Edición y comunicación científica: evolución y tendencias actuales

Fresco-Santalla, Ana Edición y comunicación científica: evolución y tendencias actuales., 2013 Master's Thesis thesis, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. [Thesis]

[img] Text
Scholarly_comm_and_publishing_Evolution_and_Trends_AFresco.pdf

Download (3MB)

English abstract

The development of digital technologies has brought about great transformations on the scientific communication system. The traditional stagnation that has characterized the scholarly publishing process for centuries has now given way to a more dynamic and open system, which does not remain oblivious to the current context. The transformations undergone throughout this process go beyond the digital edition. Such changes, mediated to a greater or lesser extent by the spirit of the Web 2.0 or Social Web, encompass both novel publishing models as well as original methods of peer review and new scientific impact indicators. This study provides a descriptive analysis regarding the recent evolution of the scientific communication system, focusing on the aforementioned aspects. At the same time, a statistical analysis showing the degree of adoption of social technologies by scientific journals and the prevailing tools at article level has also been carried out. The results suggest the existence of differences regarding the publisher typology, while the scientific area and the quartiles are not –a priori and in the absence of a deeper study– decisive elements.

Spanish abstract

La aparición de las tecnologías digitales ha provocado importantes cambios en el sistema de comunicación científica; el tradicional inmovilismo que durante siglos ha caracterizado el proceso de difusión de la Ciencia ha dado paso a un sistema más abierto y dinámico que no permanece ajeno al contexto actual. Las transformaciones experimentadas no se limitan a la edición electrónica propiamente dicha, sino que van más allá. Dichas transformaciones, mediadas en mayor o menor medida por el espíritu de la Web 2.0 o Web Social, se han traducido en la aparición de modelos de publicación científica originales, nuevas fórmulas de peer review y novedosos indicadores que miden el impacto de la actividad científica. En este trabajo se ofrece un análisis descriptivo de la evolución reciente del sistema de publicación científica, prestando especial atención a los aspectos citados. En paralelo, se presenta un análisis estadístico que revela el grado de adopción de las tecnologías sociales en las publicaciones académicas a nivel de artículo y cuáles son los tipos de herramientas predominantes. Los resultados evidencian la existencia de diferencias en cuanto a los tipos de editor y/o distribuidor; mientras que el área científica y el cuartil de las revistas fuente no son –a priori, y a falta de un estudio más profundo– elementos determinantes.

Item type: Thesis (UNSPECIFIED)
Keywords: Scholarly Communication, Scientific Journals, Scientific Edition, Science 2.0, Web 2.0, Social Web, Peer Review, Scholarly Impact, Altmetrics, Comunicación Científica, Revistas Científicas, Edición Científica, Ciencia 2.0, Web Social, Impacto Académico
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BG. Information dissemination and diffusion.
E. Publishing and legal issues. > EB. Printing, electronic publishing, broadcasting.
H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HN. e-journals.
Depositing user: Ana Fresco-Santalla
Date deposited: 06 Feb 2015 16:53
Last modified: 06 Feb 2015 16:53
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/24471

References

"SEEK" links will first look for possible matches inside E-LIS and query Google Scholar if no results are found.

Adie, E., & Roe, W. (2013). Altmetric: enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics. Learned Publishing, 26(1), 11–17. doi:10.1087/20130103

Aguillo, I. F. (2011). Google Scholar: no es oro todo lo que reluce. Anuario ThinkEPI, 5. Retrieved from http://www.thinkepi.net/tag/citas

Aleixandre-Benavent, R., Valderrama-Zurián, J. C., & González-Alcaide, G. (2007). El factor de impacto de las revistas científicas: limitaciones e indicadores alternativos. El Profesional de la Informacion, 16(1), 4–11.

