7 Publication Sharing
7 sub-clusters · 51 referencesThis cluster has 6 sub-clusters:
▸
Why open access?
4 / 4Open access accelerates knowledge circulation, enables global access and increases visibility and reuse.
The future of academic publishing
This collaborative piece explores the evolving landscape of scholarly communication, advocating for structural changes to improve the equity and accessibility of research dissemination. It provides a forward-looking perspective on how academic publishing can better serve global societal needs by moving toward more open and inclusive models.
Open Access
This resource offers a definitive primer on open access, outlining its core principles and dismantling common myths regarding its cost, legality, and impact. It serves as a foundational text for understanding how digital infrastructure and copyright-holder consent can be leveraged to share scholarly knowledge freely and without restriction.
The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review
This comprehensive review evaluates the academic, economic, and societal consequences of open access, providing a data-driven foundation for ongoing policy debates. It synthesizes empirical findings from a wide range of meta-research to highlight the tangible benefits and potential challenges of transitioning away from paywalled research.
Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle : the case for open access to research and scholarship. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262512664/the-access-principle
▸
Alternatives to legacy journals
8 / 8Introduces new publishing models beyond the traditional subscription journals. Examples include publishing platforms like Octopus (which breaks papers into smaller units), modular publishing on ResearchEquals, community peer-review outlets like Peer Community In, and overlay journals that curate arXiv preprints. These alternatives aim to make publishing faster, fairer, and more transparent by decoupling the functions of journals.
Anon. (n.d.). Free, fast and fair: The Global Primary Research Record where researchers publish their work in full detail. Octopus. https://www.octopus.ac/
Anon. (n.d.). Researchequals.com. ResearchEquals.com. https://www.researchequals.com/
Anon. (2023). Free Peer Review & Validation of preprints of articles. Peer Community In. https://peercommunityin.org/
Understanding the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) Model of Scholarly Communication
This resource introduces the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model of scholarly communication, explaining how it decouples the dissemination of research from traditional peer review and curation. It provides stakeholders with an overview of the model's mechanics and current data on its adoption across the research ecosystem.
Currie, G. (2024). Open science: What is publish, review, curate? Inside eLife. https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/dc24a9cd/open-science-what-is-publish-review-curate
MetaROR. (2024, November 21). Publish–Review–Curate. MetaROR. https://cms.metaror.org/publish-review-curate
Biomedical publishing: Past historic, present continuous, future conditional
This resource provides a historical perspective on how academic publishing evolved into its current state and evaluates the limitations of traditional peer review and impact factors. It explores a future model where publishing is decoupled from evaluation through the increased use of preprints and post-publication peer review.
Wikimedia Foundation. (2023, September 1). Overlay Journal. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlay_journal
▸
Different shades of open access
7 / 7We usually hear about GOLD open access (journal archives openly) for hefty fees. There are other options that may better fit your needs (and budget / reluctance to fund for-profit publishers); GREEN (self-archive), DIAMOND (journal archives openly for free), and more.
Anon. An introduction to open access. Jisc. (n.d.). https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/an-introduction-to-open-access
Anon. (n.d.). OA books toolkit. Green, gold, diamond – different models for open access books | OA Books Toolkit. https://oabooks-toolkit.org/lifecycle/article/13868103-green-gold-diamond-different-models-for-open-access-books
The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges
This study provides a data-driven estimation of the massive financial revenue generated by the five largest commercial publishers through Article Processing Charges (APCs) between 2015 and 2018. It highlights how major publishers have successfully shifted their profit models to capture the growing open access market.
Data availability, reusability, and analytic reproducibility: evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal <i>Cognition</i>
This empirical study evaluates the effectiveness of a mandatory open data policy at a specific journal by measuring changes in data availability and the success rate of independent analytic reproduction. It demonstrates that while such policies significantly increase data sharing, technical and procedural barriers to actually reproducing results remain a major challenge.
The what, why, and how of born-open data
This resource introduces the concept of "born-open" data, which involves automating the archiving of datasets to public repositories at the moment of creation. It provides a practical workflow to reduce the time and effort required for data sharing while ensuring complete transparency from the pilot phase through to final analysis.
