SciPost’s Post

Open Access Publishing: Benefits and Challenges #AcademicStrive #Open Access #ResearchArticle https://lnkd.in/gax_Hpmc Open access publishing has been a real game-changer in scholarly research communication as well as it has been a blessing and a curse. As a supporter of open access, the Academic Strive online publication guarantees that anybody who wishes to consult it has total freedom to electronic retrieval of any academic work of his/her choice. This article will look at the pluses and minuses open access publishing entails. Benefits of Open Access Publishing 1. Easier Accessibility: 2. More Visible and Cited: 3. Quicken Research and Innovations: 4. Funding Requirements: Challenges of Open Access Publishing 1. Financial Sustainability: 2. Quality Control and Predatory Journals: 3. Perception and Prestige: 4. Infrastructure and Technology:

Late last year, I weighed into discussions about Open Access Publishing (and Open Science) by pointing out that we often forget an important starting point: scholarly publishing is underwritten by the taxpayer (by supporting institutions that pay large subscription fees). Accordingly, institutions might consider the ethics of supporting scholarly publishing through the Open Access business model, which has the added benefit of allowing the taxpayer to read what they pay for. Full correspondence here: https://lnkd.in/gVFe97-y

📖 #OpenAccess has been making waves in the publishing industry for a couple of decades. It has caused different reactions from various players ranging from commercial giants to local publishing houses. ⚒️ But to become truly resilient, they need to recalibrate systems of knowledge production and dissemination by building the necessary infrastructures and supporting underlying communities. 💡 In this six-minute piece, Kaitlin Thaney from The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) suggests that the growing momentum behind "no-pays" academic publishing models offers a chance to rectify imbalances, expenses, and power dynamics associated with the pursuit for Open Access. 👍 Care to share your thoughts regarding this matter? Feel free to comment them down below! #OpenAccessRevolution #FreeFlowOfKnowledge #AccessibleResearch #OpenScienceAdvancement #Ribbonfish

Do you know about replication studies in validating #research findings⁉️ Replication 🔁 involves repeating a study to see if the same results 📊 are obtained, serving as a critical step in confirming the reliability and robustness of initial findings 😎 However, replication efforts are often underemphasized in #academic publishing, leading to a replication crisis 💥 where many published studies cannot be successfully reproduced ❌ ProjectBist #researchfindings #academic #doyouknow

As any system could, it began as a helpful idea and, with too much power and potential for profit, became a harmful norm. Academic publishing as we know it does not serve to disseminate knowledge 📚; it serves as a prestige trap for academics to perpetuate continuously. The good news is that because we perpetuate it, we have the power and freedom to make other choices if we know better. I look forward to sharing the third video in our series on academic publishing this Wednesday afternoon 📹, where we share all the hope for what the publishing system could be, how to create (and fund it), and what we can do while we wait. The newsletter will go out the following morning 📩. If you're interested in these discussions, you may enjoy our newsletter and community (at no cost). Feel free to explore these resources using my bio-link. Take care! 😊

Coming from Web 3.0 to Academic Publishing was very revealing. These 4 statistics alone convinced me that it was time for change: → Stat #1: The average publication time, depending on the discipline, ranges from 9 to 18 months. Way too slow. → Stat #2: The article processing charges for some journals are as high as $10,000. How are international scientists supposed to compete? → Stat #3: For top papers, the median review time has gone from around 85 days to 150 days over the last 10 years. Reviewers are too busy & not paid for their work. So, the lengthy review times are only increasing. → Stat #4: The Academic Publishing industry has one of the biggest profit margins, reaching 40%. Yet, exactly $0 is shared with Reviewers. Looking from the outside in, the issues seemed obvious. In Web 3.0, things move fast, very fast. The core tenants are community & profit distribution. And these same tenants can help us fix publishing. It’s time we pushed science forward. Willing to help? Let me know below. 👇🏼

There is a steady rise in the number and scope of open access agreements between institutions/consortia and scholarly publishers. And while these agreements may vary in form, they all share a common vision — to progress the transition to open-access publishing. In this article, library leaders discuss about finalizing an agreement’s terms and overseeing a successful implementation. #ElsevierConnect #LibraryConnect #ElsevierTogether #OpenAccess #ScholarlyPublishing #LibraryLeadership #PublishingAgreements #AcademicLibraries #OpenAccessPublishing #ResearchAccess #LibraryManagement #ScholarlyCommunication #InstitutionalAgreements #AcademicPublishing #OpenScience #ResearchVisibility #LibraryCollaboration #PublishingTrends

Do you know about replication studies in validating hashtag #research findings⁉️ Replication 🔁 involves repeating a study to see if the same results 📊 are obtained, serving as a critical step in confirming the reliability and robustness of initial findings 😎 However, replication efforts are often underemphasized in hashtag #academic publishing, leading to a replication crisis 💥 where many published studies cannot be successfully reproduced ❌ ProjectBist #researchfindings #academic #doyouknow

Academic publishing generates vast profits by exploiting unpaid labor. Researchers create value but are charged to access their work, while publishers profit. Get the full scoop via the profile link, and let me know if you think this is ethical!

--- Hi LinkedIn Folks! I recently had a discussion session about 'The Business of Science' with my group members. I did a little research on YouTube and found this interesting video. This got me thinking: If we, as researchers, give our works for free to publishers, who then sell our works, and we have to buy them back (say, universities must pay a lot of money to subscribe to the scientific journals), then there must be something wrong with the system. Any thoughts? 😊 or could this be just an unproven controversy? ---