ALM Workshop 2012 Report. (2012). (p. 25). San Francisco, CA. doi:doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.98828

Alsheikh-Ali, A. a, Qureshi, W., Al-Mallah, M. H., & Ioannidis, J. P. a. (2011). Public availability of published research data in high-impact journals. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e24357. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024357

Alternative metrics. (2012).Nature Materials, 11(November), 907.

Anderson, K., & Dresselhaus, A. (2011). Publishing 2.0: How the Internet Changes Publications in Society. The Serials Librarian, 60(1-4), 23–36. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2011.556432

Association of Research Libraries. (2008). ARL Statistics 2005-06. (M. Kyrillidou & M. Young, Eds.) (p. 136). Washington, DC.

Association of Research Libraries. (2009). ARL Statistics 2007-2008. (M. Kyrillidou & L. Bland, Eds.) (p. 152). Washington, DC.

Baez, M., Casati, F., Birukou, A., & Marchese, M. (2010). Liquid Journals: Knowledge Dissemination in the Web Era. Retrieved from http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/1814/1/028.pdf

Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations : Scholars’ visibility on the social Web. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5611

Barjak, F. (2006). The Role of the Internet in Informal Scholarly Communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1350–1367. doi:10.1002/asi

Beware the impact factor. (2013).Nature Materials, 12(2), 89–89. doi:10.1038/nmat3566

Björk, B.-C. (2011). A study of innovative features in scholarly open access journals. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e115. doi:10.2196/jmir.1802

Bojo Canales, C., Novillo Ortiz, A., & Primo Peña, E. (2011). Las tecnologías 2.0 en las revistas de Ciencias de la Salud españolas. XIV Jornadas Nacionales de Información y Documentación en Ciencias de la Salud. Cádiz. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10760/15932

Bonetta, L. (2009). Should you be tweeting? Cell, 139(3), 452–453. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2009.10.017

Borgman, C. L. (1989). Bibliometrics and Scholarly Communication: Editor’s Introduction. Communication Research, 16(5), 583–599. doi:10.1177/009365089016005002

Bosch, S., & Henderson, K. (2012). Periodicals Price Survey 2012: Coping with the Terrible Twin. Library Journal. Retrieved May 28, 2013, from http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/04/funding/coping-with-the-terrible-twins-periodicals-price-survey-2012/

Bosch, S., Henderson, K., & Klusendorf, H. (2011). Periodicals Price Survey 2011: Under Pressure, Times Are Changing. Library Journal. Retrieved May 28, 2013, from http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2011/04/publishing/periodicals-price-survey-2011-under-pressure-times-are-changing/

Brembs, B., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep Impact : Unintended consequences of journal rank. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3748

Brown, J. (2010). An Introduction to Overlay Journals. Repositories Support Project. UK. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/19081/

Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. (2010a). Los investigadores en la Ciencia: el caso de PLoS One. Apuntes de Ciencia y Tecnología, (35), 9–12.

Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. (2010b). ¿Usan los investigadores los recursos de la Ciencia 2.0? Una aproximación crítica a la participación de los investigadores en la Web Social. Encuentro University 2.0 UIMP. Santander, 6-8 de septiembre. Santander. Retrieved from http://ec3.ugr.es/publicaciones/2010-cabezas-

clavijo_usan_los_investigadores_los_recursos_ciencia_2.0.pdf

Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2010). Indicadores de uso y participación en las revistas científicas 2.0: el caso de PLoS One. El Profesional de la Informacion, 19(4), 431–434. doi:10.3145/epi.2010.jul.14

Campanario, J. M. (2002). El sistema de revisión por expertos (peer review): muchos problemas y pocas soluciones. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 25(3), 267–285.

