Changing knowledge ecologies and the transformation of the scholarly journal

The Future of the Academic Journal: Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 9-83

  Cope, Bill ^b   Kalantzis, Mary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Academic journals; Citation analyses; Impact factor; Impact metrics; Journal publishing business models; Knowledge ecologies; Knowledge evaluation; Open access publishing; Peer review; Publishing technologies

Indexed keywords

EID: 84994228651     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1533/9781780634647.9     Document Type: Chapter

References (178)

1. Aalbersberg I.J., Heeman F. The article of the future. The Future of the Academic Journal 2014, Chandos Publishing, Cambridge, UK. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).
2. Adler R., Ewing J., Taylor P. Citation statistics: a report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS) 2008.
3. Albanese A. Harvard slams Google settlement; others react with caution. Library Journal 2008, 30 October.
4. Alberts B. Impact factor distortions. Science 2013, 340:787.
5. Andres A. Measuring Academic Research: How to Undertake a Bibliometric Study 2009, Chandos Publishing, Oxford, UK.
6. Antonoyiannakis M., Mitra S. Editorial: is PRL too large to have an 'impact'?. Physical Review Letters 2009, 102. Available from:. http://www.publish.aps.org/edannounce/PhysRevLett.102.060001.
7. Bacon F. The New Organon 1620.
8. Banks M.A., Dellavalle R. Emerging alternatives to the impact factor. OCLC Systems & Services 2008, 24:167-173.
9. Bauwens M. The political economy of peer production. CTheory 2005, Available from:. http://www.ctheory.net/printer.aspx?id=499.
10. Benkler Y. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom 2006, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
11. Bergman S.S. The scholarly communication movement: highlights and recent developments. Collection Building 2006, 25:108-128.
12. Bergstrom C.T., Bergstrom T.C. The economics of ecology journals. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 2006, 4:488-495.
13. Bergstrom T.C., Lavaty R. How often do economists self-archive? 2007, Department of Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara.
14. Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities 2003.
15. Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing 2003.
16. Biagioli M. From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences: Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures 2002, 12:11-45.
17. Bornmann L., Mutz R., Neuhaus C., Daniel H.-D. Citation counts for research evaluation: standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:93-102.
18. Braun T., Glänzel W., Schubert A. On sleeping beauties, princes and other tales of citation distributions. Research Evaluation 2010, 19:195-202.
19. Brin S., Page L. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems: Special Issue on the Seventh International World-Wide Web Conference, Brisbane, Australia 1998, 30(1-7):107-117.
20. Brischoux F., Cook T.R. Juniors seek an end to the impact factor race. Bioscience 2009, 59:638-639.
21. Brody T., Carr L., Gingras Y., Hajjem C., Harnad S., et al. Incentivizing the open access research web: publication archiving, data-archiving and scientometrics. CTWatch Quarterly 2007, 3.
22. Browman H.I., Stergiou K.I. Factors and indices are one thing, deciding who is scholarly, why they are scholarly, and the relative value of their scholarship is something else entirely. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:1-3.
23. Brumback R.A. Worshiping false idols: the impact factor dilemma. Journal of Child Neurology 2008, 23:365-367.
24. Budd J.M. Citations and knowledge claims: sociology of knowledge as a case in point. Journal of Information Science 1999, 25:265-274.
25. Burnham J.C. The evolution of editorial peer review. The Journal of the American Medical Association 1990, 263.
26. Bush V. As we may think. The Atlantic Magazine 1945, Available from:. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881.
27. Butler L. Using a balanced approach to bibliometrics: quantitative performance measures in the Australian Research Quality Framework. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:83-92.
28. Cameron B.D. Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: uses, abuses, and implications 2005, Ryerson University.
29. Campbell P. Escape from the impact factor. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:5-7.
30. Cassella M., Calvi L. New journal models and publishing perspectives in the evolving digital environment. IFLA Journal 2010, 36:7-15.
31. Clarke R. The cost profiles of alternative approaches to journal publishing. First Monday 2007, 12.
32. Cope B. Content development and rights in a digital environment. Digital Rights Management and Content Development, Vol. 2.4, Technology Drivers Across the Book Production Supply Chain, From the Creator to the Consumer 2001, 3-16. Common Ground, Melbourne. B. Cope, R. Freeman (Eds.).
33. Cope B., Kalantzis M. Designs for social futures. Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures 2000, 203-234. Routledge, London. B. Cope, M. Kalantzis (Eds.).
34. Cope B., Kalantzis M. From Gutenberg to the Internet: how digitisation transforms culture and knowledge. Logos: The Journal of the World Book Community 2010, 21:103-130.
