Browsing by Subject "Publishing"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Beyond the Conference: Health Sciences Librarians’ Motivations for Publishing
    (2023-03) Hinrichs, Rachel J.
    Introduction: Previous studies have found that only 21.8% to 28% of abstracts presented at the annual Medical Library Association (MLA) conferences are later published as journal articles. What motivates health sciences librarians to take the next step in publishing and disseminating their work? This study will answer the following questions: 1) Are librarians presenting at MLA conferences more motivated to publish due to internal motivational factors (e.g., “to build a professional reputation for myself”), external motivational factors (e.g., “I am expected to participate in research for my job”), or a mix of both? 2) Do motivations for publication differ between academic and hospital librarians? 3) Do motivations for publication differ between those who published in peer-reviewed journals and those who published in other venues? Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, the team surveyed first authors of abstracts presented at the MLA conferences in 2012 and 2014 to determine if they later published their work in any full-text format. If they did publish, the team asked authors where their work was published and the primary and secondary reasons for pursuing publication. The reasons for publication included internal and external motivational factors identified from the library science literature. Chi-square tests were used to assess differences in motivation. Results: One hundred and sixty one authors responded to the survey, and of these, 49 authors reported that they had published their abstract(s). Fifty-one percent (n=25) of respondents selected only internal motivational factors, 18.4% (n=9) selected only external motivational factors, and 30.6% (n=15) reported a mix of both. The author found no statistically significant differences between hospital and academic librarians, or those who published in peer-reviewed journals versus other venues. Discussion: Findings indicate that librarians who chose to publish their work after presenting at annual MLA conferences are primarily motivated to publish due to internal factors. Interventions designed to encourage MLA presenters to publish their work should consider ways to cultivate presenters’ internal motivation.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Changing Landscape of Scholarly Publishing: Will Radiation Research Survive?
    (Radiation Research Society, 2013-10) Odell, Jere D.; Whipple, Elizabeth C.
    As a society published journal, Radiation Research has been a successful and enduring project of the Radiation Research Society (RRS). In 59 years of publication, the journal has produced 732 issues and 10,712 articles. As a nonprofit organization, RRS, like most societies, has used revenues from subscriptions to support, in part, the life of the organization (meetings, conferences and grants to new scholars). The model for scientific publishing, however, continues to evolve. Radiation Research has weathered the rise of electronic publishing, consolidation in the commercial publishing industry, the aggregation of library subscriptions and library subscription cuts. Recent years have seen dramatic changes in how scholarly publishing is financed and new funder and institution policies will accelerate these changes. The growth of open access to journal articles reflects the information habits of readers and facilitates the dissemination of new knowledge. The Radiation Research Society, however, will need to account for and adapt to changes in the publishing market if it intends to support the communication of peer reviewed scholarship in the future.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees
    (BMJ, 2019-05-19) Wilkinson, Tracey A.; Russell, Christopher J.; Bennett, William E.; Cheng, Erika R.; Carroll, Aaron E.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    OBJECTIVE: To investigate the scope of academic spam emails (ASEs) among career development grant awardees and the factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing them. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of career development grant investigators via an anonymous online survey was conducted. In addition to demographic and professional information, we asked investigators to report the number of ASEs received each day, how they determined whether these emails were spam and time they spent per day addressing them. We used bivariate analysis to assess factors associated with the amount of time spent on ASEs. SETTING: An online survey sent via email on three separate occasions between November and December 2016. PARTICIPANTS: All National Institutes of Health career development awardees funded in the 2015 fiscal year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing ASEs. RESULTS: A total of 3492 surveys were emailed, of which 206 (5.9%) were returned as undeliverable and 96 (2.7%) reported an out-of-office message; our overall response rate was 22.3% (n=733). All respondents reported receiving ASEs, with the majority (54.4%) receiving between 1 and 10 per day and spending between 1 and 10 min each day evaluating them. The amount of time respondents reported spending on ASEs was associated with the number of peer-reviewed journal articles authored (p<0.001), a history of publishing in open access format (p<0.01), the total number of ASEs received (p<0.001) and a feeling of having missed opportunities due to ignoring these emails (p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: ASEs are a common distraction for career development grantees that may impact faculty productivity. There is an urgent need to mitigate this growing problem.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Scholarship Project: Creating Sustainable Growth for Open Access Publishing in the Humanities and Social Sciences
    (Library Publishing Forum, 2015-03-29) Odell, Jere D.; Kelly, Jason M.