Cann, A., Dimitriou, K., & Hooley, T. (2011). Social Media : A Guide for Researchers (Vol. 22, p. 48). Retrieved from http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/social-media-guide-researchers

Casati, F., Giunchiglia, F., & Marchese, M. (2007). Publish and Perish: Why the current publication and review model is killing research and wasting your money. Ubiquity, 3. doi:10.1145/1226694.1226695

Cassella, M., & Calvi, L. (2010). New journal models and publishing perspectives in the evolving digital environment. IFLA Journal, 36(1), 7–15. doi:10.1177/0340035209359559

CIBER. (2010). Social media and research workflow. Retrieved from http://ciber-research.eu/download/20101111-social-media-report.pdf

Correia, A. M. R., & Teixeira, J. C. (2005). Reforming scholarly publishing and knowledge communication: From the advent of the scholarly journal to the challenges of open access. Online Information Review, 29(4), 349–364. doi:10.1108/14684520510617802

Dall’Aglio, P. (2006). Peer review and journal models. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608307

Darmoni, S. J., Roussel, F., Benichou, J., Thirion, B., & Pinhas, N. (2002). Reading factor: a new bibliometric criterion for managing digital libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90(3), 323–327. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC116406/

Davis, P. (2012). Is PeerJ Membership Publishing Sustainable? The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved January 7, 2013, from http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/06/14/is-peerj-membership-publishing-sustainable/

De Gennaro, R. (1977). Escalating Journal Prices: Time to Fight Back. American Libraries, 8(2), 69–74.

De Vrieze, J. (2012). Online Social Network Seeks to Overhaul Peer Review in Scientific Publishing. Science. Retrieved from http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/01/online-social-network-seeks-to.html?ref=hp

Delgado-López-Cózar, E., & Ruiz-Pérez, R. (2009). La comunicación y edición científica: fundamentos conceptuales. Homenaje a Isabel de Torres Ramírez: Estudios de documentación dedicados a su memoria (pp. 131–150). Granada: Universidad de Granada.

Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e123. doi:10.2196/jmir.2012

Florian, R. V. (2012). Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6(May), 31. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00031

Fox, J., & Petchey, O. L. (2010). Pubcreds : Fixing the Peer Review Process by “ Privatizing ” the Reviewer Commons. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 91(July), 325–334. doi:10.1890/0012-9623-91.3.325

Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A. (2012). Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2340–2350. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.004

Gu, F., & Widén-Wulff, G. (2011). Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media: A Finnish case study. The Electronic Library, 29(6), 762–776. doi:10.1108/02640471111187999

Guédon, J.-C. (2001). In Oldenburg’s Long Shadow: Librarians, Research Scientists, and the Control of Scientific Publishing. Creating the Digital Future : Association of Research Libraries 138th Annual Meeting. Toronto, Ontario (Canada): Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/bitstream/10760/6375/1/ARL_Proceedings_138_In_Oldenburg’s_Long_Shadow,_by_Guedon.htm

Harold, S. (2012a). Supporting a new way to peer-review. BioMed Central Blog. Retrieved January 12, 2013, from http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcseriesblog/2012/11/20/supporting-a-new-way-to-peer-review/

Harold, S. (2012b). BioMed Central journals supporting Peerage of Science. BioMed Central Blog. Retrieved January 12, 2013, from http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2012/11/20/biomed-central-journals-supporting-peerage-of-science/

Henderson, K., & Bosch, S. (2010). Periodicals Price Survey 2010: Seeking the New Normal. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ930069&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ930069

Hettyey, A., Griggio, M., Mann, M., Raveh, S., Schaedelin, F. C., Thonhauser, K. E., Thoss, M., et al. (2012). Peerage of Science: will it work? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27(4), 189–90. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.01.005

Hunter, J. (2012). Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 6(August), 63. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00063

Ietto-Gillies, G. (2012). The evaluation of research papers in the XXI century. The Open Peer Discussion system of the World Economics Association. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 6(August), 54. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00054

In search of credit. (2013).Nature, 493(5). doi:10.1038/493005a

Kling, R., & Callahan, E. (2003). Electronic Journals , the Internet , and Scholarly Communication. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 127–177.

