How do institutional, funder, and publisher policies affect
authoring choices?
How can open science values reshape scholarly publishing?
Objectives
Explain how to get an article published in a traditional scholarly
publication.
Locate publications that have integrated open science processes into
their publishing workflow.
Discuss how open science values can affect the collaboration process
of writing a scholarly article.
Overview of Scholarly Publishing
Researchers in all disciplines are often told to “publish or perish”,
meaning that they must write articles about their research and get them
printed in acceptable publications or risk losing out on opportunities.
If you think this instruction to “publish” is vague, then you’re on the
right track. What does it mean to publish or be published? What is an
“acceptable” publication? That usually depends on the POV of three
groups (1) research/academic institutions (2) funders (3)
publishers.
Fortunately, there is always a great xckd comic for everything, and
even better contextual information on the explain xkcd wiki.
Discussion
Let’s look at the below comics and the explanations together and then
discuss.
Comic showing the growth of scientific
publications over time and how much of it is open access.
(Source: The
Rise of Open Access)
Comic about how scientists use arXiv to share
research quickly, sometimes before peer review.
(Source: arXiv)
Comic highlighting the challenges and quirks of
the peer review process.
(Source: Peer
Review)
OPTIONAL Exercise: Jargon Busting
This exercise is an opportunity to gain a firmer grasp on the
concepts around scholarly publishing and open science.
Form groups of four to six and choose a note-taker.
Talk for three minutes (your instructor will be timing you!) on any
terms, phrases, or ideas around publishing or open science that you’ve
come across and perhaps feel you should know better.
Make a list of all the problematic terms, phrases, and ideas. Note
if more than one person finds a term problematic.
Identify common problematic words as a starting point - spend 10
minutes working together to try to explain what the terms, phrases, or
ideas on your list mean. Note: use both each other and the internet as a
resource.
Identify the terms your groups were able to explain as well as those
you are still struggling with.
Each group then reports back on one issue resolved by their group
and one issue not resolved by their group.
The instructor will collate these on a whiteboard or shared document
and facilitate a discussion about what we will cover today and where you
can go for help on those things we won’t cover. Any jargon or terms that
will not be covered specifically are good notes.
Case Studies
Case Study 1: Conflicting Policies
Dr. Jay received funding from the National Beneficiary
Advancement Agency (NBA) for their project. Dr. Jay’s employer,
Pinehurst Hall Institute (PHI), grants promotions based
on the number of articles in “top tier” journals (with an impact factor
>10).
The NBA requires all articles resulting from funding to be:
Published in a journal in their catalog, and
Publicly available in their repository no later than 12
months after publication.
Dr. Jay found The Journal of Hoops and Performance (Hoops),
published by CourtVision Press, which meets PHI’s
standards and is listed in the NBA’s catalog.
Upon submission, Dr. Jay discovers that Hoops is a
hybrid journalthat publishes some articles behind a
subscription paywall, and others are made public or ‘open access’ if
authors pay $3,050.
Dr. Jay has no more funding from the NBA or PHI, so opts to publish
the article in the non-open access portion of Hoops.
However, after acceptance, CourtVision Press notifies Dr. Jay that
the article cannot be deposited in the NBA’s repository until 24
months after publication, violating the NBA’s 12-month
rule.
As a result, Dr. Jay must pause their research project to negotiate
with the publisher and the NBA, or find a different journal
altogether.
Diagram illustrating the conflicting
requirements faced by Dr. Jay: institutional promotion criteria, funder
open access policy, and publisher embargo limits.
From this example, we can see that Dr. Jay is trying to meet the
requirements of multiple groups with different values. Their employer
wants to show their stakeholders high productivity and impact. The
funder wants to comply with federal mandates. The publisher wants to
maintain control over dissemination.
Case Study 2: Aligned Incentives
Dr. Ripken received funding from the Municipal Leadership and Bridges
Program (MLB) for their project. Dr. Ripken’s employer, Biogen Advanced
Labs (BAL), has signaled that recognition will be awarded to projects
that show commitment to Open Science. The MLB requires all peer-reviewed
articles to have:
persistent identifiers (PIDs) to be included in acknowledgments
and/or funding statements, and
a plan for posting publicly within 12 months of publication.
