Decoupling the Scholarly Journal

Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience

Volumn , Issue MARCH 2012, 2012, Pages

  Priem, Jason ^a   Hemminger, Bradley M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Models; Peer review; Publishing; Scholarly communication

Indexed keywords

INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORIES; PEER REVIEW; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION; SCHOLARLY JOURNALS; SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING; SOCIAL NETWORKS; TIGHT COUPLING;

INFORMATION SERVICES; MODELS; PUBLISHING;

REVIEWS;

ARTICLE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SOCIAL NETWORK; WEB BROWSER;

EID: 84859046746     PISSN: 16625188     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00019     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Allen, L., Jones, C., Dolby, K., Lynn, D., & Walport, M. (2009). Looking for landmarks: The role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputs. PLoS ONE, 4(6), e5910. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005910
2. Asur, S., & Huberman, B. A. (2010). Predicting the future with social media. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5699
3. Bogers, T., & van den Bosch, A. (2008). Recommending scientific articles using citeulike. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (pp. 287-290). ACM New York, NY, USA.
4. Bollen, J., Mao, H., & Zeng, X.-J. (2010). Twitter mood predicts the stock market. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.3003
5. Bosc, H., & Harnad, S. (2005). In a paperless world a new role for academic libraries: Providing open access. Learned Publishing, 18(2), 95-100.
6. Brody, T., Harnad, Stevan, & Carr, L. (2006). Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1060-1072. doi:10.1002/asi.20373
7. Brown, J. (2010). An introduction to overlay journals. Repositories Support Project. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/19081/
8. Buckingham Shum, S., Motta, E., & Domingue, J. (2000). ScholOnto: an ontology-based digital library server for research documents and discourse. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 3(3), 237-248. doi:10.1007/s007990000034
9. Butler, D. (2008). PLoS stays afloat with bulk publishing. Nature, 454 (7200), 11.
10. Casati, F., Giunchiglia, F., & Marchese, M. (2007, January). Publish and perish: Why the current publication and review model is killing research and wasting your money. Ubiquity, 3(1).
11. Cassella, M., & Calvi, L. (2010). New journal models and publishing perspectives in the evolving digital environment. IFLA Journal, 36(1), 7-15. doi:10.1177/0340035209359559
12. Clarke, Michael. (2010, January 4). Why hasn't scientific publishing been disrupted already? The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved January 30, 2010, from http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/01/04/why-hasnt-scientific-publishing-been-disruptedalready/
13. Cronin, B. (2001). Bibliometrics and beyond: Some thoughts on web-based citation analysis. Journal of Information Science, 27(1), 1-7. doi:10.1177/016555150102700101
14. Ding, Y., Jacob, E. K., Caverlee, J., Fried, M., & Zhang, Z. (2009). Profiling social networks: A social tagging perspective. D-Lib Magazine, 15(3/4). doi:10.1045/march2009-ding
15. Donovan, B. (1998). The truth about peer review. Learned Publishing, 11(3), 179-184.
16. Franck, G. (1999). Scientific communication-A vanity fair? Science, 286(5437), 53-55. doi:10.1126/science.286.5437.53
17. Ginsparg, P. (1997). Winners and losers in the global research village. The Serials Librarian, 30(3), 83-95.
18. Ginsparg, P. (2004). Can peer review be better focused? Science & Technology Libraries, 22(3), 5-17.
19. Gordon, R., & Poulin, B. J. (2008, October 15). There is but one journal: The scientific literature. Retrieved from http://www.plosmedicine.org/annotation/listThread.action?inReplyTo=info%3Adoi/10.1371/annotation/b70a4689-cf09-4db6-a97b-8608b87e629e&root=info%3Adoi/10.1371/annotation/b70a4689-cf09-4db6-a97b-8608b87e629e
20. Gotzsche, P. C., Delamothe, T., Godlee, F., & Lundh, A. (2010). Adequacy of authors' replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor: Cohort study. BMJ, 341, c3926-c3926. doi:10.1136/bmj.c3926
21. Greaves, S., Scott, J., Clarke, Maxine, Miller, L., Hannay, T., Thomas, A., & Campbell, P. (2006, December). Nature's trial of open peer review. Nature. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html
22. Groth, P., Gibson, A., & Velterop, J. (2010). The anatomy of a nanopublication. Information Services and Use, 30(1), 51-56. doi:10.3233/ISU-2010-0613
23. Hemminger, B. (2009). NeoNote. D-Lib Magazine, 15(5/6). doi:10.1045/may2009-hemminger