Kortelainen, T., & Katvala, M. (2012). “Everything is plentiful—Except attention”. Attention data of scientific journals on social web tools. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 661–668. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.06.004

Kriegeskorte, N., Walther, A., & Deca, D. (2012). An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 6(November), 94. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00094

Laursen, L. (2012). Alternative Research Metrics. Science Careers. Retrieved from http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2012_11_09/caredit.a1200124

Lavandera-Fernández, R., & Salas Valero, M. (2010). Herramientas 2.0 en la Comunicación Científica: un análisis de revistas científicas. XIV Jornadas Nacionales de Información y Documentación en Ciencias de la Salud. Cádiz: (Unpublished). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10760/16013

Losoff, B., & Pence, H. E. (2010). Preparing for the New Information Paradigm. In R. Belford (Ed.), Enhancing Learning with Online Resources, Social Networking, and Digital Libraries (pp. 129–145). Washington, DC: ACS Symposium Series. doi:10.1021/bk-2010-1060.ch008

Lozano, G. A., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2012). The Weakening Relationship Between the Impact Factor and Papers’ Citations in the Digital Age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(11), 2140–2145. doi:10.1002/asi

Mabe, M. (2010). Scholarly Communication: A Long View. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 16(S1), 132–144. doi:10.1080/13614533.2010.512242

Mandavilli, A. (2011). Trial by Twitter. Nature, 469, 286–287. doi:10.1126/science.1190532

Maron, N. L., & Smith, K. K. (2008). Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication: Results of an Investigation Conducted by Ithaka for the Association of Research Libraries.

McFedries, P. (2012). Measuring the impact of Altmetrics. IEEE Spectrum, 28.

McKiernan, G. (2002). E Is for Everything. The Serials Librarian, 41(3-4), 293–321. doi:10.1300/J123v41n03_23

Melero, R. (2005). Significado del acceso abierto (open access) a las publicaciones científicas: definición, recursos, copyright e impacto. El Profesional de la Informacion, 15(4), 255–266.

Milliot, J. (2008). Publishing’s Top Guns. Publishers Weekly, 255(28).

Milliot, J., & Wischenbart, R. (2009). Pearson Stands on Top. Publishers Weekly, 256(29), 22–25.

Moore-Jansen, C., Williams, J. H., & Dadashzadeh, M. (2001). Is a decision support system enough? Tactical versus strategic solutions to the serial pricing crisis. Serials Review, 27(3/4), 48–61.

Mulligan, A., & Mabe, M. (2011). The effect of the internet on researcher motivations, behaviour and attitudes. Journal of Documentation, 67(2), 290–311. doi:10.1108/00220411111109485

Nair, V., Khan, S., & Jhaveri, K. D. (2012). Interactive journals and the future of medical publications. The American Journal of Medicine, 125(10), 1038–42. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.06.012

Nicholas, D. (2010). Scholarly and professional journals in the digital environment. Records Management Journal, 20(3), 291–300. doi:10.1108/09565691011095319

Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Rowlands, I., & Jamali, H. R. (2010). Researchers’ e-journal use and information seeking behaviour. Journal of Information Science, 36(4), 494–516. doi:10.1177/0165551510371883

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. O’Reilly Media. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

Ollé, C., & Borrego, Á. (2010). A qualitative study of the impact of electronic journals on scholarly information behavior. Library & Information Science Research, 32(3), 221–228. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2010.02.002

Oller Alonso, M., Segara Saavedra, J., & Plaza Nogueira, A. (2012). La presencia de las revistas científicas de ciencias sociales en los “Social Media”: de la web 1.0 a la web 2.0. Index, (2), 49–68.

