Scholarly Communication Cycle: SWOT Analysis

A.J. Wolpert, M.L.S. (2013). For the Sake of Inquiry and Knowledge: The Inevitability of

Open Access. The New England Journal of Medicine, 368(9), 785-787.

Aboukhalil,R (2015).The rising trend in authorship. The Winnower. June:1–5

https://thewinnower.com/papers/the-rising-trend-in-authorship. Accessed 20 Oct

2015.

Al-Aufia, Ali S. &Fultonb, C (2014). Use of Social Networking Tools for Informal Scholarly

Communication in Humanities and Social Sciences Disciplines. Procedia - Social

and Behavioral Sciences, 147, 436-445

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.135

Ang, James B. (2010). Financial Reforms, Patent Protection, and Knowledge Accumulation

in India. World Development, 38(8),1070-1081.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.12.011

Association of American Publishers. (2016). The quality, integrity, dissemination and

preservation of scholarly research depends on publishers.Washington, D.C. AAP.

https://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/infographic_scholarly_publishing_pr

ocess_7.25.2016.pdf

Association of College & Research Libraries (2003). Principles and Strategies for the

Reform of Scholarly Communication. Retrieved10 November 2017,

fromwww.arl.org/focus-areas/scholarly-communication

Barraviera, B. (2015). CEVAP Journal: the first Brazilian electronic scientific publication

turns 20 years old. Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical

Diseases, 21, 52.doi:10.1186/s40409-015-0050-7

Bell, Nancy & McPhail, David (2007). Managing change: preserving history.Materials Today,

10(4), 50-56.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-7021(07)70050-0

Bird, Alexander (2008). Scientific progress as accumulation of knowledge: a reply to

Rowbottom. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A,39(2), 279-281.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2008.03.019

Björk, B.-C. (2004) Open access to scientific publications – an analysis of the barriers to

change.’ Information Research, 9(2).

Black, Michael H. (1974). National and international publishing in relation to the

dissemination of information in all disciplines. Aslib Proceedings, 26(11), 418-424,

doi:10.1108/eb050478

Borgman, C. L. (2000) ‘Digital libraries and the continuum of scholarly communication.’

Journal of Documentation, 56(4), 412–430.

Bountouri, L. (2017). Digital preservation. InArchives in the Digital Age Standards, Policies

and Tools(pp. 37-50), Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

Bountouri, Lina (2017). Archival integration and dissemination: The trends. In Archives in

the Digital Age: Standards, Policies and Tools (pp. 61-69), Oxford: Chandos

Publishing.

64

Chang, C.C. (2006). Business models for open access journals publishing. Online

Information Review, 30(6), 699-713, doi:10.1108/14684520610716171

Choia, H,Shinb, J &Hwangc, W.S. (2018). Two faces of scientific knowledge in the external

technology search process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 133, 41-

50, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02.020

Cullen, R & Chawner, B (2011). Institutional Repositories, Open Access, and Scholarly

Communication: A Study of Conflicting Paradigms Author links open overlay panel.

The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 37(6), 460-470.

Dierickx, I. & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive

advantage. Management Science, 35, 1504-1511.

Drotar, D. (2008). Editorial: How to write effective reviews for the journal of pediatric

psychology. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34(2), 113–117.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsn142.

Edwards, David J. (Nov-Dec 2015). Dissemination of Research Results: On the Path to

Practice Change, Can J Hosp Pharm. 68(6), 465–469.

Fidishun, D. (2010), “The paradigm shift in scholarly communication: will publications

perish?”, available at: www.personal.psu.edu/

dxf19/blogs/dolores_list_of_cfps/2010/03/theparadigm-shift-in-scholarlycommunicationwill-

publications-perish.html (accessed 18 November 2011).

Finlay, C., Tsou, A., & Sugimoto, C. (2015). Scholarly Communication as a Core

Competency: Prevalence, Activities, and Concepts of Scholarly Communication

Librarianship as Shown Through Job Advertisements. Journal of Librarianship and

Scholarly Communication, 3(1), eP1236. http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1236

Fisherman (2012), Intellectual infrastructure, New York: Oxford University Press.

Gannon, Frank. (2006). A European Institute of Technology.EMBO reports, 7, 655.

Ginsparg, P. (1996).Electronic Publishing in Science, An invited contribution for UNESCO

Conference, Paris, 19-23 Feb 1996, Retrieved 12 November 2016,

fromhttp://xxx.lanl.gov/blurb/pg96unesco.html.

