{"title":"Book Wars: The Digital Revolution in Publishing by John B. Thompson","authors":"Alex Holzman","doi":"10.3138/jsp.53.1.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.53.1.07","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80754738","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:Much has been written to inform academics about revising a dissertation and completing a book, but most of this advice focuses on first-time authors. By contrast, there is little advice directed toward more experienced academic authors that considers the conditions they confront when writing a second book, such as increased demands on them to provide institutional and professional service. Second-time authors may also enjoy the assurance that comes from having established a relationship with a publisher or having achieved tenure. This article offers three lessons about how writing a second book is different from writing the first. It considers how experienced authors’ relationships with publishers may change with a second book, and it examines ways to situate a second book in the course of a long academic career.
{"title":"What I’ve Learned about Writing a Second Book","authors":"J. Mulholland","doi":"10.3138/jsp.53.1.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.53.1.02","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Much has been written to inform academics about revising a dissertation and completing a book, but most of this advice focuses on first-time authors. By contrast, there is little advice directed toward more experienced academic authors that considers the conditions they confront when writing a second book, such as increased demands on them to provide institutional and professional service. Second-time authors may also enjoy the assurance that comes from having established a relationship with a publisher or having achieved tenure. This article offers three lessons about how writing a second book is different from writing the first. It considers how experienced authors’ relationships with publishers may change with a second book, and it examines ways to situate a second book in the course of a long academic career.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"99 1","pages":"23 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84727855","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:Readers can access open access articles for free, but authors or research funders pay article-processing charges to publish them. This requirement may deter authors in low-income countries from publishing in open access. This study investigates the choices that authors make among three types of open access journal and closed (subscription) journals in history, economics, science, and technology based on their countries’ income level. The sample comprises research articles published in journals in English in 2020 and indexed in Scopus. The results show that authors in low-income countries publish more in gold open access than do authors in lower-middle- and upper-middle-income countries, who tend not to publish in hybrid open access and to favour closed journals. Authors from high-income countries publish more in hybrid open access than do authors in the other groups of countries. Although major publishers waive their article-processing charges for authors in low-income countries, these authors amount to less than 1 per cent of the total. Improving the effectiveness of publishers’ waiver policies is necessary.
{"title":"Author Choice of Journal Type Based on Income Level of Country","authors":"S. Asai","doi":"10.3138/jsp.53.1.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.53.1.03","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Readers can access open access articles for free, but authors or research funders pay article-processing charges to publish them. This requirement may deter authors in low-income countries from publishing in open access. This study investigates the choices that authors make among three types of open access journal and closed (subscription) journals in history, economics, science, and technology based on their countries’ income level. The sample comprises research articles published in journals in English in 2020 and indexed in Scopus. The results show that authors in low-income countries publish more in gold open access than do authors in lower-middle- and upper-middle-income countries, who tend not to publish in hybrid open access and to favour closed journals. Authors from high-income countries publish more in hybrid open access than do authors in the other groups of countries. Although major publishers waive their article-processing charges for authors in low-income countries, these authors amount to less than 1 per cent of the total. Improving the effectiveness of publishers’ waiver policies is necessary.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"54 1","pages":"24 - 34"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75836036","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":"Publishing Journal Articles: A Scientific Guide for New Authors Worldwide by Zheng Yan","authors":"Steven E. Gump","doi":"10.3138/jsp.53.1.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.53.1.05","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74300709","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}
Pub Date : 2021-08-01DOI: 10.5465/ambpp.2021.10611abstract
M. Aluchna, B. Honig
Abstract:The authors analyze leading management journals of the Academy of Management (the Academy of Management Journal, the Academy of Management Review, the Academy of Management Learning and Education, and the Academy of Management Perspectives, as well as the Journal of Management), collecting and analyzing information on the managerial research assessment tool of impact factor (IF) during two time periods—from 1997 through 2005 and from 2006 through 2019. The authors capture the changing nature of journal strategies, examining the number of references, self-citations, and cross-citations. The study shows a general increase in the number of references used, as well as self-citations and cross-citations, resulting in a corresponding IF gain. The evidence suggests some limitations to adopting performance metrics in academia. Thus, academic managers, editors, and authors who focus on IF may be overestimating its impact, obscuring institutional attempts to measure academic research performance.
