Should i stay or should i go? Alternative infrastructures in scholarly publishing

International Journal of Communication

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 1052-1071

  Lagoze, Carl ^a   Edwards, Paul ^a   Sandvig, Christian ^a   Plantin, Jean Christophe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Disruption; Infrastructure; Scholarly communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011585901     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19328036     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Beall, J. (2012, August 1). Predatory publishing. The Scientist. Retrieved from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32426/title/Predatory-Publishing/
2. Ben-David, J., & Zloczower, A. (1962). Universities and academic systems in modern societies. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 3(1), 45-84. doi:10.1017/S0003975600000527
3. Bergstrom, T. C., Courant, P. N., McAfee, R. P., & Williams, M. A. (2014). Evaluating big deal journal bundles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(26), 9425-9430. doi:10.1073/pnas.1403006111
4. Borgman, C. L. (2003). The invisible library: Paradox of the global information infrastructure. Library Trends, 51(4), 652-674
5. Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age information, infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Brembs, B., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. ArXiv. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3748
8. Brown, J. (2010). An introduction to overlay journals. Repositories Support Project. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/19081/1/19081.pdf
9. Callister, P. D. (2006). Identity and market for loyalties theories: The case for free information flow in insurgent Iraq. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 25, 123-153.
10. Carpenter, T. A. (2013). Merger-The consolidation wave hits two publisher associations. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/05/22/merger-the-consolidation-wave-hits-two-publisher-associations
11. Cope, W. W., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Signs of epistemic disruption: Transformations in the knowledge system of the academic journal, First Monday, 14(4).
12. Cronin, B. (2003). Scholarly communication and epistemic cultures. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 9(1), 1-24.
13. Crow, R. (2002). The case for institutional repositories: A SPARC position paper. Washington, DC: Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition.
14. Duerr, R. E., Downs, R. R., Tilmes, C., Barkstrom, B., Lenhardt, W. C., Glassy, J.,. Slaughter, P. (2011). On the utility of identification schemes for digital earth science data: An assessment and recommendations. Earth Science Informatics, 4(3), 139-160. doi:10.1007/s12145-011-0083-6
15. Edwards, P. N., Jackson, S. J., Bowker, G. C., & Knobel, C. P. (2007). Understanding infrastructure: Dynamics, tensions, and design. Ann Arbor, MI: National Science Foundation.
16. Edwards, P. N., Jackson, S. J., Chalmers, M. K., Bowker, G. C., Borgman, C. L., Ribes, D., et al. (2013). Knowledge infrastructures: Intellectual frameworks and research challenges. Ann Arbor, MI: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/97552
17. Eisen, J. A., Maccallum, C. J., & Neylon, C. (2013). Expert failure: Re-evaluating research assessment. PLoS Biology, 11(10), e1001677. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001677
18. Eyre-Walker, A., & Stoletzki, N. (2013). The assessment of science: The relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biology, 11(10), e1001675. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001675
19. Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biology, 4(5), e157. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157
20. Fry, J., & Talja, S. (2007). The intellectual and social organization of academic fields and the shaping of digital resources. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 115.
21. Ginsparg, P. (1994). First steps towards electronic research communication. Los Alamos Science, 8(4), 390-396.
22. Ginsparg, P. (2011). ArXiv at 20. Nature, 476(7359), 145-147. doi:10.1038/476145a
23. Hahn, K. L. (2006). The State of the Large Publisher Bundle: Findings from an ARL Member Survey. ARL: A Bimonthly Report on Research Library Issues and Actions from ARL, CNI, and SPARC, (245). Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/arl-br-245.pdf
24. Haley, M. (2005). ICA strategically faces the future of scholarly publishing. ICA Newsletter, 33(1). Retrieved from http://www.icahdq.org/pubs/publicnewsletter/2005/01-02/Feb05_Newsletter.pdf
25. Harnad, S. (1995). The post-Gutenberg galaxy: How to get there from here. Information Society, 11(4), 285-291.
26. Harnad, S. (1999). Free at last: The future of peer-reviewed journals. D-Lib Magazine, 5(12). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december99/12harnad.html
27. Hey, T., Tansley, S., & Tolle, K. (2009). The fourth paradigm. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Research.
28. Hine, C. (2008). Systematics as cyberscience: Computers, change, and continuity in science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Hirschmann, A. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30. Holdren, J. (n.d.). Increasing public access to the results of scientific research (Response to We the People petition). Washington, DC: White House. Retrieved from https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/increasing-public-access-results-scientific-research
