|
|
|
|
Issue 39, August 1st, 2018
|
|
SciELO 20 Years and the future of journals: opine, comment, question
SciELO is promoting journals’ alignment with the best practices of open science and the proactive participation of all actors of the SciELO Network, especially journal editors and leaders through a process of knowledge accumulation that allows for the conciliation of national research and journals’ conditions and priorities with the international state of the art. Join the analyses and debates on the relevance of SciELO journals and their future at the SciELO 20 Years Week, on September 24th to 28th. [Read more]
|
|
|
Proper management of data used in scientific research has become a mandatory part of good research practices. The Open Science era has revolutionized scientific methodology, motivating the emergence of new lines of research in all areas of knowledge. This post describes some challenges of this management from the computational point of view. [Read more]
|
|
|
|
Central to Geo for All mission is the belief that knowledge is a public good and Open Principles in Education will provide great opportunities for everyone. The key ingredients that make Open Geospatial Science possible are enshrined in Open Principles, i.e: Open Source geospatial software, Open data, Open standards, Open educational resources, and Open access to research publications. [Read more]
|
|
|
|
Preprints are a development underway in science communication and publishing. For journals, this has consequences. They may adopt a passive role, an opposing stance, or an encouraging, stimulating role, and see it as an opportunity, placing their journal in the midst of the preprint development. These are issues to be discussed in detail at the SciELO 20 Years Conference in September 2018. [Read more]
|
|
|
|
Scholarly communication has undergone great transformations in the last two decades, mainly due to the popularization of new information technologies, which imposes a new regime of time and speed in scientific publishing. However, these changes are not just responses to technological advances. These are more complex issues related to the reconfiguration of academic work and changes on the paradigm of communication and the difficulties and challenges faced by editors and researchers over time management. [Read more]
|
|
|
|
The process of correcting scientific literature becomes increasingly accelerated and reflects, among several factors, a greater scrutiny by scientific publishers. Unlike what happened about two decades ago, when retracting an article was rare, today it has been integrated into the editorial culture. In this context, the way in which this correction process is articulated with the news flow about science deserves attention. In the science-public interface, retractions broaden the spaces to strengthen public understanding about science and its mechanisms of self-regulation. How to extend this space is one of the ethical discussions of our time. [Read more]
|
|
|
|
The journal eLife is conducting an innovative experiment by accepting all articles sent to peer review after initial screening. To test the feasibility of an even more participative peer review process, authors will be able to control the decision whether to publish (or not) their articles and how they will respond to reviewers’ comments. By breaking with the paradigms of the author-editor-reviewer relationship, eLife aims to promote a constructive dialogue between the parties and reduce the burden of the journals’ prestige in research evaluation. [Read more]
|
|
|
|
In today’s world, an author’s work needs a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) for it to become discoverable, citable, and linkable. This unique alphanumeric string identifies the content of a research work, and remains associated with it irrespective of changes to its web location. Discover the origins of the DOI, how Crossref was founded, and why they continue to exist and persist. [Read more]
|
|
|
|
The routine practice of evaluating the journal Impact Factor to determine where to submit a manuscript has been reconsidered to the detriment of the social impact of the journal in the relationship that the journal establishes with the scientific community and the public. Social media metrics act in this direction by measuring the journal social media impact factor which may assist in managing the journals’ web presence in the profiles kept on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook. [Read more]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