35. Cope B., Kalantzis M., Magee L. Towards a Semantic Web: Connecting Knowledge in Academic Research 2011, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK.
36. Craig I.D., Ferguson L., Finch A.T. Journals ranking and impact factors: how the performance of journals is measured. The Future of the Academic Journal 2014, Chandos Publishing, Cambridge, UK. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).
37. Creaser C. The role of the academic library. The Future of the Academic Journal 2014, Chandos Publishing, Cambridge, UK. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).
38. Crow R. Income models for open access 2009, Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition, Washington DC.
39. Davies J.E. Libraries and the future of the journal: dodging the crossfire in the e-revolution; or leading the charge?. The Future of the Academic Journal 2009, Chandos Publishing, Oxford, UK. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).
40. De Bellis N. Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics 2009, Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD.
41. De Kemp A., Rahm E. Comparing the scientific impact of conference and journal publications in computer science. Information Services & Use 2008, 28:127-128.
42. Delgado J.E., Fischman G.E. The future of Latin American academic journals. The Future of the Academic Journal 2014, Chandos Publishing, Cambridge, UK. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).
43. Dewatripont M., Ginsburgh V., Legros P., Walckiers A. Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe 2006, European Commission, Brussels.
44. DORA The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment 2013.
45. Durieux V., Gevenois P.A. Bibliometric indicators: quality measurements of scientific publication. Radiology 2010, 255:342-351.
46. Edlin A.S., Rubinfeld D.L. Exclusion or efficient pricing? The 'big deal' bundling of academic journals 2004, University of California, Berkeley.
47. Etter J.-F., Stapleton J. Citations to trials of nicotine replacement therapy were biased toward positive results and high-impact-factor journals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009, 62:831-837.
48. Evans J.A. Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science 2008, 321:395-399.
49. Falagas M.E., Kouranos V.D., Arencibia-Jorge R., Karageorgopoulos D.E. Comparison of SCImago Journal Rank Indicator with Journal Impact Factor. FASEB Journal 2008, 22:2623-2628.
50. Favaloro E.J. Measuring the quality of journals and journal articles: the impact factor tells but a portion of the story. Seminars in Thrombosis & Hemostasis 2008, 34:7-25.
51. Favaloro E.J. The Journal Impact Factor: don't expect its demise any time soon. Clinical Chemistry & Laboratory Medicine 2009, 47:1319-1324.
52. Fersht A. The most influential journals: impact factor and Eigenfactor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2009, 106(17):6883-6884.
53. Finch J. Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications: report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings 2012, London.
54. Fink J.L., Bourne P.E. Reinventing scholarly communication for the electronic age. CTWatch Quarterly 2007, 3.
55. Fischman G.E., Alperin J.P., Willinsky J. Visibility and quality in Spanish-language Latin American scholarly publishing. Information Technologies and International Development 2010, 6.
56. Fitzgerald B., Pappalardo K. The law as cyberinfrastructure. CTWatch Quarterly 2007, 3.
57. Foray D. The Economics of Knowledge 2004, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
58. Foucault M. The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Discourse on Language 1982, Vintage Books, New York.
59. Galloway A.R., Thacker E. The Exploit: A Theory of Networks 2007, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
60. Garfield E. Commentary: fifty years of citation indexing. International Journal of Epidemiology 2006, 35:1127-1128.
61. Gherab Martín K., González Quirós J.L. Academic journals in the e-science era. The Future of the Academic Journal 2014, Chandos Publishing, Cambridge, UK. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).
62. Ginsparg P. Next-generation implications of open access. CTWatch Quarterly 2007, 3.
63. González-Alcaide G., Valderrama-Zurián J.C., Aleixandre-Benavent R. The impact factor in non-English-speaking countries. Scientometrics 2012, 92:297-311.
64. Gorraiz J., Schloegl C. A bibliometric analysis of pharmacology and pharmacy journals: Scopus versus Web of Science. Journal of Information Science 2008, 34:715-725.
65. Gowers Tim The cost of knowledge 2012, Available from:. http://www.gowers.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/elsevierstatementfinal.pdf.
66. Grafton A. The Footnote: A Curious History 1997, Faber and Faber, London.
67. Guédon J.-C. In Oldenburg's long shadow: librarians, research scientists, publishers, and the control of scientific publishing 2001.
68. Guédon J.-C. Sustaining the 'great conversation': the future of scholarly and scientific journals. The Future of the Academic Journal 2014, Chandos Publishing, Cambridge, UK. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).