Open Science Federation, & Adie, E. (2012). Tweets linking to scientific papers - Jul 2011. doi:doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.90234

Overview: Nature’s trial of open peer review. (2006).Nature. doi:10.1038/nature05535

Pattinson, D. (2012). PLoS ONE Launches a New Peer Review Form. EveryONE. Retrieved January 7, 2013, from http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2012/12/13/plos-one-launches-a-new-peer-review-form/

Piault, F., & Wischenbart, R. (2010). Ranking 2010. The World’s Biggest Publishing Groups. Paris. Retrieved from http://www.publishersweekly.com/binary-data/ARTICLE_ATTACHMENT/file/000/000/127-1.pdf

Piwowar, H. A. (2013). Value all research products. Nature, 493(159). doi:10.1038/493159a

Ponte, D., & Simon, J. (2011). Scholarly Communication 2.0: Exploring Researchers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 for Scientific Knowledge Creation, Evaluation and Dissemination. Serials Review, 37(3), 149–156. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2011.06.002

Pöschl, U. (2010). Interactive open access publishing and public peer review: The effectiveness of transparency and self-regulation in scientific quality assurance. IFLA Journal, 36(1), 40–46. doi:10.1177/0340035209359573

Pöschl, U. (2012). Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 6(July), 33. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00033

Priem, J. (2013). Scholarship: Beyond the paper. Nature, 495, 437–440. doi:10.1038/495437a

Priem, J., Groth, P., & Taraborelli, D. (2012). The Altmetrics Collection. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e48753. doi:10.1023/A

Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 17(7). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2874/2570

Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Decoupling the scholarly journal. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 6(April), 19. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00019

Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the Wild: Using Social Media to Explore Scholarly Impact. Retrieved November 5, 2012, from http://arxiv.org/html/1203.4745v1?

Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: a manifesto. Retrieved January 30, 2013, from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/

Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A., & Asgari-Targhi, M. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 368(1926), 4039–4056. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0155

Public Library of Science. (2011). Peer Review —Optimizing Practices for Online Scholarly Communication. In House of Commons & S. and T. Committee (Eds.), Peer Review in Scientific Publications. Eight Report of Session 2010-12, Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. London: The Stationery Office Limited. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf

REBIUN. (2011). Ciencia 2.0: aplicación de la web social a la investigación (p. 75). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10760/16161

Renear, A. H., & Palmer, C. L. (2009). Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing. Science, 325(5942), 828–32. doi:10.1126/science.1157784

Rigby, J. (2012). Looking for the impact of peer review: does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact? Scientometrics, 94(1), 57–73. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0779-5

Roemer, R. C., & Borchadt, R. (2012). From bibliometrics to altmetrics: a changing scholarly landscape. C&RL News, (November), 596–600. Retrieved from http://crln.acrl.org/content/73/10/596.full.pdf+html

Roldán, A. (2010). JCR 2009. Bibliometría. Retrieved March 20, 2013, from http://www.bibliometria.com/jcr-2009

Rowlands, I. (2007). Electronic journals and user behavior: A review of recent research. Library & Information Science Research, 29(3), 369–396. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2007.03.005

Sompel, H. Van de, & Lagoze, C. (2000). The Santa Fe Convention of the Open Archives Initiative. D-Lib Magazine, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/february00/vandesompel-oai/02vandesompel-oai.html

Systems: An open, two-stage peer-review journal. (2006).Nature. doi:10.1038/nature04988

Taraborelli, D. (2008). Soft peer review : Social software and distributed scientific evaluation. Proceedings of the 8th. International Conference on Design of Cooperative Systems. Carry-Le-Rouet. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/8279/1/8279.pdf

Teixeira, A. a. C., & Costa, M. F. (2010). Who Rules the Ruler? On the Misconduct of Journal Editors. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8(2), 111–128. doi:10.1007/s10805-010-9107-y

Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2008). Electronic Journals and Changes in Scholarly Article Seeking and Reading Patterns. D-Lib Magazine, 14(11/12). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november08/tenopir/11tenopir.html

The PLoS Medicine Editors. (2006). The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature. PLoS Medicine, 3(6), e291. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291

Tivnan, T. (2012). Global publishers: the top 50. The Bookseller, 5534, 10.