Dr. Ripken has found Diamond Press Publishing, whose catalog of
journals have a platform that allow them to share all iterations of the
research project: study protocols, preprints, datasets, peer review
history and final article. Dr. Ripken has to pay fees to ensure all of
these outputs are open, but is happy to discover that their BAL has a
partnership with Diamond Press Publishing that offsets some of the
costs, and the rest are covered in the original contract with the
MLB.
Case Study 3: No Open Science Incentives
Dr. Brown is working with Drs. O’Connell and Carpenter all employed
by the Center for Life Sciences and Virology (CLV). They received
internal funding for their research project. The CLV only requires a
list of publications as a result of the funding and has no public access
or open science policies, and has not included funding for publication
in the contract. Dr. Brown tells their team that they should publish in
Gridiron Journal because they know the editor-in-chief. Gridiron Journal
is ‘hybrid’, meaning that Drs. Brown, O’Connell, and Carpenter can:
pay $1075 to make their article publicly available, or
pay nothing and it can only be accessed by readers with a
subscription.
They decide to go with option 2.
Discussion
How could Dr. Jay have avoided the situation during the project
planning / funding request stage?
What if Dr. Ripken discovered the publisher’s fees were over budget?
What would his first strategy be?
Should Dr. Brown’s research team explore other publishing options?
Why do you think they chose the path in the case study?
Choosing a Publication Venue
Since so many journals are shifting to open access models, it’s
important to ensure the journal is still a fit for all your research
needs.
Second, if you have received funding for the research for which
you’re writing an article, you want to check the agreements for
publishing requirements. Also check your affiliated institution’s
requirements for publishing. And third, check the editorial and access
policies for the journal you want to submit to. These three parties need
to work together to successfully publish your article.
If there are no external requirements for where to publish, it’s
important to understand how a journal or its publisher values open
access and open science. For example, if a journal does not have a
policy on making publishable data available with the manuscript.
Choosing a publication based on impact factors or citation data is not
getting the full picture. Journal impact factors were originally
designed to help libraries purchase journals, and have subsequently been
used to choose where to publish and to evaluate individual researcher’s
impact on their profession: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/202114
The writing and submission process
How authors write and submit the manuscript depends on where they’ve
chosen to publish.
Understanding the difference between traditional and open science
publishing is important here.
Researchers → Preprints → Community Feedback → Submission → Open
Peer Review → Open Access Publication
While some journals still operate under the ‘traditional’ model, many
are moving to open access or ‘hybrid’ states where researchers get to
choose. It’s important for researchers to collaborate early and often on
how their work will be made available.
Placeholder for publication workflow
diagrams
Exercise: Quiz – Traditional vs. Open Science Publishing
T/F: Authors can post their article online before submitting to a
peer-reviewed journal
T/F: Authors should choose where to publish their articles based on
Journal Impact Factors
T/F: Authors should submit articles by emailing the editorial
board
T/F: Authors should consult colleagues, library staff, and other
available resources when choosing where to publish their article
T/F: All scholarly publications are committed to open science
F, must check journal’s preprint policy
F, JIFs were originally meant to help libraries decide what journals
to purchase, not where authors should publish
F, always check the journal’s policies and processes before
submitting
T, don’t rely on one source, check them all!
F, Not all, some!
Evaluate Journals for Open Science Processes
Form 3 groups and decide who will be the notetaker and who will share
with the larger group. Each group is assigned 1 journal to review:
Take 10 minutes and at the websites for these three journals and note
how they integrate open science into their editorial and publishing
processes. Use the below list to guide your notes:
How are articles made available to readers?
Are there any fees associated with publishing?
What is the peer review policy?
Does the journal support linking to other research outputs?
After 10 minutes, each group will share 1 thing that they learned and
1 thing that was difficult.
Key Points
Understand the institutional, funder, and publisher influences on
publishing choices
Assess publication venues critically for openness and
accessibility
Open science values can be embedded in authoring, publishing, and
reviewing choices
Researchers → Peer Review → Edits →
Publication → Library Access