69. Hannay T. Web 2.0 in science. CTWatch Quarterly 2007, 3.
70. Harnad S. Validating research performance metrics against peer rankings. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:103-107.
71. Harnad S. The post-Gutenberg open access journal. The Future of the Academic Journal 2014, Chandos Publishing, Cambridge, UK. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).
72. Harris A. How Google is killing organic search 2013, Available from:. http://www.blog.tutorspree.com/post/54349646327/death-of-organic-search.
73. Harvard Open Access Project Notes on the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act 2013.
74. Harzing A.-W.K., Van der Wal R. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:61-73.
75. Haslam N., Laham S.M. Quality, quantity, and impact in academic publication. European Journal of Social Psychology 2010, 40:216-220.
76. Hemmingsson A., Mygind T., Skjennald A., Edgren J., Rogers L.F. Manipulation of impact factors by editors of scientific journals. Am. J. Roentgenol 2002, 178:767.
77. Higher Education Funding Council for England Report on the Pilot Exercise to Develop Bibliometric Indicators for the Research Excellence Framework 2009, 3.
78. Horrobin D.F. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association 1990, 263.
79. Hunt G.E., Cleary M., Walter G. Psychiatry and the Hirsch h-index: the relationship between Journal Impact Factors and accrued citations. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 2010, 18:207-219.
80. Husserl E. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology 1970, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL, [1954].
81. Ioannidis J.P.A. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005, 2:696-701.
82. Jackson R., Richardson M. Gold OA: the future of the academic journal?. The Future of the Academic Journal 2014, Chandos Publishing, Cambridge, UK. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).
83. Jefferson T., Wager E., Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA 2002, 287:2786-2790.
84. Judson H.F. Structural transformations of the sciences and the end of peer review. JAMA 1994, 272:92-94.
85. Kaiser J. Free journals grow amid ongoing debate. Science 2010, 329:896-898.
86. Kakaes K. The other academic freedom movement. Slate 2012, Available from:. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/02/federal_research_public_access_act_the_research_works_act_and_the_open_access_movement_.html.
87. Kalantzis M., Cope B. Literacies 2012, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
88. Kalantzis M., Cope B. New Learning: Elements of a Science of Education 2012, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
89. Global Knowledge Cultures 2007, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam. C. Kapitzke, M.A. Peters (Eds.).
90. Kousha K., Abdoli M. The citation impact of open access agricultural research: a comparison between OA and non-OA publications. Online Information Review 2010, 34:772-785.
91. Kousha K., Thelwall M. Google Scholar citations and Google Web/ URL citations: a multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2007, 58:1055-1065.
92. Krell F.-T. Should editors influence journal impact factors?. Learned Publishing 2010, 23:59-62.
93. Kress G. Design and transformation: new theories of meaning. Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures 2000, 153-161. Routledge, London. B. Cope, M. Kalantzis (Eds.).
94. Lancho-Barrantes B.S., Guerrero-Bote V.P., Moya-Anegón F. What lies behind the averages and significance of citation indicators in different disciplines?. Journal of Information Science 2010, 36:371-382.
95. Landoni G., Pieri M., Nicolotti D., Silvetti S., Landoni P., et al. Self-citation in anaesthesia and critical care journals: introducing a flat tax. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2010, 105:386-387.
96. Lane J. Let's make science metrics more scientific. Nature 2010, 464:488-489.
97. Lawrence P.A. The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology 2007, 17:583-585.
98. Lawrence P.A. Lost in publication: how measurement harms science. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:9-11.
99. Lee K., Bero L. What authors, editors and reviewers should do to improve peer review. Nature 2006, Available from:. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05007.html.
100. Lessig L. The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World 2001, Random House, New York.
101. Lessig L. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy 2008, Penguin Press, New York.
102. Levine F.J. The Finch Report and open access in social science from the US side of the pond 2012.
103. Levine T.R. Rankings and trends in citation patterns of communication journals. Communication Education 2010, 59:41-51.
104. Levine-Clark M., Gil E.L. A comparative citation analysis of Web of Science. Scopus, and Google Scholar, Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship 2009, 14:32-46.
105. Linklider J.C.R. Libraries of the Future 1965, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
106. López-Illescas C., de Moya Aneg F., Moed H.F. Comparing bibliometric country-by-country rankings derived from the Web of Science and Scopus: the effect of poorly cited journals in oncology. Journal of Information Science 2009, 35:244-256.
107. Lynch C. The shape of the scientific article in the developing cyberinfrastructure. CTWatch Quarterly 2007, 3.
108. Mabe M.A., Amin M. Dr Jekyll and Dr Hyde: author-reader asymmetries in scholarly publishing. Aslib Proceedings 2002, 54:149-157.