    Some successful approaches to open access publishing have grown organically from the cultures that sustain them. For example, arXiv has leveraged the need for the quick transfer of research findings by providing a preprint service. Alternatively, PLOS One has met a need for timely, methods-based review (particularly in the grant-supported health and life sciences) and sustains publishing by levying article processing fees. A successful approach to open access publishing in the humanities will also need to grow from the unique needs of its authors while complimenting existing value structures. Thus, the Open Scholarship Project (OSP) seeks to build a no-fee, subscription-free, transparent and unbound approach to open access publishing. The development of the OSP aims to incorporate four principles: 1) no-fee ("Diamond") open access, 2) versioning, 3) open peer review, and 4) badging. Here we share some prototypes of the system that will support these principles, including: asynchronous, threaded, open peer review at the paragraph level; versioning inspired by GitHub; and a use of the Mozilla Open Badges Framework to permit interdisciplinary authors to solicit imprimaturs from relevant societies and organizations. We also describe initial steps to leverage a library publishing partnership to establish a sustainable, no-fee approach to open access publishing. By joining with others, we believe that ventures like the OSP can create an environment for scholarly communications that respects the culture of the humanities while taking advantage of a fully unbound digital model.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Reputable Peer-Reviewed Article Publishing: An Assessment of the IUPUI 2017 Annual Review Data
    (IUPUI University Library, 2019-05-29) Odell, Jere D.; Craven, Hannah J.; Stone, Sean M.
    This report quantifies the number of articles by Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) authors that were published in 2017 in “trusted” journals or conference proceedings. As the global proportion of for-fee article publishing increases, so do the number of email solicitations to authors for submissions to previously unknown journals. In an effort to exploit a new business model, a portion of these solicitations seek to acquire a fee for publication while promising (but failing) to provide peer review. Publishing an article in a disreputable journal (intentionally or not) wastes the resources of the university, funders, and tax payers that have supported the work. It also risks damaging the reputation of authors and the integrity of peer reviewed literature. By quantifying the number of articles published in “trusted” journals, IUPUI can assess the degree to which authors need support for the task of selecting suitable outlets for publication.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Role of PhD Faculty in Advancing Research in Departments of Surgery
    (Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer) - Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2017-01) Bell, Teresa M.; Valsangkar, Nakul; Joshi, Mugdha; Mayo, John; Blanton, Casi; Zimmers, Teresa A.; Torbeck, Laura; Koniaris, Leonidas G.; Surgery, School of Medicine
    OBJECTIVE: To determine the academic contribution as measured by number of publications, citations, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding from PhD scientists in US departments of surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The number of PhD faculty working in US medical school clinical departments now exceeds the number working in basic science departments. The academic impact of PhDs in surgery has not been previously evaluated. METHODS: Academic metrics for 3850 faculties at the top 55 NIH-funded university and hospital-based departments of surgery were collected using NIH RePORTER, Scopus, and departmental websites. RESULTS: MD/PhDs and PhDs had significantly higher numbers of publications and citations than MDs, regardless of academic or institutional rank. PhDs had the greatest proportion of NIH funding compared to both MDs and MD/PhDs. Across all academic ranks, 50.2% of PhDs had received NIH funding compared with 15.2% of MDs and 33.9% of MD/PhDs (P < 0.001). The proportion of PhDs with NIH funding in the top 10 departments did not differ from those working in departments ranked 11 to 50 (P = 0.456). A greater percentage of departmental PhD faculty was associated with increased rates of MD funding. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of dedicated research faculty with PhDs supports the academic mission of surgery departments by increasing both NIH funding and scholarly productivity. In contrast to MDs and MD/PhDs, PhDs seem to have similar levels of academic output and funding independent of the overall NIH funding environment of their department. This suggests that research programs in departments with limited resources may be enhanced by the recruitment of PhD faculty.