Authorial and institutional stratification in open access publishing: the case of global health research
This research identifies socioeconomic inequalities in open access publishing by showing how institutional prestige and funding levels correlate with the type of OA model authors can afford. It demonstrates that authors from lower-ranked institutions are disproportionately excluded from gold OA options, potentially exacerbating global disparities in research visibility.
The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles
This study provides large-scale empirical evidence on the prevalence and citation impact of open access articles across the scholarly landscape. It quantifies the growth of different types of open access and provides a data-driven assessment of the citation advantage associated with making research freely available.
▸
Open peer review
26 / 26Open peer review typically refers to sharing reviewer reports and/or reviewers signing reviews. It is important to understand which definition is being used to understand the pros and cons.
Anon. (n.d.). About Meta-Psychology. Meta-Psychology. https://open.lnu.se/index.php/metapsychology/about
Carlsson, R., Lakens, D., van Assen, M.A.L.M., Heene, M., Innes-Ker, A., Schönbrodt, F., Danielsson, H., DeBruine, L., Buchanan, E.M., Kalmendal, A., Holcombe A.O., & Batinovic, L. (2023, March 14). Meta-psychology. OSF. https://osf.io/3m4z3/
Ford, E. (2013). Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 44(4), 311-326. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/513250.
What are innovations in peer review and editorial assessment for?
This resource provides a conceptual analysis of the diverse goals and rationales driving recent innovations in the peer review process. It helps readers understand the specific problems that different editorial models, such as open or transparent review, are intended to solve.
Designing journal peer review: diverse expectations, procedures and concerns
This paper presents a foundational, consensus-based definition of predatory publishing reached by an international panel of experts to provide a clear standard for the academic community. It serves as a definitive reference for stakeholders to distinguish legitimate journals from deceptive ones by establishing clear criteria for predatory behavior.
The changing forms and expectations of peer review
This resource provides an empirical quantification of the scale of scientific literature contaminated by the use of misidentified cell lines, identifying tens of thousands of affected papers. It highlights the persistence of 'ghost' data in the research record and the systemic failure of scholarly publishing to correct known errors over time.
The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications
This resource traces the historical evolution of peer review, examining how it transitioned from a mechanism for quality assessment to a modern gatekeeper of scientific integrity. It contextualizes the current debate over scientific self-regulation by highlighting how the expectation for peer review to detect fraud is a relatively recent development.
Innovating editorial practices: academic publishers at work
This research analyzes the internal decision-making processes and structural barriers within commercial publishing houses that affect the adoption of open science editorial practices. It highlights the specific practical considerations and organizational hurdles that publishers weigh when deciding whether to implement innovative peer review technologies.
Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?
This study provides empirical evidence on the effectiveness of various peer review models by correlating specific procedures with retraction rates in the Retraction Watch database. It offers a data-driven comparison of how different review innovations perform in their primary task of flagging problematic or fraudulent research.
Changing peer review practices: transforming roles and future challenges
This research investigates the adoption and implementation rates of innovative peer review procedures across a wide range of scientific journals. It identifies which innovations are gaining traction among editors and which remain theoretical, highlighting the current state of quality management in academic publishing.
Hundreds of journals’ editorial practices captured in database
This publication provides a broad survey of the shifting landscape of peer review, focusing on how the roles of stakeholders are being transformed. It identifies emerging challenges and outlines future directions for the evolution of review practices within the scholarly ecosystem.
The Platform for Responsible Editorial Policies: An initiative to foster editorial transparency in scholarly publishing
This resource announces a comprehensive database documenting the editorial practices of hundreds of scholarly journals. It provides a searchable repository that allows researchers to compare transparency levels and procedural standards across a vast array of publications.
Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2021). How the pandemic changed editorial peer review – and why we should wonder whether that’s desirable. Impact of Social Sciences (LSE). https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2021/02/10/how-the-pandemic-changed-editorial-peer-review-and-why-we-should-wonder-whether-thats-desirable/
Horbach, S. P. J. M., Ochsner, M., & Kaltenbrunner, W. (2022). Reflections on guest editing a Frontiers journal [Blog post]. Leiden Madtrics. https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/reflections-on-guest-editing-a-frontiers-journal?
