Abstract:The present study explores English as a foreign language (EFL) learners' processes and strategies when using machine translation (MT) tools in academic abstract writing. Eight EFL graduate students were introduced to translation-friendly writing strategies using Google Translate and were required to produce an English abstract with the aid of a machine translation tool. The study used qualitative and quantitative approaches in data collection and analysis. A triangulation process was developed and implemented, including think-aloud protocols during the writing session, surveys, and individual interviews after the writing session. The findings suggested that the translation-friendly writing strategies introduced to the participants were useful in enhancing the quality of their writing. Each participant demonstrated individual strategic uses of MT. Among the various strategies reported, back translation was the most commonly adopted one; that is, they first composed an abstract in Chinese (L1) and engaged in multiple rounds of translation between Chinese and English using MT; when problems were identified in the English abstract, they modified the Chinese abstract using translation-friendly writing strategies to enhance the quality of MT translation output. Most of the translation problems identified by the participants were related to non-academic expressions. While participants were satisfied with the quality of the abstracts produced with the aid of MT, they raised ethical concerns regarding the use of MT in academic writing. These findings suggest that MT has fundamentally changed the process of academic writing in English and call for the re-examination of the purpose of academic writing instruction and the approaches employed.
{"title":"Exploring the Process and Strategies of Chinese–English Abstract Writing Using Machine Translation Tools","authors":"Yu-Chih Sun, Fang‐Ying Yang","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0039","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The present study explores English as a foreign language (EFL) learners' processes and strategies when using machine translation (MT) tools in academic abstract writing. Eight EFL graduate students were introduced to translation-friendly writing strategies using Google Translate and were required to produce an English abstract with the aid of a machine translation tool. The study used qualitative and quantitative approaches in data collection and analysis. A triangulation process was developed and implemented, including think-aloud protocols during the writing session, surveys, and individual interviews after the writing session. The findings suggested that the translation-friendly writing strategies introduced to the participants were useful in enhancing the quality of their writing. Each participant demonstrated individual strategic uses of MT. Among the various strategies reported, back translation was the most commonly adopted one; that is, they first composed an abstract in Chinese (L1) and engaged in multiple rounds of translation between Chinese and English using MT; when problems were identified in the English abstract, they modified the Chinese abstract using translation-friendly writing strategies to enhance the quality of MT translation output. Most of the translation problems identified by the participants were related to non-academic expressions. While participants were satisfied with the quality of the abstracts produced with the aid of MT, they raised ethical concerns regarding the use of MT in academic writing. These findings suggest that MT has fundamentally changed the process of academic writing in English and call for the re-examination of the purpose of academic writing instruction and the approaches employed.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79582440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Integrating Technology in English Language Arts Teacher Education by Donna L. Pasternak","authors":"Nermin Punar Özçelik","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2023-0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2023-0003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75348485","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:ResearchGate (RG) is a popular academic social media networking platform for scientists, researchers, or academics (SRAs). RG automatically provides a metric, the RG Score, to each RG account holder that serves as a measure of that SRA's "academic" worth, productivity, and interaction with other SRAs. In 2017, this metric was described by RG as "the RG Score takes all your research and turns it into a source of reputation," indicating that "it is calculated based on the research in your profile and how other researchers interact with your content." However, the precise manner in which the RG Score is calculated was never made public because it is a proprietary algorithm, and requests to RG to disclose details of the equations used to calculate it were not met. Not unsurprisingly, RG announced that it would be phasing out the RG Score in June 2022. This article examines what is known in the literature about the RG Score, which may be perceived as a skewed metric because it may add excessive weighting to select aspects, such as questions and answers, rather than to the published literature of an SRA. The RG Interest Score is also critiqued. An author-based metric such as the RG Score that reflects a realistic balance between the most important academic factors while downplaying fairly redundant aspects such as the volume of answers might benefit SRAs. As for any metric, the RG Score should not be used in isolation, be gamed, or used as the basis of any financial remuneration schemes.