Torres-Salinas, D. (2008). El paradigma 2.0 en las grandes revistas científicas. 3rd International LIS-EPI Meeting 2008. Innovación en Información. Valencia. Retrieved from http://ec3.ugr.es/publicaciones/Torres-Salinas,_Daniel-El_paradigma_2_0_en_las_grandes_revistas_cientificas.pdf

Torres-Salinas, D., & Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. (2013). Altmetrics: no todo lo que se puede contar, cuenta. Notas ThinkEPI. Retrieved January 24, 2013, from http://www.thinkepi.net/altmetrics-no-todo-lo-que-se-puede-contar-cuenta

Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478, 26–28. doi:10.1038/478026a

Van Orsdel, L., & Born, K. (1995). Periodical Price Survey 1995: Serials vs. the Dollar Dilemma. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=library_sp

Van Orsdel, L., & Born, K. (1996). Periodical Price Survey 1996: Projecting the Electronic Revolution While Budgeting for the Status Quo. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=library_sp

Van Orsdel, L., & Born, K. (1997). Periodical Price Survey 1997: Unsettled Times, Unsettled Times, Unsettled Prices. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=library_sp

Van Orsdel, L., & Born, K. (1998). Periodical Price Survey 1998: E-Journals Come of Age. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=library_sp

Van Orsdel, L., & Born, K. (1999). Periodical Price Survey 1999: Serials Publishing in Flux. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=library_sp

Van Orsdel, L., & Born, K. (2000). Periodical Price Survey 2000: Pushing Toward More Affordable Acccess. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=library_sp

Van Orsdel, L., & Born, K. (2001). Periodical Price Survey 2001: Searching for Serials Utopia. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=library_sp

Van Orsdel, L., & Born, K. (2002). Periodical Price Survey 2002: Doing the Digital Flip. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=library_sp

Van Orsdel, L., & Born, K. (2003). Periodical Price Survey 2003: Big Chill on the Big Deal. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=library_sp

Van Orsdel, L., & Born, K. (2004). Periodicals Price Survey 2004: Closing in on Open Access. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=library_sp

Van Orsdel, L., & Born, K. (2005). Periodicals Price Survey 2005: Choosing Sides. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=library_sp

Van Orsdel, L., & Born, K. (2006). Periodicals Price Survey 2006: Journals in the Time of Google. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=library_sp

Van Orsdel, L., & Born, K. (2007). Periodicals Price Survey 2007: Serial Wars. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=library_sp

Van Orsdel, L., & Born, K. (2008). Periodicals Price Survey 2008: Embracing Openness. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=library_sp

Van Orsdel, L., & Born, K. (2009). Periodicals Price Survey 2009: Reality Bites. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=library_sp

Veiga de Cabo, J., & Martín-Rodero, H. (2011). Acceso Abierto : nuevos modelos de edición científica en entornos web 2.0 Open Access : new models of scientific. Salud Colectiva, 7(Supl. 1), 19–27.

Veiga de Cabo, J., & Martín-Rodero, H. (2011). Acceso Abierto : nuevos modelos de edición científica en entornos web 2.0 Open Access : new models of scientific. Salud Colectiva, 7(Supl. 1), 19–27.

Waldrop, M. M. (2008). Science 2.0. Scientific American, 298(5), 68–73. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0508-68

Ware, M. (2008). Peer review : benefits, perceptions and alternatives. London. Retrieved from http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PRCsummary4Warefinal.pdf

Ware, M. (2011). Peer Review: Recent Experience and Future Directions. New Review of Information Networking, 16(1), 23–53. doi:10.1080/13614576.2011.566812

Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2009). The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Oxford, UK. Retrieved from http://www.stm-assoc.org/2009_10_13_MWC_STM_Report.pdf


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item