The route to peer-reviewed research
Broadening access to scientific and medical research is an important issue in scientific publishing. Regardless of the funding source or access model, the approach for effective dissemination of peer-reviewed research should:
- Focus on the journal as the portal to scientific literature, which will, in turn, provide the best support for ongoing research. Branding, community building and marketing are essential.
- Focus on further developing electronic publisher platforms (like ScienceDirect, Scopus, and others). Adding value to enhance research speed and productivity is essential.
- Focus on supporting institute libraries, which have been and will continue to be the first port of call for targeted scientific literature research.
Please select 1, 2 or 3 and explain your rationale.
- Focus on further developing electronic publisher platforms (like ScienceDirect, Scopus, and others). Adding value to enhance research speed and productivity is essential.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:10 am
A - Professors like (have) to publish in the archival literature.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
If you asked me that question in 1998 my answer would have been #1. If you will ask me the same question in 2018 my answer will be #2. Today I am for both till we clean the junk from the good publications.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I feel without #1 you can’t have #2. Both are very important. I agree with others that #2 is the way technology is going. It enables researchers to have easy and instant access to the literature.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I am in favor of option 2, developing electronic platforms, since this is where the general development is going. Electronic platforms are more and more replacing print media, and access to them is becoming ubiquitous. In particular students refer to them at an increasing ratio.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:31 am
B.
Most researchers looking for information will first screen the literature, to find those papers that are most informative.
However A is also very improtant. Once a search is done, the researcher has to select the most informative papers, so he will choose journals that best cover the particular field of interest or that are the most prestigious.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I think all the three points have importance and simply focus different aspects to be kept into account with different measures to achieve the same target, I vote for B. because it seems the most appropriate to young researchers formation.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Considering that all are probably useful, the B. answer might be the best given the importance that support platforms have in our days.
July 6th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I think that #2 is now the answer. Libraries are important still but are changing the way they are working. As said by others, no journal holds all that a researcher needs, so developing electronic platforms is the way forward.
July 5th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I believe that #2 is of key importance these days, and this is actually the only item making directly to the point. Naturally, #3 is also helpful, as otherwise the online platforms would be of little use for the researchers where libraries cannot afford wide subscriptions. In contrary, item 1 is more related to a journal itself - clearly, it is important to develop and enhance journals for many reasons, not only for improving dissemination itself. Furthermore, a single journal cannot normally claim to be an utmost source of knowledge (as #1 is likely to imply) - instead, a broader access to the area is needed (as provided through #2).
July 4th, 2008 at 8:36 am
B. I really believe that electronic plublisher platform provides the best opportunity for effective dissemination of peer-reviewed papers (speed, effectiveness, completeness, access from anywhere, support to developing countries, etc…
Hubert Vaudry
July 4th, 2008 at 7:36 am
B reflects what scientists value today. Many have their curricula weighed for promotion, so journal impact factor is the most important criteria. I think good scientists have always known which are the “best” journals, which does roughly correspond to impact factor.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:19 am
I vote for #1. It looks to me that it provides an adequate approach to the issue.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:29 am
I vote for #2. I can see a day coming when journals don’t exist and we search for articles of interest in one large online database. If this ever happens, impact factors for journals will be redundant, of course. I rarely pick up a paper copy of a journal and skim through it, with the sole exception of the journal I edit. All of my research papers are picked up from places such as ScienceDirect, Scopus, or Web of Science. Visits to the library are for checking out a book, not issues of journals.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:19 am
I see #2 as the most important approach, although #1 and #3 also are important, but to a much lesser degree.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
3 - although I think that all three approaches should be pursued, institutional libraries have been neglected and these are increasing dropping journals in various forms. Reading rooms have gone away in most institutions - with the result that graduate students are no longer as informed about general matters in the fields relevant. With the demise of the reading rooms, so too have the graduate students and professors focussed on their own fields - often to the detriment of their research.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
1 or A.
Marketing needs to be directly linked to specific journals, in fact at times to specific articles and collections (e.g., special issues) of articles. Are there individuals dedicated to marketing?
These options could be evaluated empirically in terms of effects on impact factor.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Definitely 2, for reasons as listed, but particularly for accessibility (rapid and comprehensive).
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
2 (electronic platforms) is the choice in today’s research environment where fast access to quality work is the most important issue.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
B is the most important, although the importance of both A and B is also high.
However, B offers ready access to a very wide range of journals 24/7 from any convenient computer anywhere. It also offers the possibility of obtaining full articles, or further information from authors, within hours or just a few days.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Number 1.
If I have to choose one from the three alternatives, I have to opt for#1 on the basis of my own personal experience. In my view the system appears to work well at the present time and for future development I would go for a gradual evolution incorporating the best elements of the other two options,
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I would definitely opt for #2. Genome Informatics is so rapidly expanding that the usual turn-around time (between acceptance of a paper and its appearance “Online, ahead of print”) is becoming an unacceptable bottleneck. These days submissions are electronic. Therefore, my offered solution is that within 24 hours that a paper passes peer-review, should be posted on Springer’s server in the original format how the author submitted, with “priority date” the time-stamp when it passed peer-review.
Such “SpringerExpress” server would guarantee the authenticity of the posting - and with a proper marketing plan and technology (i.e. profile matching) premium advertisers would make SpringerExpress not only a most favored rapid publication-outlet for authors, but also a commercial success.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
My choice would be #2. Rapid and easy-to-use access to published documents will help the writer and reader fostering the distribution of information.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
The continued develoment of electronic access platforms should be the focus for published work in scientific and engineering journals. There are many reasons not the least of which makes the search for relevant information that meets the reasearchers needs much more efficient.
While I have spent many enjoyable hours in stacks I have mostly spend frustrating hours in the stacks. Even though I am now 70 or maybe because and I have so little time left, I want the info I want and need now and not after hours of searching slowly through many irrelevant papers and documents.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I would go with option 1 although it cannot be treated entirely independently of option 2. I believe that most scientists identify themselves with particular areas of research which they identify using terms which frequently equate to journal titles. There is therefore a certain feeling of empathy with journals for both reading and especially publishing their own work. This focus would be lost if option 2 led to downgrading of the journal but I cannot see why the values of option 2 need be lost by using the jounal as a primary portal.
Option 3 is in a curious state since, increasingly, institutional libraries are conduits to electronic sites through their purchase of licences. Without the licences there is no route to access so to this extent the institution library remains critical as the first step in providing any electronic access to ScienceDirect or other services.
April 26th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
As always, all are valuable. But #2 would build access to more journals for maore people. Editors do not simply want to see their own journal grow; we want to see everyone’s access to all knowledge grow. For me the ideal would be to see all publishers’ platforms mutually accessible–true open access publishing.