{"title":"Reflection on ResearchGate's Terminating ResearchGate Score, and Interest Score, as Social Media Altmetrics and Academic Evaluation Tools","authors":"J. A. Teixeira da Silva, Yuki Yamada","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0043","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:ResearchGate (RG) is a popular academic social media networking platform for scientists, researchers, or academics (SRAs). RG automatically provides a metric, the RG Score, to each RG account holder that serves as a measure of that SRA's \"academic\" worth, productivity, and interaction with other SRAs. In 2017, this metric was described by RG as \"the RG Score takes all your research and turns it into a source of reputation,\" indicating that \"it is calculated based on the research in your profile and how other researchers interact with your content.\" However, the precise manner in which the RG Score is calculated was never made public because it is a proprietary algorithm, and requests to RG to disclose details of the equations used to calculate it were not met. Not unsurprisingly, RG announced that it would be phasing out the RG Score in June 2022. This article examines what is known in the literature about the RG Score, which may be perceived as a skewed metric because it may add excessive weighting to select aspects, such as questions and answers, rather than to the published literature of an SRA. The RG Interest Score is also critiqued. An author-based metric such as the RG Score that reflects a realistic balance between the most important academic factors while downplaying fairly redundant aspects such as the volume of answers might benefit SRAs. As for any metric, the RG Score should not be used in isolation, be gamed, or used as the basis of any financial remuneration schemes.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81507047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:The outbreak of COVID-19 has changed the world in many aspects, and global scientific research has also been challenged. Early-career researchers (ECRs) who just start academic careers are prominently affected by the pandemic. To explore how Chinese ECRs have been affected, longitudinal qualitative interviews were conducted with twenty-four Chinese ECRs from different disciplines and universities in 2020 and 2021. As the results show, Chinese ECRs worry that their future prospects are limited by increased workloads and reduced productivity. However, the new wave of change did not occur for them, and their work resumed its routine and was relatively stable. Over two years, Chinese ECRs got used to working from home and giving online courses, but they were increasingly confused about when the pandemic will end. What bothers ECRs most is the inefficiency of communication and collaboration due to the travel bans, although they became familiar with the online way.
{"title":"Early-Career Researchers in China during the Pandemic: Qualitative Evidence from a Longitudinal Study","authors":"Jie Xu, Chen He, David Nicholas, Na Zhang","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0040","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The outbreak of COVID-19 has changed the world in many aspects, and global scientific research has also been challenged. Early-career researchers (ECRs) who just start academic careers are prominently affected by the pandemic. To explore how Chinese ECRs have been affected, longitudinal qualitative interviews were conducted with twenty-four Chinese ECRs from different disciplines and universities in 2020 and 2021. As the results show, Chinese ECRs worry that their future prospects are limited by increased workloads and reduced productivity. However, the new wave of change did not occur for them, and their work resumed its routine and was relatively stable. Over two years, Chinese ECRs got used to working from home and giving online courses, but they were increasingly confused about when the pandemic will end. What bothers ECRs most is the inefficiency of communication and collaboration due to the travel bans, although they became familiar with the online way.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86486053","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
3. Germano notes, astutely, that ‘when writers on writing say something about what makes a book work, the first thing they emphasize is often the writer’s voice’ (157). Germano’s is a voice of someone I would delight in inviting to dinner. 4. With respect to copy-editing, readers can consult the grammar, spelling, and style guides of their choice. Or, perhaps closer to Haag’s method, see Claire Kehrwald Cook, Line by Line: How to Improve Your Own Writing (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985); or Virginia Tufte, Artful Sentences: Syntax as Style (Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, 2006). 5. I love what Haag offers about titles: All authors should aim to ‘distill in one elegant title the premise’ of the book (89). Given the misleading nature of perfection vis-à-vis revising, though, I was more predisposed to appreciate Germano’s masterfully subtitled book. 6. A book that falls midway between Germano’s and Haag’s approaches is Scott Norton’s Developmental Editing: A Handbook for Freelancers, Authors, and Publishers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009). Norton successfully presents lengthier examples while engaging with macro-level issues; his book consequently requires more of a commitment from its readers. 7. Examples of Haag’s ‘trickster clichés’ include in their infinite wisdom, rear its ugly head, and fraught with peril (269). 8. Sixty-five considerations make for a lot of passes through a text! But similar issues can be addressed simultaneously, since the aim is to learn how to become a good self-editor. To that end, both Germano and Haag wisely recommend reading one’s text aloud. 9. But, indeed, as Haag points out, ‘Shortening a manuscript is challenging work’ (200).
