It is the season of reports and trends. This week we highlight the STM Future Trends 2020 provides publishers insights on the currents affecting them.
Posts with the tag: publishing
Have you noticed a new slide inserted into many presentations lately? “What keeps me/you – insert field or job here – awake at night?”
Librarians might say it is the high costs and complexity of content subscriptions. Today’s article Slow and Steady – Taking Time to Think in the Age of Rapid Publishing Cycles by Kent Anderson from The Scholarly Kitchen touches on many intertwined issues inducing librarian sleeplessness. The author discusses the case for rapid publication; the increase in research retractions; peer review; the increasing quantity of published research; corrections and credibility and cost issues. Are we seeing an “industrialization of research?”
Pushing for speed within the publication process may be putting a greater onus on our readers, eroding our brands, increasing skepticism/cynicism around the publication process, and diminishing the role of editors and publishers through a corrosive/erosive process. Maybe we should pause, rethink, and reassess the value of the filters we have created and how best to support, strengthen, and sustain them. Will a week longer make a huge difference? In which direction? Whose risk increases?
Here is something to think about this week: Is Google the next big player in scholarly publishing?
In part, whether Google is or is not ready to be the open access platform for scholarly communication, there are two hurdles 1) researchers’ practices and 2) the peer review process.
From the article, Timo Hannay, Managing Director of Digital Science is quoted:
The problem, he says, is not that there are too few options to publish in an open access format. It’s that most academics don’t think about it too much. “Most [academics] don’t particularly care about open access, in part because they are not incentivised to do so. This is changing, but only slowly, and right now most still care more about publishing in established, high-profile journals and in gaining a lot of citations.”
If Google, or another company, had a secret weapon to disrupt the peer review process, now that would be worth getting excited about.