. I., Adegboyega K. Peripheral scholarship and the context of foreign paid publishing in Nigeria. Current Sociology, 2014, 62(5), 666–684. DOI: 10.1177/0011392113508127.

90. Bell K. “Predatory” open access journals as parody: exposing the limitations of “legitimate” academic publishing. TripleC, 2017, 15(2), 651–662. DOI: https://doi. org/10.31269/triplec.v15i2.870.

91. Nwagwu W. E. Open access in the developing regions: situating the altercations about predatory publishing. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 2016, 40(1), 58–80.

92. Nobes A. Critical thinking in a post-Beall vacuum. Research Information, 2017, 4/5. URL: https://www.researchinformation.info/issue/april-may-2017 (accessed 16.02.2019).

93. Polka J. K., Kiley R., Konforti B., Stern B., Vale R. D. Publish peer reviews. Nature, 2018, 560(7720), 545–547. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-06032-w.

94. Memon A. R. Revisiting the term predatory open access publishing. Journal of Korean Medical Sciences, 2019, 34(13), e99. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e99.

95. Bachrach S., Berry R. S., Blume M., Foerster T., Von Fowler A., Ginsparg P., Heller S., Kestner N., Odlyzko A., Okerson A., Wigington R., Moff t A. Who should own scientific papers? Science, 1998, 281(5382), 1459–1460. DOI: 10.1126/science.281.5382.1459.

96. Willinsky J. Copyright contradictions in scholarly publishing. First Monday, 2002, 7(11). URL: https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1006/927 (accessed 16.02.2019).

97. Gadd E., Oppenheim C., Probets S. RoMEO studies 4: an analysis of journal publishers’ copyright agreements. Learned Publishing, 2003, 16(4), 293–308. DOI: 10.1087/095315103322422053.

98. Carroll M.W. Why full open access matters. PLoS Biology, 2011, 9(11), e1001210. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001210.

99. Matushek K. J. Take another look at the instructions for authors. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2017, 250(3), 258–259. DOI: 10.2460/ javma.250.3.258.

100. Fyfe A., McDougall-Waters J., Moxham N. Credit, copyright, and the circulation of scientific knowledge: the Royal Society in the long nineteenth century. Victorian Periodicals Review, 2018, 51(4), 579–615. DOI: 10.1353/vpr.2018.0045.

101. Gadd E., Oppenheim C., Probets S. RoMEO studies 1: the impact of copyright ownership on academic author self-archiving. Journal of Documentation, 2003, 59(3), 243–277. DOI: 10.1108/00220410310698239.

102. Davies M. Academic freedom: a lawyer’s perspective. Higher Education, 2015, 70(6), 987–1002. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-015-9884-8.

103. Dodds F. The changing copyright landscape in academic publishing. Learned Publishing, 2018, 31(3), 270– 275. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1157.

104. Morrison C., Secker J. Copyright literacy in the UK: a survey of librarians and other cultural heritage sector professionals. Library and Information Research, 2015, 39(121), 75–97. DOI: 10.29173/lirg675.

105. Dawson P. H., Yang S. Q. Institutional repositories, open access and copyright: what are the practices and implications? Science and Technology Libraries, 2016, 35(4), 279–294. DOI: 10.1080/0194262X.2016.1224994.

106. Björk B.-C. Gold, green, and black open access. Learned Publishing, 2017, 30(2), 173–175. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1096.

107. Chawla D. S. Publishers take ResearchGate to court, alleging massive copyright infringement. Science, 2017. URL: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/publishers-take-researchgate-court-alleging-massive-copyright-infringement (accessed 13.06.2014).

108. Jamali H. R. Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics, 2017, 112(1), 241–254. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-0172291-4.

109. Lawson S. Access, ethics and piracy. Insights, 2017, 30(1), 25–30. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.333.

110. Laakso M., Polonioli A. Open access in ethics research: an analysis of open access availability and author self-archiving behaviour in light of journal copyright restrictions. Scientometrics, 2018, 116(1), 291–317. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2751-5.

111. Lovett J., Rathemacher A., Boukari D., Lang C. Institutional repositories and academic social networks: competition or complement? A study of open access policy compliance vs. researchgate participation. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 2017, 5(1), eP2183. DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2183.

112. Biasi B., Moser P. Effects of copyrights on science – evidence from the US book republication program. Research Briefs in Economic Policy, 2018. URL: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/rb116.pdf (accessed 13.06.2014).

113. Morrison H. From the field: Elsevier as an open access publisher. The Charleston Advisor, 2017, 18(1),53–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5260/chara.18.3.53.

114. Frass W., Cross J., Gardner V. Open access survey: exploring the views of Taylor & Francis and Routledge authors. 2013. URL: https://www.tandf.co.uk//journals/pdf/open-access-survey-march2013.pdf (accessed 11.05.2019).

115. Tickell P. A. Open access to research publications – 2018: independent advice. URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/774956/Open-access-to-research-publications-2018.pdf (accessed 11.05.2019).

116. Piwowar H., Priem J., Larivière V., Alperin J. P., Matthias L., Norlander B., Farley A., West J., Haustein S. The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ, 2018, 6, e4375. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4375.