109. Mavrogenis A.F., Ruggieri P., Papagelopoulos P.J. Editorial: self-citation in publishing. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2010, 468(10):2803-2807.
110. McCabe M.J., Nevo A., Rubinfeld D.L. The pricing of academic journals 2006, University of California, Berkeley.
111. McCann S. Social proof: a tool for determining authority. In the Library with the Lead Pipe 2009, Available from:. http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org.
112. Meho L.I. The rise and rise of citation analysis. Physics World 2007, 20:32-36.
113. Meyers B. Peer review software: has it made a mark on the world of scholarly journals? 2004, Aries Systems Corporation.
114. Monbiot G. Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist. The Guardian 2011, 29 August. Available from:. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist.
115. Stanley Morgan Scientific publishing: knowledge is power 2002, Morgan Stanley Equity Research Europe, London.
116. Neff B.D., Olden J.D. Not so fast: inflation in impact factors contributes to apparent improvements in journal quality. Bioscience 2010, 60:455-459.
117. Norris M., Oppenheim C. Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences' literature. Journal of Informetrics 2007, 1(2):161-169.
118. O'Connor S.J. Citations, impact factors and shady publication practices: how should the lasting clinical and social value of research really be measured?. European Journal of Cancer Care 2010, 19:141-143.
119. Office of Science and Technology Policy Increasing access to the results of federally funded scientific research 2013, Executive Office of the President, Washington DC.
120. Ogden T.L., Bartley D.L. The ups and downs of journal impact factors. Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2008, 52:73-82.
121. Opderbeck D.W. The penguin's paradox: the political economy of international intellectual property and the paradox of open intellectual property models. Stanford Law & Policy Review 2007, 18:101.
122. O'Reilly T. What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software 2005, O'Reilly, 30 September. Available from:. http://www.oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.
123. Papavlasopoulos S., Poulos M., Korfiatis N., Bokos G. A non-linear index to evaluate a journal's scientific impact. Information Sciences 2010, 180:2156-2175.
124. Pauly D., Stergiou K.I. Re-interpretation of 'influence weight' as a citation-based index of new knowledge (INK). Ethics in Science andEnvironmental Politics 2008, 8:75-78.
125. Pellegrino J.W., Chudowsky N., Glaser R. Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment 2001, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
126. Perneger T.V. Citation analysis of identical consensus statements revealed journal-related bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2010, 63:660-664.
127. Peters M.A. Knowledge Economy, Development and the Future of Higher Education 2007, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.
128. Peters M.A., Britez R.G. Open Education and Education forOpenness 2008, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.
129. Phillips A. Business models in journals publishing. The Future of the Academic Journal 2014, Chandos Publishing, Cambridge, UK. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).
130. Price R. The dangerous 'Research Works Act'. Tech Crunch 2012, Available from:. http://www.techcrunch.com/2012/02/15/the-dangerous-research-works-act/.
131. Rafols I., Wilsdon J. Just say no to impact factors. The Guardian 2013, 17 May. Available from:. http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/may/17/science-policy.
132. Raymond E. The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary 2001, O'Reilly, Sebastapol, CA.
133. Rieder S., Bruse C.S., Michalski C.W., Kleeff J., Friess H. The impact factor ranking: a challenge for scientists and publishers. Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery 2010, 395:57-61.
134. Rogers L.F. Impact factor: the numbers game. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2002, 178:541-542.
135. Rossner M., Van Epps H., Hill E. Show me the data. J Cell Biol. 2007, 179:1091-1092.
136. Rossner M., Van Epps H., Hill E. Irreproducible results: a response to Thomson Scientific. J. Cell Biol. 2008, 180:254-255.
137. Rowland F. The peer-review process. Learned Publishing 2002, 15:247-258.
138. Saukko P. The role of international journals in legal/forensic medicine. Legal Medicine 2009, 11:S9-S12.
139. Saunders J., Smith S. The future of copyright: what are the pressures on the present system?. The Future of the Academic Journal 2014, Chandos Publishing, Cambridge, UK. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).
140. Schroeder R. Pointing users toward citation searching: using Google Scholar and Web of Science. Libraries and the Academy 2007, 7:243-248.
141. Schuermans N., Meeus B., De Maesschalck F. Is there a world beyond the Web of Science? Publication practices outside the heartland of academic geography. Area 2010, 42:417-424.
142. Seglen P.O. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997, 314:497.
143. Shreeves S.L. The role of repositories in the future of the journal. The Future of the Academic Journal 2014, Chandos Publishing, Cambridge, UK. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).