Horbach, S. P. J. M., Ross-Hellauer, T., & Waltman, L. (2022). Sunlight not shadows: Double-anonymized peer review is not the progressive answer to status bias. OSF https://osf.io/preprints/osf/fqb5c_v1
Published peer review reports have higher informative content than unpublished reports
This empirical study analyzes over 250,000 peer review reports from medical journals to compare the quality and informativeness of published versus unpublished reports. It provides evidence that open peer review is associated with more informative content and identifies specific demographic differences in reviewer behavior.
Should psychologists sign their reviews? Some thoughts and some data.
This article evaluates the costs and benefits of signed peer reviews in psychology by combining a theoretical discussion of accountability and retaliation with empirical data. It specifically addresses how transparency in the review process aligns with the broader open science movement while acknowledging the practical risks to junior researchers.
Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(2), 161–175.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173636
The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review
This paper introduces a collective initiative designed to incentivize open research by encouraging reviewers to make data and material sharing a prerequisite for comprehensive review. It offers a strategic framework to resolve the social dilemma of open science by shifting the responsibility for transparency from authors to the peer review process itself.
Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige
This empirical study investigates the impact of author prestige on the peer review process by comparing the outcomes of single-blind and double-blind review models. It provides evidence on whether masking author identities can effectively reduce status-based bias and improve the fairness of manuscript evaluations in medical publishing.
Open peer review urgently requires evidence: A call to action
This scoping review synthesizes recent empirical research on various components of Open Peer Review to assess its effectiveness and how it meets community expectations. It identifies specific gaps in the current literature, highlighting where further experimentation is required to justify broader adoption of open review practices.
Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review
This resource argues that despite the increasing number of retractions, the current rate is still insufficient to address the volume of flawed or fraudulent research in the literature. It makes the case for more proactive correction of the scientific record and greater transparency from publishers regarding the reasons for retractions.
What is open peer review? A systematic review
This paper issues a call to action for the scholarly community to generate more rigorous empirical evidence regarding the impact and implementation of Open Peer Review. It provides a preliminary research agenda designed to guide future studies so that the move toward open review can be based on evidence rather than intuition.
Ten considerations for open peer review
This resource provides actionable guidance for authors, reviewers, and editors by outlining ten key considerations for navigating the transition to open peer review. It serves as a pragmatic, hands-on introduction that helps stakeholders identify potential pitfalls and opportunities when implementing more transparent review processes.
Tvina, A., Spellecy, R., & Palatnik, A. (2019). Bias in the Peer Review Process. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 133(6), 1081–1083.
https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003260
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial
This publication presents empirical findings from a randomized trial investigating how revealing reviewer identities to authors impacts the quality and recommendations of peer reviews. It provides specific evidence that while identity disclosure does not significantly alter the quality of the report, it does impact the willingness of individuals to participate in the review process.
▸
Preprints and postprints
3 / 3To circumvent paywalls and inaccessible scientific work, pre- and postprints can be published on open repositories in order to make the work accessible to all.
Anon. (n.d.). What are the differences between preprint and postprint versions?. ZB MED - Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften. https://www.publisso.de/en/advice/publishing-advice-faqs/preprint-and-postprint
Accelerating scholarly communication: The transformative role of preprints
This report examines the rapidly changing landscape of preprints, detailing the drivers, impediments, and practices that influence their adoption across scholarly disciplines. It provides a comprehensive analysis of how sharing research in pre-review form is transforming scholarly communication and identifies key trends in article dissemination.
Preprints: An underutilized mechanism to accelerate outbreak science
This essay advocates for the use of preprints specifically within the field of outbreak science to facilitate the rapid sharing of life-saving data. It emphasizes how preprints can bypass traditional publication bottlenecks to accelerate scientific responses during public health emergencies.
▸
Rights retention strategies
1 / 1To whom does the paper belong?
Anon. (n.d.). Plan S rights retention strategy. Plan S. https://www.coalition-s.org/rights-retention-strategy
▸
SPARC Europe - Rights Retention Helper:
2 / 2Suber, Peter. Methods of Rights Retention: Methods of rights retention