The influence of academic values on scholarly publication and communication practices

Journal of Electronic Publishing

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2007, Pages

  Harley, Diane ^a   Earl Novell, Sarah ^a   Arter, Jennifer ^a   Lawrence, Shannon ^a   King, C Judson ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 36448944712     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10802711     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3998/3336451.0010.204     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Donald W. King, Peter B. Boyce, Carol Hansen Montgomery, and Carol Tenopir. 2003. "Library Economic Metrics: Examples of the Comparison of Electronic and Print Journal Collections and Collection Services." Library Trends 51(3): 276-300.
2. Also see, Roger C. Schonfeld, Donald W. King, Ann Okerlon, and Eileen Gifford Fenton. The Nonsubscription Side of Periodicals: Changes in Library Operations and Costs between Print and Electronic Formats, 2004, http:// www.clir.org/pubs/reports/publ27/contents.html (06 December 2006).
3. Also see, Donald J. Waters, "Managing Digital Assets in Higher Education: An Overview of Strategic Issues." ARL Bimonthly Report 244, February 2006. http://www.arl. org/newsltr/244/assets.html (06 December 2006).
4. Judith Ryan, Idelber Avelar, Jennifer Fleissner, David E. Lashmet, J. Hillis Miller, et al. The Future of Scholarly Publishing from the Ad Hoc Committee on the Future of Scholarly Publishing, 2002, http://www.mla.org/ resources/documents/issues_scholarly-pub/repview_future-pub (06 December 2006).
5. Also see, Leigh Estabrook, The Book as the Gold Standard for Tenure and Promotion in the Humanistic Disciplines, 2003, http://lrc.lis.uiuc.edu/ reports/CICBook.html (06 December 2006).
6. Theodore C. Bergstrom, "Free Labor for Costly Journals?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 15, no. 3 (2001), http://repositories. cdlib.org/postprints/20 (06 December 2006), 183-198.
7. Also see, Aaron S. Edlin and Daniel L. Rubinfeld. 2004. "Exclusion or Efficient Pricing? The 'Big Deal' Bundling of Academic Journals." Antitrust Law Journal 72, no. 1 (2004), http://works.bepress.com/ aaron_edlin/37 (06 December 2006), 119-157.
8. Also see, Roger Noll and W. Edward Steinmueller. "An Economic Analysis of Scientific Journal Prices: Preliminary Results." Serials Review 18 (1992):32-37.
9. Deborah Lines Andersen, ed. 2003. Digital Scholarship in the Tenure, Promotion, and Review Process. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
10. Also see Nature's peer review debate at http://www.nature.com/ nature/peerreview/debate/index.html (06 December 2006).
11. C. Judson King, Diane Harley, Sarah Earl-Novell, Jennifer Arter, and Shannon Lawrence. Scholarly Communication: Academic Values and Sustainable Models. 27 July 2006, http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/publications. php?id=23 (06 December 2006).
12. These particular five fields were selected with the goal of obtaining a diverse array of disciplines and publishing traditions, and taking advantage of the fact that at least one member of our project steering committee had deep knowledge of each of the disciplines selected.
13. Academic Senate Berkeley Division. "Introduction to the Budget Committee." February 2006, http://academicsenate.berkeley.edu/pdf/ Intro_to_BCpdf (06 December 2006).
14. University of California Office of the President, "Appointment and Promotion, Review and Appraisal Committees," Academic Personnel Manual, 26 July 2002, section 210, http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/ apm-210.pdf (06 December 2006).
15. The so-called Impact Factor is a measure of the citation frequency of papers in journals and is thereby equated by some to the stature and presumably the prestige of the journal. See, e.g., Richard Monastersky, "The Number That's Devouring Science." Chronicle of Higher Education. 14 October 2005 http://chronicle.com/ weekly/v52/i08/08a01201.htm (06 December 2006).
16. Ibid., "Impact Factors Run into Competition." http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i08/08a01701.htm (06 December 2006).
17. A classic example of in-progress communication from the pre-electronic era is the Gordon Research Conferences, where current research is presented and discussed at length, but there are no written materials, nor are the presentations final or archival. The stimulating environment of these and similar conferences is particularly valuable for generating one's own research ideas. Another traditional example is faculty invitations to other institutions for visits built around a sbminar.
18. The recently released MLA Taskforce report on evaluating scholarship notes that of the departments it surveyed, 40.8 percent at doctoral institutions, 29,3 at master's institutions, and 39.5 percent at baccalaureate institutions report having "no experience" evaluating digital scholarship. "MLA Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion." December 2006. http://www.mla.Qrg/ tenure_promotion (10 December 2006).