31. Jacobsmeyer, B. (2012). Preprint policies sow confusion. APS News, 21(10). Retrieved from http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201211/preprint.cfm
32. Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 54(14), 1306-1320.
33. Lagoze, C., & Van de Sompel, H. (2003). The making of the open archives initiative protocol for metadata harvesting. Library Hi Tech, 21(2) 118-128. doi:10.1108/07378830310479776
34. Lawrence, B., Jones, C., Matthews, B., Pepler, S., & Callaghan, S. (2011). Citation and peer review of data: Moving towards formal data publication. International Journal of Digital Curation, 6(2), 4-37. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v6i2.205
35. Lynch, C. A. (2006, October). Improving access to research results: Six points. ARL, 248, 5-7. Retrieved from http://old.arl.org/bm~doc/arlbr248sixpoints.pdf
36. Madrigal, A. C. (2012, April 27). Harvard vs. Yale: Open-access publishing edition. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/harvard-vs-yale-open-access-publishing-edition/256468/
37. McLaughlin, M. (1994). Announcing the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(3), 3.
38. Nabe, J. (2001, Spring). E-journal bundling and its impact on academic libraries: Some early results. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. doi:10.5062/F4JH3J57
39. Naughton, J. (2012, April 12). Academic publishing doesn't add up. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/22/academic-publishing-monopoly-challenged
40. Nentwich, M. (2005). Cyberscience: Modelling ICT-induced changes of the scholarly communication system. Information, Communication and Society, 8(4), 542-560.
41. Paisley, W. (1980). Information and work. Progress in Communication Sciences, 2, 113-165.
42. Panitch, J., & Machalak, S. (2005). The serials crisis: A white paper for the UNC-Chapel Hill scholarly communications convocation. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/scholcomdig/whitepapers/panitch-michalak.html
43. Parsons, M. A., Duerr, R., & Minster, J.-B. (2010). Data citation and peer review. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 91(34), 297-298. doi:10.1029/2010EO340001
44. Peek, R. P., & Newby, G. B. (Eds.). (1996). Scholarly publishing: The electronic frontier (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45. Poulin, S., & Tomaszewski, R. (2014). Open access journals in communication studies: Indexing in five commercial databases. Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian, 33(1), 3-14. doi:10.1080/01639269.2014.866019
46. Price, D. J. de S. (1970). Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology and nonscience. In C. E. Nelson & D. K. Pollock (Eds.), Communication among scientists and engineers (pp. 3-22). Lexington, MA: Heath.
47. Price, M. E. (1995). Television, the public sphere, and national identity. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
48. Price, M., & Stremlau, N. (2012). Media and transitional justice: Toward a systematic approach. International Journal of Communication, 6, 23.
49. Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. CoRR, abs/1203.4745. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745
50. Reisman, D. A. (2004). Schumpeter's market: Enterprise and evolution. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
51. Roosendaal, H., & Geurts, P. (1997). Forces and functions in scientific communication: an analysis of their interplay (pp. 1-32). Presented at the Conference on "Co-operative Research in Information Systems in Physics," University of Oldenburg, Germany.
52. Sample, I. (2013, December 9). Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals
53. Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
54. Sompel, H. V. de, Nelson, M. L., Klein, M., & Sanderson, R. (2013). ResourceSync: The NISO/OAI resource synchronization framework. In T. Aalberg, C. Papatheodorou, M. Dobreva, G. Tsakonas, & C. J. Farrugia (Eds.), Research and advanced technology for digital libraries (pp. 488-489). Berlin: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-40501-3_70
55. SPARC Europe. (2014). Open access in the social sciences. Retrieved from http://sparceurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Social-sciences-BP-final-PDF.pdf
56. Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
57. Town, B. (2002). A preprint server for chemistry. Chemistry International, 24(4).
58. Velden, T. (2011). A methodology for studying field differences in scientific communication: Explaining openness and sharing in two scientific communities in the chemical and physical sciences. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Retrieved from http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/30730
59. Velden, T., & Lagoze, C. (2009). Communicating chemistry. Nature Chemistry, 1(9). doi:10.1038/nchem.448
60. Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., et al. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14-26.
61. Walsh, J. P. P., & Bayma, T. (2007). Computer networks and scientific work. Social Studies of Science, 26(3), 661-703.
62. Whitfield, J. (2012, February 9). Elsevier boycott gathers pace. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2012.10010