{"title":"How to Conduct an Effective Peer Review by Gloria Barczak and Abbie Griffin (review)","authors":"Steven E. Gump","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0029","url":null,"abstract":"3. Germano notes, astutely, that ‘when writers on writing say something about what makes a book work, the first thing they emphasize is often the writer’s voice’ (157). Germano’s is a voice of someone I would delight in inviting to dinner. 4. With respect to copy-editing, readers can consult the grammar, spelling, and style guides of their choice. Or, perhaps closer to Haag’s method, see Claire Kehrwald Cook, Line by Line: How to Improve Your Own Writing (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985); or Virginia Tufte, Artful Sentences: Syntax as Style (Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, 2006). 5. I love what Haag offers about titles: All authors should aim to ‘distill in one elegant title the premise’ of the book (89). Given the misleading nature of perfection vis-à-vis revising, though, I was more predisposed to appreciate Germano’s masterfully subtitled book. 6. A book that falls midway between Germano’s and Haag’s approaches is Scott Norton’s Developmental Editing: A Handbook for Freelancers, Authors, and Publishers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009). Norton successfully presents lengthier examples while engaging with macro-level issues; his book consequently requires more of a commitment from its readers. 7. Examples of Haag’s ‘trickster clichés’ include in their infinite wisdom, rear its ugly head, and fraught with peril (269). 8. Sixty-five considerations make for a lot of passes through a text! But similar issues can be addressed simultaneously, since the aim is to learn how to become a good self-editor. To that end, both Germano and Haag wisely recommend reading one’s text aloud. 9. But, indeed, as Haag points out, ‘Shortening a manuscript is challenging work’ (200).","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75132728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:This article makes a historical assessment of a publishing ‘experiment’ that started in 2020 and ended in 2022 by Academia.edu, a popular academic social network site, that took the form of a peer-reviewed ‘journal,’ Academia Letters. The authors discovered a publicly hidden open-access cost, as an article processing charge of US$500, some inconsistencies or ambiguities in select editorial policies, the lack of an editorial board, and the absence of an integrity and publishing ethics policy, cumulatively indicating that this publishing model was lacking some basic, robust scholarly indices that are typically found in conventional peer-reviewed journals. Despite its short two-year history, about 4500 papers were published in Academia Letters, suggesting that this publishing model was nonetheless attractive and popular. This overview of Academia Letters will allow Academia.edu and other academic publishers to reflect on specifics or weaknesses of this publishing model before using it in the future to ensure trustworthy scholarly communication in the academic community.
{"title":"Academia Letters: Examination of an ‘Experimental’ Academia.edu Publishing Model","authors":"Yuki Yamada, J. A. Teixeira da Silva","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0028","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article makes a historical assessment of a publishing ‘experiment’ that started in 2020 and ended in 2022 by Academia.edu, a popular academic social network site, that took the form of a peer-reviewed ‘journal,’ Academia Letters. The authors discovered a publicly hidden open-access cost, as an article processing charge of US$500, some inconsistencies or ambiguities in select editorial policies, the lack of an editorial board, and the absence of an integrity and publishing ethics policy, cumulatively indicating that this publishing model was lacking some basic, robust scholarly indices that are typically found in conventional peer-reviewed journals. Despite its short two-year history, about 4500 papers were published in Academia Letters, suggesting that this publishing model was nonetheless attractive and popular. This overview of Academia Letters will allow Academia.edu and other academic publishers to reflect on specifics or weaknesses of this publishing model before using it in the future to ensure trustworthy scholarly communication in the academic community.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83720505","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Predatory journals, with low standards of publication, means flawed or fraudulent research can compromise future research. Often called ‘predatory’ or ‘deceptive’ publishers, both these terms have an implication that the editors and publishers behind them have a motivation to deceive or con authors. However, the motivations remain an assumption because little is known about the individuals behind these journals. This research intended to use qualitative, in-depth interviews to find out more about the individuals behind predatory journals. By engaging with them directly, we hoped to gain an understanding of how they see themselves in the publishing landscape, what value they add and how they achieve these aims. Emails received by the authors were mined for contact information of suspected predatory journals. Over the course of a year, 2552 emails were sent inviting respondents to an interview, for which there would be a small monetary compensation. Despite sending 2552 emails, only three responses were received, and all three did not schedule an interview when prompted. Two of the three requested that a translator be present. A significant percentage of the emails (36.2 per cent) bounced back, indicating the contact information was not valid. While the information gained was limited, it would appear many are aware of the dubious nature of their journal and do not wish further scrutiny by being contacted. Others may lack the English-language skills necessary to be engaged in basic written communication, let alone the more complex language and grammar of scientific publishing.