144. Siebelt M., Siebelt T., Pilot P., Bloem R.M., Bhandari M., et al. Citation analysis of orthopaedic literature: 18 major orthopaedic journals compared for impact factor and SCImago. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2010, 11:1-7.
145. Simons K. The misused impact factor. Science 2008, 322(5899):165.
146. Smart P., Murray S. The status and future of the African journal. The Future of the Academic Journal 2014, Chandos Publishing, Cambridge, UK. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).
147. Smith R. Journal accused of manipulating impact factor. BMJ 1997, 314:461.
148. Smith R. Commentary: the power of the unrelenting impact factor: is it a force for good or harm?. International Journal of Epidemiology 2006, 35:1129-1130.
149. Sompel H.van de, Lagoze C. Interoperability for the discovery, use, and re-use of units of scholarly communication. CTWatch Quarterly 2007, 3(3). Available from:. http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/interoperability-for-the-discovery-use-and-re-use-of-units-of-scholarly-communication/.
150. Sosteric M. Interactive peer review: a research note. Electronic Journal of Sociology 1996, Available from:. http://www.socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/EJS/vol002.001/SostericNote.vol002.001.html.
151. Spier R. The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology 2002, 20:357-358.
152. Stallman R. The GNU Project 2002, Available from:. http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html.
153. Stanley C.A. When counter narratives meet master narratives in the journal editorial-review process. Educational Researcher 2007, 36:14-24.
154. Stewart C. Whither metrics? Tools for assessing publication impact of academic library practitioners. Journal of Academic Librarianship 2010, 36:449-453.
155. Tananbaum G. Campus-based open-access publishing funds: a practical guide to design and implementation 2010, Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition, Washington, DC.
156. Tenopir C., King D.W. The growth of journals publishing. The Future of the Academic Journal 2014, Chandos Publishing, Cambridge, UK. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).
157. The Budapest Open Access Initiative 2002.
158. Tillery K. 2012 Study of Subscription Prices for Scholarly Society ournals 2012, Allen Press, Lawrence, KS.
159. Todd P.A., Ladle R.J. Hidden dangers of a 'citation culture'. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:13-16.
160. Togia A., Tsigilis N. Impact factor and education journals: a critical examination and analysis. International Journal of Educational Research 2006, 45:362-379.
161. Tötösy de Zepetnek S. The 'impact factor' and selected issues of content and technology in humanities scholarship published online. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2010, 42:70-78.
162. Vanclay J.K. Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?. Scientometrics 2011, 92:211-238.
163. Van Noorden R. Open access: the true cost of science publishing. Nature 2013, 495(7442):426-429.
164. Van Orsdel L.C., Born K. Periodicals Price Survey 2006: journals in the time of Google. Library Journal 2006, 131:39-44.
165. Van Orsdel L.C., Born K. Periodicals Price Survey 2008: embracing openness. Library Journal 2008, 133(7).
166. Velden T., Lagoze C. The value of new scientific communication models for chemistry 2009.
167. Vitzthum K., Spallek M., Mache S., Quarcoo D., Scutaru C., et al. Cruciate ligament: density-equalizing mapping and scientometrics as a measure of the current scientific evaluation. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology 2010, 20:217-224.
168. Wager E., Jefferson T. Shortcomings of peer review in biomedical journals. Learned Publishing 2001, 14:257-263.
169. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Expanding Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research 2013.
170. Whitworth B., Friedman R. Reinventing academic publishing online. Part I: rigor, relevance and practice 2009, First Monday 14. Available from:. http://www.firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2609/2248.
171. Whitworth B., Friedman R. Reinventing academic publishing online. Part II: a socio-technical vision 2009, First Monday 14. Available from:. http://www.firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2642/2287.
172. Wilbanks J. Cyberinfrastructure for knowledge sharing. CTWatch Quarterly 2007, 3.
173. Wilhite A.W., Fong E.A. Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science 2012, 335:542-543.
174. Willinsky J. The Access Principle: The Case for Open Research and Scholarship 2006, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
175. Willinsky J. The properties of Locke's common-wealth of learning. Policy Futures in Education 2006, 4:348-365.
176. Willinsky J., Moorhead L. How the rise of open access is altering journal publishing. The Future of the cademic Journal 2014, Chandos Publishing, Cambridge, UK. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).
177. Wooding S., Grant J. Assessing research: the researchers' view 2003, Joint Funding Bodies' Review of Research Assessment, UK.
178. Wu L., DongFa X. The future of the academic journal in China. The Future of the Academic Journal 2014, Chandos Publishing, Cambridge, UK. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).