{"title":"Smoke, Mirrors, and Impact Factor: How Management Scholars Undermine a Managerial Metric","authors":"M. Aluchna, B. Honig","doi":"10.5465/ambpp.2021.10611abstract","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2021.10611abstract","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The authors analyze leading management journals of the Academy of Management (the Academy of Management Journal, the Academy of Management Review, the Academy of Management Learning and Education, and the Academy of Management Perspectives, as well as the Journal of Management), collecting and analyzing information on the managerial research assessment tool of impact factor (IF) during two time periods—from 1997 through 2005 and from 2006 through 2019. The authors capture the changing nature of journal strategies, examining the number of references, self-citations, and cross-citations. The study shows a general increase in the number of references used, as well as self-citations and cross-citations, resulting in a corresponding IF gain. The evidence suggests some limitations to adopting performance metrics in academia. Thus, academic managers, editors, and authors who focus on IF may be overestimating its impact, obscuring institutional attempts to measure academic research performance.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"760 1","pages":"30 - 59"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77521862","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":"Writing and Unrecognized Academic Labor: The Rejected Manuscript by James M. Salvo (review)","authors":"Steven E. Gump","doi":"10.3138/JSP.52.4.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/JSP.52.4.07","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"252 1","pages":"303 - 306"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75812454","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:Academic blogging is now a widely used medium for scholarly communication. A substantial body of literature exists on the potential opportunities and challenges that blogging affords to scholars, yet the role of blog editors in facilitating research dissemination and public engagement remains largely overlooked. This paper draws on insights from the development of academic blogs by the London School of Economics between 2010 and 2020. It discusses the demands on blog editors and sets forth a framework for academic institutions and scholars to support editors in their efforts to realize the benefits of academic blogging.
摘要:学术博客是目前广泛使用的学术传播媒介。关于博客给学者带来的潜在机遇和挑战，已有大量文献存在，但博客编辑在促进研究传播和公众参与方面的作用在很大程度上被忽视了。本文借鉴了伦敦经济学院(London School of Economics)在2010年至2020年间学术博客发展的见解。讨论了对博客编辑的需求，并为学术机构和学者提供了一个框架，以支持编辑实现学术博客的利益。
{"title":"The Role of the Editor of an Academic Publication Blog","authors":"Stuart A. Brown","doi":"10.3138/JSP.52.4.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/JSP.52.4.01","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Academic blogging is now a widely used medium for scholarly communication. A substantial body of literature exists on the potential opportunities and challenges that blogging affords to scholars, yet the role of blog editors in facilitating research dissemination and public engagement remains largely overlooked. This paper draws on insights from the development of academic blogs by the London School of Economics between 2010 and 2020. It discusses the demands on blog editors and sets forth a framework for academic institutions and scholars to support editors in their efforts to realize the benefits of academic blogging.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"15 1","pages":"199 - 211"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78253424","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:Multilingual scholars in the social sciences and humanities at universities in Saudi Arabia face challenges to publishing in international English-language scholarly journals. This study aims to investigate their attitudes and needs and the obstacles they encounter. It also explores how deans of scientific research respond to scholars' obstacles and needs. The study takes a mixed-methods approach, with a questionnaire and interviews with faculty and deans at Saudi universities. The faculty members' interest in conducting research and publishing is lower than their estimation of the importance of these activities. They reported barriers to research and publication, chiefly a lack of funding and a lack of time. They also expressed a need for training in disciplinary writing for publication purposes. Finally, the deans of scientific research described various initiatives at their universities for assisting faculty with research and writing. The study ends with suggestions for what Saudi universities could do to help increase the number of publications by their faculty.
{"title":"Multilingual Scholars' Experiences in Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities: Attitudes, Obstacles, and Initiatives in Saudi Arabia","authors":"Basim Alamri","doi":"10.3138/JSP.52.4.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/JSP.52.4.04","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Multilingual scholars in the social sciences and humanities at universities in Saudi Arabia face challenges to publishing in international English-language scholarly journals. This study aims to investigate their attitudes and needs and the obstacles they encounter. It also explores how deans of scientific research respond to scholars' obstacles and needs. The study takes a mixed-methods approach, with a questionnaire and interviews with faculty and deans at Saudi universities. The faculty members' interest in conducting research and publishing is lower than their estimation of the importance of these activities. They reported barriers to research and publication, chiefly a lack of funding and a lack of time. They also expressed a need for training in disciplinary writing for publication purposes. Finally, the deans of scientific research described various initiatives at their universities for assisting faculty with research and writing. The study ends with suggestions for what Saudi universities could do to help increase the number of publications by their faculty.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"52 1","pages":"248 - 272"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73655466","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 paper surveys the status of Chinese English-language journals in the humanities and social sciences (HSS-CELJs). HSS-CELJs are an important vehicle for disseminating Chinese scholarly voices and culture throughout the world. We used a mixed-methods approach to investigate the status of HSS-CELJs according to a number of attributes: growth rate over time, type of publisher, discipline, region of publication, publishing frequency, independence versus co-publication, and inclusion in citation indexes. We discuss some of the challenges facing HSS-CELJ publishing and highlight several contradictions of internationalization in the Chinese context. As of March 2020, eighty-seven HSS-CELJs covered nineteen disciplines, among which economics (17 per cent) and law (13 per cent) accounted for the highest proportions. The establishment of HSS-CELJs has increased significantly since 2004. Fifty-two per cent of HSSCELJs were jointly operated with international publishers under two different models of cooperation, and twenty-eight (32 per cent) were indexed in international databases.