{"title":"What Can Be Learned about Predatory Journals from a Failed Study? Possible Motivations behind Predatory Journals","authors":"A. Ross-White, Rosemary Wilson","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0049","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Predatory journals, with low standards of publication, means flawed or fraudulent research can compromise future research. Often called ‘predatory’ or ‘deceptive’ publishers, both these terms have an implication that the editors and publishers behind them have a motivation to deceive or con authors. However, the motivations remain an assumption because little is known about the individuals behind these journals. This research intended to use qualitative, in-depth interviews to find out more about the individuals behind predatory journals. By engaging with them directly, we hoped to gain an understanding of how they see themselves in the publishing landscape, what value they add and how they achieve these aims. Emails received by the authors were mined for contact information of suspected predatory journals. Over the course of a year, 2552 emails were sent inviting respondents to an interview, for which there would be a small monetary compensation. Despite sending 2552 emails, only three responses were received, and all three did not schedule an interview when prompted. Two of the three requested that a translator be present. A significant percentage of the emails (36.2 per cent) bounced back, indicating the contact information was not valid. While the information gained was limited, it would appear many are aware of the dubious nature of their journal and do not wish further scrutiny by being contacted. Others may lack the English-language skills necessary to be engaged in basic written communication, let alone the more complex language and grammar of scientific publishing.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77576384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Citations in a scientific paper reference other studies and form the information backbone of that paper. If cited literature is valid and non-retracted, an analysis of citations can offer unique perspectives about the supportive or contradictory nature of a statement. Yet, such analyses are still limited by the relative lack of access to open citation data. The creation of open citation databases (OCDs) allows for data analysts, bibliometric specialists, and other academics interested in such topics to independently verify the validity and accuracy of a citation. Since the strength of an individual’s curriculum vitae can be based on, and assessed by, metrics (citation counts, altmetric mentions, journal ranks, etc.), there is interest in appreciating citation networks and their link to research performance. Open citations would thus not only benefit career, funding, and employment initiatives, but they could also be used to reveal citation rings, abusive author–author or journal–journal citation strategies, or to detect false or erroneous citations. OCDs should be open to the public, and publishers have a moral responsibility of releasing citation data for free use and academic exploration. Some challenges remain, including long-term funding, and data and information security.
{"title":"Open Citations as a Tool for Bibliometric Verification and Transparency and for Correcting Erroneous References","authors":"J. A. Teixeira da Silva, C. Huang, J. Ortega","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0016","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Citations in a scientific paper reference other studies and form the information backbone of that paper. If cited literature is valid and non-retracted, an analysis of citations can offer unique perspectives about the supportive or contradictory nature of a statement. Yet, such analyses are still limited by the relative lack of access to open citation data. The creation of open citation databases (OCDs) allows for data analysts, bibliometric specialists, and other academics interested in such topics to independently verify the validity and accuracy of a citation. Since the strength of an individual’s curriculum vitae can be based on, and assessed by, metrics (citation counts, altmetric mentions, journal ranks, etc.), there is interest in appreciating citation networks and their link to research performance. Open citations would thus not only benefit career, funding, and employment initiatives, but they could also be used to reveal citation rings, abusive author–author or journal–journal citation strategies, or to detect false or erroneous citations. OCDs should be open to the public, and publishers have a moral responsibility of releasing citation data for free use and academic exploration. Some challenges remain, including long-term funding, and data and information security.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72465887","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Devon Whetstone, Laura Ridenour, Heather Moulaison-Sandy
Abstract:Quid pro quo authorship (QPQ) is a type of gift authorship in which authorship credit is exchanged in a mutually beneficial agreement. Such practices are considered to be unethical, but incentives to publish can nonetheless make QPQ appealing. Terminology to describe the QPQ phenomenon can differ across scholarly communities, making a thorough analysis of the attention to QPQ difficult. This article uses content analysis to conduct an in-depth examination of a corpus of scholarly literature on QPQ. This research seeks to ascertain information about the nature of QPQ and how it is perceived relative to other types of unethical authorship practices. Results support three defining characteristics of QPQ: mutual awareness, mutual agreement, and mutual benefit. Content analysis reveals two forms of QPQ: authorship-for-goods and authorship-for-authorship. Findings reinforce the notion that QPQ is a distinct form of gift authorship that is related to coercion authorship and honorary authorship. Implications for the scientific enterprise, academia, and society are presented, since as with other forms of gift authorship, QPQ falsifies the scholarly record. Finally, suggestions for future directions such as education for researchers are presented.
