A History of Scientific Journals

Fyfe, Aileen; Moxham, Noah; McDougall-Waters, Julie; Røstvik, Camilla Mørk

doi:10.2307/j.ctv2gz3zp1

Cited by 24 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to respondents, state funding enabled university publishers to subcontract a portion of their editing work. A collaboration of this nature was examined by Fyfe et al (2017). However, Late et al's (2020) research suggests that such collaborations are not prevalent in all markets.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This complexity is further compounded by the presence of various publisher types operating on different business models. For example, in Finland, learned societies continue to publish journals in‐house (Late et al, 2020), whereas in the United Kingdom, commercial publishers frequently partner with learned societies during the publication process (Fyfe et al, 2017). Additionally, journals often undergo transitions in ownership, publishers, and business models, further exacerbating the complexity of the scholarly publishing landscape (Fyfe, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of publisher's commercial or non‐profit orientation on editorial practices: Moving towards a more strategic approach to supporting editorial staff

Krapež

2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was guided by previous research highlighting the significance of journal publishers' commercial or non‐profit orientations in shaping academic editors' perspectives regarding the necessity of enhancing editorial and business practices. There is limited understanding of how the editor–publisher relationship varies based on publishers' commercial orientation. This study revealed five key factors influencing editors' attitudes towards how publishers strive to provide high‐quality publications: (i) availability of high‐quality publication services; (ii) sufficient technological support and access to visibility‐related data; (iii) accessible marketing and indexing services; (iv) access to continuous education for the editorial team; and (v) a balance between editorial autonomy and publisher support in managing the journal. The study indicated that editors partnering with commercial publishers tended to receive more extensive and advanced services, better technological support, and more training opportunities, contributing to the production of superior end products. However, working with commercial publishers resulted in the trade‐off of less editorial independence, which sometimes compromised editors' decision‐making ability and made them feel uncertain about their further involvement. The study's findings highlighted the importance of publishers adopting a more strategic approach to support their editorial staff, while considering the unique needs of each journal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of publisher's commercial or non‐profit orientation on editorial practices: Moving towards a more strategic approach to supporting editorial staff

Krapež

2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The categorization of tweets, articles, monographs and other forms of communication has largely been shaped by historical and social factors. The conventions surrounding scientific communication and what constitutes a publication have evolved over time, driven by institutional and disciplinary requirements, as well as advancements in technology [35]. It is crucial to recognize that the establishment of 'peer-review' as we know it today was primarily institutionalized during the Cold War era, partly in response to funders' demands for transparency and accountability in public expenditure [36].…”

Section: Realizing the 'Social' From Tweet To Monographmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mastodon over Mammon: towards publicly owned scholarly knowledge

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twitter is in turmoil and the scholarly community on the platform is once again starting to migrate. As with the early internet, scholarly organizations are at the forefront of developing and implementing a decentralized alternative to Twitter, Mastodon. Both historically and conceptually, this is not a new situation for the scholarly community. Historically, scholars were forced to leave social media platform FriendFeed after it was bought by Facebook in 2006. Conceptually, the problems associated with public scholarly discourse subjected to the whims of corporate owners are not unlike those of scholarly journals owned by monopolistic corporations: in both cases the perils associated with a public good in private hands are palpable. For both short form (Twitter/Mastodon) and longer form (journals) scholarly discourse, decentralized solutions exist, some of which are already enjoying some institutional support. Here we argue that scholarly organizations, in particular learned societies, are now facing a golden opportunity to rethink their hesitations towards such alternatives and support the migration of the scholarly community from Twitter to Mastodon by hosting Mastodon instances. Demonstrating that the scholarly community is capable of creating a truly public square for scholarly discourse, impervious to private takeover, might renew confidence and inspire the community to focus on analogous solutions for the remaining scholarly record—encompassing text, data and code—to safeguard all publicly owned scholarly knowledge.

show abstract

“…Since the introduction of scientific publications in 1665 [71], the nature and outputs of research have changed. In 1665, information was sparse, norms of secrecy still prevalent, the printing press relatively new, and organized scientific research a fledgling domain within society.…”

Section: Publishing Reform 341 Paper Has Limited Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspectives on scientific error

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theoretical arguments and empirical investigations indicate that a high proportion of published findings do not replicate and are likely false. The current position paper provides a broad perspective on scientific error, which may lead to replication failures. This broad perspective focuses on reform history and on opportunities for future reform. We organize our perspective along four main themes: institutional reform, methodological reform, statistical reform and publishing reform. For each theme, we illustrate potential errors by narrating the story of a fictional researcher during the research cycle. We discuss future opportunities for reform. The resulting agenda provides a resource to usher in an era that is marked by a research culture that is less error-prone and a scientific publication landscape with fewer spurious findings.

show abstract

A History of Scientific Journals

Abstract: We have used the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT, see https:// credit.niso.org/) to describe the co-authors' various contributions to this project, and to acknowledge other people who were essential to research.

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

Impact of publisher's commercial or non‐profit orientation on editorial practices: Moving towards a more strategic approach to supporting editorial staff

Impact of publisher's commercial or non‐profit orientation on editorial practices: Moving towards a more strategic approach to supporting editorial staff

Mastodon over Mammon: towards publicly owned scholarly knowledge

Perspectives on scientific error

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About