24. Hendler, J. (2007). Reinventing academic publishing, part 2. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(6), 2-3.
25. Henning, V., & Reichelt, J. (2008). Mendeley - A Last.fm for research? IEEE Fourth International Conference on eScience (327-328). doi:10.1109/eScience.2008.128
26. Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney, F. S., & Davidoff, F. (2007). Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2. Retrieved from http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/mr000016.html
27. Kuperberg, G. (2002). Scholarly mathematical communication at a crossroads. Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde, 5(3), 262-264. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0210144
28. Moyle, M., & Lewis, A. (2008). RIOJA (Repository Interface to Overlaid Journal Archives) project:Final report. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/12562/
29. Nature Neuroscience. (2005). Revolutionizing peer review? Nature Neuroscience, 8(4), 397. doi:10.1038/nn0405-397
30. Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(02), 187-195. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00011183
31. Poynder, R. (2002, December). A true market failure. Information Today, 19(11). Retrieved from http://www.infotoday.com/it/dec02/poynder.htm
32. Poynder, R. (2011, March 7). PLoS ONE, open access, and the future of scholarly publishing. Open and Shut? Retrieved March 17, 2011, from http://poynder.blogspot.com/2011/03/plos-oneopen-access-and-future-of.html
33. Priem, J., & Costello, K. L. (2010). How and why scholars cite on Twitter. Proceedings of the 73rd ASIS&T Annual Meeting. Presented at the American Society for Information Science & Technology Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh PA, USA. doi:10.1002/meet.14504701201
34. Reade, C. (1989). Elements of Functional Programming. Addison-Wesley.
35. Rodriguez, M. A., Bollen, J., & Van De Sompel, H. (2006). The convergence of digital libraries and the peer-review process. Journal of Information Science, 32, 149-159. doi:10.1177/0165551506062327
36. Rowland, F. (2002). The peer-review process. Learned Publishing, 15(4), 247-258.
37. Schriger, D. L., Chehrazi, A. C., Merchant, R. M., & Altman, D. G. (in press). Use of the Internet by print medical journals in 2003 to 2009: A longitudinal observational study. Annals of Emergency Medicine. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.10.008
38. Smith, J. (1999). The deconstructed journal-A new model for academic publishing. Learned Publishing, 12(2), 79-91.
39. Smith, J. (2003). The deconstructed journal revisited-A review of developments. ICCC/IFIP Conference on Electronic Publishing-ElPub03-From Information to Knowledge (2-88).
40. de Solla Price, D. J., & Beaver, D. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21(11), 1011.
41. Van de Sompel, Herbert. (2000, December 8). Closing keynote address. Presented at the Coalition for Networked Information Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, USA. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/hvdsomp/the-roof-is-on-fire
42. Van de Sompel, H., Payette, S., Erickson, J., Lagoze, C., & Warner, S. (2004). Rethinking scholarly communication. D-Lib Magazine, 10(9), 1082-9873.
43. Stevens, W. P., Myers, G. J., & Constantine, L. L. (1974). Structured design. IBM Systems Journal, 13(2), 115-139.
44. Tenopir, C., & King, D. (2008). Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns. DLib Magazine, 14(11/12).
45. Thelwall, M., & Harries, G. (2004). Do the Web sites of higher rated scholars have significantly more online impact? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 149-159.
46. Thelwall, M. (2008). Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal of Information Science, 34(4), 605-621. doi:10.1177/0165551507087238
47. Wager, L. (2011, March 22). Journals that dare not speak their name. BMJ Group Blogs. Retrieved May 17, 2011, from http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/03/22/liz-wager-journals-that-dare-not-speaktheir-name/
48. Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2009). The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Oxford, UK: STM: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.stm-assoc.org/news.php?id=255
49. Wenneras, C., & Wold, A. (2001). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Women, science, and technology: a reader in feminist science studies, 46-52.
50. Willinsky, J. (2003). Scholarly associations and the economic viability of open access publishing. Journal of Digital Information, 4(2).
51. Yan, K.-K., & Gerstein, M. (2011). The spread of scientific information: Insights from the Web usage statistics in PLoS article-level metrics. PLoS ONE, 6(5), e19917. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.00199