{"title":"The Internationalization of Chinese English-Language Humanities and Social Science Journals: Their Status and Challenges","authors":"Ying Huang, Weishan Miao","doi":"10.3138/JSP.52.4.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/JSP.52.4.05","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This paper surveys the status of Chinese English-language journals in the humanities and social sciences (HSS-CELJs). HSS-CELJs are an important vehicle for disseminating Chinese scholarly voices and culture throughout the world. We used a mixed-methods approach to investigate the status of HSS-CELJs according to a number of attributes: growth rate over time, type of publisher, discipline, region of publication, publishing frequency, independence versus co-publication, and inclusion in citation indexes. We discuss some of the challenges facing HSS-CELJ publishing and highlight several contradictions of internationalization in the Chinese context. As of March 2020, eighty-seven HSS-CELJs covered nineteen disciplines, among which economics (17 per cent) and law (13 per cent) accounted for the highest proportions. The establishment of HSS-CELJs has increased significantly since 2004. Fifty-two per cent of HSSCELJs were jointly operated with international publishers under two different models of cooperation, and twenty-eight (32 per cent) were indexed in international databases.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"82 1","pages":"273 - 293"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82471549","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:Greenhouse Studios | Scholarly Communications Design at UConn is a shared venture of the School of Fine Arts, University Library, and College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Connecticut. Greenhouse Studios' core research mission is the development of workflows that bring diverse interdisciplinary teams together to create works of digital and non-traditional scholarship while also cultivating a collaborative work culture. This article summarizes the implementation, assessment, and refinement of those workflows, which together constitute Greenhouse Studios' design-based, inquiry-driven, collaboration-first model of scholarly production. Findings from this research, undertaken with support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, include modifications to Greenhouse Studios' operations, specifically to the terminology used in its design-process model, the composition of team personnel, approaches to project management, tactics to foster divergent thinking, and our relationships to press partners.
摘要:康涅狄格大学温室工作室|学术传播设计是康涅狄格大学美术学院、大学图书馆和文理学院共同创办的项目。温室工作室的核心研究任务是开发工作流程，将不同的跨学科团队聚集在一起，创造数字和非传统学术作品，同时培养合作的工作文化。本文总结了这些工作流程的实现、评估和细化，它们共同构成了Greenhouse Studios以设计为基础、探究驱动、合作优先的学术生产模式。在Andrew W. Mellon基金会的支持下，这项研究的结果包括对Greenhouse Studios运营的修改，特别是对其设计过程模型中使用的术语、团队人员的组成、项目管理的方法、培养发散思维的策略以及我们与新闻合作伙伴的关系。
{"title":"Testing and Refining Scholarly Communications Workflows and Work Habits for the Digital Age: Three Years of the Greenhouse Studios Experiment","authors":"Clarissa Ceglio, Tom Scheinfeldt, S. Sikes","doi":"10.3138/JSP.52.4.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/JSP.52.4.03","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Greenhouse Studios | Scholarly Communications Design at UConn is a shared venture of the School of Fine Arts, University Library, and College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Connecticut. Greenhouse Studios' core research mission is the development of workflows that bring diverse interdisciplinary teams together to create works of digital and non-traditional scholarship while also cultivating a collaborative work culture. This article summarizes the implementation, assessment, and refinement of those workflows, which together constitute Greenhouse Studios' design-based, inquiry-driven, collaboration-first model of scholarly production. Findings from this research, undertaken with support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, include modifications to Greenhouse Studios' operations, specifically to the terminology used in its design-process model, the composition of team personnel, approaches to project management, tactics to foster divergent thinking, and our relationships to press partners.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"36 1","pages":"233 - 247"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74820497","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：