117. Pinfield S., Salter J., Bath P. A. The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open-access environment: institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 67(7), 1751–1766. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23446.

118. Björk B.-C. Growth of hybrid open access, 2009– 2016. PeerJ, 2017, 5, e3878. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.3878.

119. Green T. We’ve failed: pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach. Learned Publishing, 2017, 30 (4), 325–329. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1116.

120. Björk B.-C., Solomon D. Article processing charges in OA journals: relationship between price and quality. Scientometrics, 2015, 103(2), 373–385. DOI: 10.1007/s11192015-1556-z.

121. Lawson S. APC pricing 2014. Figshare, 2014. URL: https://figshare.com/articles/APC_pricing/1056280 (accessed 11.05.2019).

122. Schönfelder N. APCs–Mirroring the impact factor or legacy of the subscription-based model? Bielefeld, 2018. URL: https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/record/2931061 (accessed 11.05.2019). DOI: 10.4119/unibi/2931061.

123. Schimmer R., Geschuhn K. K., Vogler A. Disrupting the subscription journals’ business model for the necessary large-scale transformation to open access. 2015. MPG. PuRe. 2015. URL: https://pure.mpg.de/pubman/faces/ViewItemOverviewPage.jsp?itemId=item_2148961 (accessed 11.05.2019).

124. Blackmore P., Kandiko C. B. Motivation in academic life: a prestige economy. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 2011, 16(4), 399–411. DOI: 10.1080/13596748.2011.626971.

125. Gadd E., Troll Covey D. What does ‘green’ open access mean? Tracking twelve years of changes to journal publisher self-archiving policies. Journal of Librarianship and Infornation Science, 2019, 51, 106–122. DOI: 10.1177/0961000616657406.

126. Berners-Lee T., De Roure D., Harnad S., Shadbolt N. Journal publishing and author self-archiving: peaceful co-existence and fruitful collaboration. URL: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/261160/ (accessed 09.01.2019).

127. Swan A., Brown S. Open access self-archiving: an author study. London, 2005. URL: http://cogprints.org/4385/1/jisc2.pdf (accessed 09.01.2019).

128. Henneken E. A., Kurtz M. J., Eichhorn G., Accomazzi A., Grant C., Thompson D., Murray S. S. Effect of e-printing on citation rates in astronomy and physics. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 2006, 9(2), 202. DOI: 10.3998/3336451.0009.202.

129. Houghton J. W., Oppenheim C. The economic implications of alternative publishing models. Prometheus, 2010, 28(1), 41–54. DOI: 10.1080/08109021003676359.

130. Bernius S., Hanauske M., Dugall B., König W. Exploring the effects of a transition to open access: insights from a simulation study. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64(4), 701–726. DOI: 10.1002/asi.22772

131. Mongeon P., Paul-Hus A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 2016, 106(1), 213–228. DOI: 10.1007/s11192015-1765-5.

132. Archambault É., Campbell D., Gingras Y., Larivière V. Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 2009, 60(7), 1320– 1326. DOI: 10.1002/asi.21062.

133. Alonso S., Cabrerizo F. J., Herrera-Viedma E., Herrera F. h-Index: a review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 2009, 3(4), 273–289. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001.

134. Harzing A.-W., Alakangas, S. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 2016, 106(2), 787–804. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9.

135. Rafols I., Ciarli T., Chavarro D. Under-reporting research relevant to local needs in the global south. Database biases in the representation of knowledge on rice. URL: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c784/ac36533a87934e4be48d814c3ced3243f57a.pdf (accessed 11.05.2019).

136. Chadegani A. A., Salehi H., Yunus M. M., Farhadi H., Fooladi M., Farhadi M., Ebrahim N. A. A Comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Social Science, 2013, 9(5), 18–26. DOI: 10.5539/ass.v9n5p18.

137. Ribeiro L. C., Rapini M. S., Silva L. A., Albuquerque E. M. Growth patterns of the network of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 2018, 114(1), 159– 179. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2573-x

138. Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z., Miao L., Murray D., RobinsonGarcía N., Costas R., Sugimoto C. R. A Global comparison of scientific mobility and collaboration according to national scientific capacities. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 2018, 3, 17, 1–14. DOI: 10.3389/ frma.2018.00017.

139. Boshoff N., Akanmu M.A. Scopus or Web of Science for a bibliometric profile of pharmacy research at a Nigerian university? South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 2017, 83(2), 14–22. DOI: 10.7553/832-1682.

140. Wang Y., Hu R., Liu M. The geotemporal demographics of academic journals from 1950 to 2013 according to Ulrich’s database. Journal of Informetrics, 2017, 11(3), 655–671. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.006.

141. Gutiérrez J., López-Nieva P. Are international journals of human geography really international? Progress in Human Geography, 2001, 25(1), 53–69. DOI: 10.1191/030913201666823316.

142. Wooliscroft B., Rosenstreich D. How international are the top academic journals? The case of marketing. European Business Review, 2006, 18(6), 422–436. DOI: 10.1108/09555340610711067.

