Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing

Jonathan P. Tennant, Harry Crane, Tom Crick, Jacinto Davila, Asura Enkhbayar, Johanna Havemann, Bianca Kramer, Ryan Martin, Paola Masuzzo, Andy Nobes, Curt Rice, Bárbara Rivera-López, Tony Ross-Hellauer, Susanne Sattler, Paul D. Thacker and Marc Vanholsbeeck
Additional contact information
Jonathan P. Tennant: Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education (IGDORE), 75008 Paris, France
Harry Crane: Department of Statistics and Biostatistics, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08901, USA
Tom Crick: School of Education, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK
Jacinto Davila: CESIMO, Universidad de Los Andes, Mérida 5101, Venezuela
Asura Enkhbayar: Scholarly Communications Lab, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Colombia, V6B 5K3, Canada
Johanna Havemann: IGDORE, 10115 Berlin, Germany
Bianca Kramer: Utrecht University Library, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3512, The Netherlands
Ryan Martin: Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, CA 27607, USA
Paola Masuzzo: IGDORE, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
Andy Nobes: INASP, Oxford, OX1 1RR, UK
Curt Rice: Oslo Metropolitan University, 0010 Oslo, Norway
Bárbara Rivera-López: Dirección General de Asuntos Académicos, Universidad de Las Américas, Sede Providencia, Manuel Montt 948, Chile
Tony Ross-Hellauer: Institute for Interactive Systems and Data Science, Graz University of Technology and Know-Center GmbH, Graz 8010, Austria
Susanne Sattler: National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, SW3 6LY, UK
Paul D. Thacker: Freelance Science Journalist, Madrid, Spain
Marc Vanholsbeeck: Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels 1050, Belgium

Publications, 2019, vol. 7, issue 2, 1-24

Abstract: The changing world of scholarly communication and the emerging new wave of ‘Open Science’ or ‘Open Research’ has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly debated topics. Evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. This article aims to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices, and policies. We address issues around preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, predatory publishers, and the legitimacy of ‘global’ databases. These arguments and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and will inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system.

Keywords: peer review; copyright; open access; open science; scholarly communication; web of science; Scopus; impact factor; research evaluation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A2 D83 L82 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (12)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/2/34/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/2/34/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:7:y:2019:i:2:p:34-:d:230597

Access Statistics for this article

Publications is currently edited by Ms. Jennifer Zhang

More articles in Publications from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().