{"title":"Quid Pro Quo Authorship: Characteristics and Implications","authors":"Devon Whetstone, Laura Ridenour, Heather Moulaison-Sandy","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0035","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Quid pro quo authorship (QPQ) is a type of gift authorship in which authorship credit is exchanged in a mutually beneficial agreement. Such practices are considered to be unethical, but incentives to publish can nonetheless make QPQ appealing. Terminology to describe the QPQ phenomenon can differ across scholarly communities, making a thorough analysis of the attention to QPQ difficult. This article uses content analysis to conduct an in-depth examination of a corpus of scholarly literature on QPQ. This research seeks to ascertain information about the nature of QPQ and how it is perceived relative to other types of unethical authorship practices. Results support three defining characteristics of QPQ: mutual awareness, mutual agreement, and mutual benefit. Content analysis reveals two forms of QPQ: authorship-for-goods and authorship-for-authorship. Findings reinforce the notion that QPQ is a distinct form of gift authorship that is related to coercion authorship and honorary authorship. Implications for the scientific enterprise, academia, and society are presented, since as with other forms of gift authorship, QPQ falsifies the scholarly record. Finally, suggestions for future directions such as education for researchers are presented.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83948972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:What role do networks play during the digital transformation of the scholarly publishing system? This article depicts sociospatial practices and its strategic relevance for stakeholders being involved within the Open Access community. The aim is to explore networks of scholar-led publishing initiatives and to facilitate an extended understanding of the scholarly publishing system in transition by thinking it through with sociospatial theory from a Lefebvrian perspective. As a case study, the Radical Open Access Collective (ROAC) with more than 70 members is explored in a mixed methods research design. The focus of the qualitatively-driven research is the Collective’s sociospatial strategies e.g. networking and multiscalar activities. A systematic literature research and interviews with experts in the field of scholar-led publishing provide the main data set, being triangulated with desk-based research on the ROAC. The results show networking processes on three different levels building on a social network analysis. Moreover, this article contributes to a deeper understanding of a network of scholar-led publishers indicating key sociospatial strategies considering dialectics of scalability. Concluding, this study emphasises the importance of sociospatial strategies for non-profit publishing initiatives in order to create a knowledge commons around open and equitable infrastructures.
摘要:网络在学术出版系统数字化转型中扮演着怎样的角色?本文描述了社会空间实践及其与开放获取社区中利益相关者的战略相关性。目的是探索以学者为主导的出版倡议网络，并通过从列非弗尔的角度思考社会空间理论，促进对转型中的学术出版系统的扩展理解。以激进开放获取组织(Radical Open Access Collective, ROAC)为研究对象，采用混合方法进行研究设计。定性驱动研究的重点是集体的社会空间策略，如网络和多标量活动。系统的文献研究和对学者主导出版领域专家的访谈提供了主要数据集，并与基于桌面的ROAC研究进行了三角测量。结果表明，在社会网络分析的基础上，建立了三个不同层次的网络过程。此外，本文有助于更深入地理解以学者为主导的出版商网络，指出考虑可扩展性辩证法的关键社会空间策略。最后，本研究强调了社会空间策略对于非营利出版计划的重要性，以便围绕开放和公平的基础设施创建知识共享。
{"title":"Exploring Networks of Scholar-Led Publishing Initiatives with a Social Network Analysis of the Radical Open Access Collective","authors":"Christoph Schimmel","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0048","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:What role do networks play during the digital transformation of the scholarly publishing system? This article depicts sociospatial practices and its strategic relevance for stakeholders being involved within the Open Access community. The aim is to explore networks of scholar-led publishing initiatives and to facilitate an extended understanding of the scholarly publishing system in transition by thinking it through with sociospatial theory from a Lefebvrian perspective. As a case study, the Radical Open Access Collective (ROAC) with more than 70 members is explored in a mixed methods research design. The focus of the qualitatively-driven research is the Collective’s sociospatial strategies e.g. networking and multiscalar activities. A systematic literature research and interviews with experts in the field of scholar-led publishing provide the main data set, being triangulated with desk-based research on the ROAC. The results show networking processes on three different levels building on a social network analysis. Moreover, this article contributes to a deeper understanding of a network of scholar-led publishers indicating key sociospatial strategies considering dialectics of scalability. Concluding, this study emphasises the importance of sociospatial strategies for non-profit publishing initiatives in order to create a knowledge commons around open and equitable infrastructures.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77402198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：