143. Ciarli T., Rafols I., Llopis O. The under-representation of developing countries in the main bibliometric databases: a comparison of rice studies in the Web of Science, Scopus and CAB Abstracts. Context counts: pathways to master big and little data : proc. of the science a. technology indicators conf. 2014 (Leiden, 3–5 Sept. 2014). Leiden, 2014, 97–106.

144. Chavarro D., Tang P., Rafols I. Interdisciplinarity and research on local issues: evidence from a developing country. Research Evaluation, 2014, 23(3), 195–209. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvu012.

145. Ssentongo J. S., Draru M. C. Justice and the dynamics of research and publication in Africa: interrogating the performance of “publish or perish”. Uganda Martyrs University Repository (UMU-IR). 2017. URL:http://ir.umu.ac.ug/handle/20.500.12280/501 (accessed 11.05.2019).

146. Piego E., McKiernan E., Posada A., Ortega N. R., Fiormonte D., Gatto L., Gil A., Logas C., Alperin J. P., Mounce R., Eglen S, J, Miranda-Trigueros E., Lawson S., Gatto L., Ramos A., Perez N. Scholarly publishing, freedom of information and academic self-determination: the UNAM-Elsevier case. City University of London. 2017. URL: https://figshare.com/articles/Scholarly_Publishing_Freedom_of_Information_and_Academic_Self-Determination_The_UNAM-Elsevier_Case/5632657 (accessed on 11.05.2019).

147. Paasi A. Academic capitalism and the geopolitics of knowledge. The Wiley Blackwell companion to political geography. Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons, 2015, 507–523. DOI: 10.1002/9781118725771.ch37.

148. Tietze S., Dick P. The Victorious English language: hegemonic practices in the management academy. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2013, 22(1), 122–134. DOI: 10.1177/1056492612444316.

149. Aalbers M. B. Creative destruction through the Anglo-American hegemony: a non-Anglo-American view on publications, referees and language. Area, 2004, 36(3), 319–322. DOI: 10.1111/j.0004-0894.2004.00229.x.

150. Hwang K. The inferior science and the dominant use of English in knowledge production: a case study of Korean science and technology. Science Communication, 2005, 26(4), 390–427. DOI: 10.1177/1075547005275428.

151. Rivera-López B. S. Uneven writing spaces in academic publishing: a case study on internationalisation in the disciplines of biochemistry and molecular biology : diss. abstr. 2016. URL: https://thesiscommons.org/8cypr/ (accessed 11.05.2019).

152. Lillis T., Curry M. J. Academic writing in a global context: the politics and practices of publishing in English. London, Routledge, 2013. 224 p. (Literacies).

153. Minca C. (Im)mobile geographies. Geographica Helvetica, 2013, 68(1), 7–16. DOI: 10.5194/gh-68-7-2013.

154. Knowledge, networks and nations: global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. London, Elsevier, 2011. 112 p. URL: https://www.snowballmetrics.com/wp-content/uploads/4294976134.pdf (accessed 09.01.2019).

155. Okune A., Hillyer R., Albornoz D., Posada A., Chan L. Whose infrastructure? Towards inclusive and collaborative knowledge infrastructures in open science. ELPUB 2018 : 22nd Intern. conf. on e-publishing. Toronto, 2018, hal-01816808f. URL: https://elpub.episciences.org/4619/pdf (accessed 09.01.2019). DOI: 10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2018.31.

156. Beverungen A., Böhm S., Land C. The poverty of journal publishing. Organization, 2012, 19(6), 929–938. DOI: 10.1177/1350508412448858.

157. Luzón M. J. The added value features of online scholarly journals. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 2007, 37(1), 59–73. DOI: 10.2190/H702-64738569-2R3Q.

158. Van Noorden, R. Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature, 2013, 495(7442), 426–429. DOI: 10.1038/495426a.

159. Inchcoombe S. The changing role of research publishing: a case study from Springer Nature. Insights, 2017, 30(2), 10–16. DOI: 10.1629/uksg.355.

160. De Camargo K. R. Big publishing and the economics of competition. American Journal of Public Health, 2014, 104(1), 8–10. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301719.


Для цитирования:


Теннант Д.П., Крейн Г., Крик Т., Давила Х., Энхбаяр А., Хавеманн Й., Крамер Б., Мартин Р., Масуццо П., Нобес Э., Райс К., Ривера-Лопес Б., Росс-Хеллауэр Т., Саттлер С., Такер П.Д., Ванхолсбек М. Публикация научных работ: десять горячих тем. Библиосфера. 2019;(3):3-25. https://doi.org/10.20913/1815-3186-2019-3-3-25

For citation:


Tennan J.P., Crane H., Crick T., Davila J., Enkhbayar A., Havemann J., Kramer B., Martin R., Masuzzo P., Nobes A., Rice C., Rivera-López B., Ross-Hellauer T., Sattler S., Thacker P.D., Vanholsbeeck M. Ten hot topics around scholarly publishing. Bibliosphere. 2019;(3):3-25. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20913/1815-3186-2019-3-3-25

Просмотров: 200


Creative Commons License
Контент доступен под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1815-3186 (Print)