Gould, D., & Gruben, W. (1996). The role of intellectual property rights in economic growth.

Journal of Development Economics, 48, 323–350.

Graham, T. W. (2000) ‘Scholarly communication.’ Serials, 13(1), 3–11

Gurel, Emet &Tat, Merba. (2017). Swot Analysis: A Theoretical Review. The Journal of

International Social Research, 10(51),994-1006.

Halliday, L. (2001). Scholarly communication, scholarly publication and the status of

emerging formats. Information Research, 6(4), Retrieved 22 December 2011, from

http://InformationR.net/ir/paper111.html

Harly, D. (2013). Scholarly Communication: Cultural Contexts, Evolving Models. Science,

342(4), 81.

Helms, M. M.Nixon, J (2010). Exploring SWOT analysis – where are we now?: A review of

academic research from the last decade. Journal of Strategy and Management,

3(3), 215-251, https://doi.org/10.1108/17554251011064837

65

Howells, J. R. L. (2002). Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban

Studies, 39(5-6), 871–884.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2015). http://www.icmje.org/. Accessed

20 Oct 2015.

Kalusopa,T. & Zulu, S. (2009). Digital heritage material preservation in Botswana: problems

and prospects.Collection Building, 28(3), 98-107,doi: 10.1108/01604950910971125

Keenum, A & Shubrook, J (2012). How to peer review a scientific or scholarly article.

Osteopathic Family Physician, 4(6),176-179.

Lee, P.-J., Hu, Y.-H., & Lu, K.-T. (2018). Assessing the helpfulness of online hotel reviews:

A classification-based approach. Telematics and Informatics, 35(2), 436–445.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TELE.2018.01.001.

Li, M.Liu, H. & Zhou, J. (2018). G-SECI model-based knowledge creation for CoPS

innovation: the role of grey knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management,

22(4),887-911. doi: 10.1108/JKM-10-2016-0458

Marcum, D (1996). The preservation of digital information. The Journal of Academic

Librarianship. 22(6), 451-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-1333(96)90006-3

Mark, T. (2007), “National and international library collaboration: necessity, advantages”,

LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of European Research Libraries, Vol. 17 Nos 3/4, pp.

1-7.

Meadows, A.J. & Buckle, P. (1992). Changing Communication Activities in the British

Scientific Community. Journal of Documentation, 48(3), 276-290.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026898

Meadows, A.J. (1974) Communication in science. London: Butterworths.

Meadows, J. (2003) ‘Scholarly communication.’ In International Encyclopedia ofInformation

and Library Science. J. Feather & Paul Sturges (eds.). London: Routledge, 565–

Meng H. Tan (2018)Peer Review—Past, Present, and Future Medical and Scientific

Publishing, 55-68.

Moghaddam, G.G. (2010). Preserving digital resources: issues and concerns from a view of

librarians. Collection Building, 29(2), 65-69.doi:10.1108/01604951011040152

Moriano, P.Alessandro, E.F. &Menczer, F.F. (2014). Dissemination of scholarly literature in

social media, ACM, 20XX.

Mulligan, A. (2005). Is peer review in crisis.Oral Oncol. 41(2),135-41.

Nature (27 July 2016)Time to remodel the journal impact factor.Nature, 535 (7613), 466

https://www.nature.com/news/time-to-remodel-the-journal-impact-factor-1.20332

Nelkin, Dorothy (1998). Scientific journals and public disputes. The Lancet, 352(S25–S28).

Noorden, R.V. (2013), Open access: the true cost of science publishing, Nature,495(7442),

426-429, doi: 10.1038/495426a.

On impact [editorial] Nature. 2016 Jul 27;535(7613):466. doi:10.1038/535466a.

Owen,J.M. (2007). The Scientific Article in the Age of Digitization. Netherlands: Springer,

(p.8).

66

Parekh, R.A. (2009). Knowledge sharing: collaboration between universities and industrial

organisation. Paper presented at the International Conference on Academic

Libraries (ICAL), Delhi, 5-8 October.

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.

Powell, Kendall (11 February 2016). The waiting game. Nature,530,149.

Priem, J. (28 March 2013). Scholarship: Beyond the paper. Nature, 495, 437–440.

doi:10.1038/495437a

Raffaelle, Ryne (2014). Scholarly Dissemination.The Rochester Institute of Technology

Research Report, 13(Spring/Summer), 1-30.

Rao, M. Koteswara. Academic Publishing: Role of University Libraries in the Scholarly

Communication System. Proceedings of the International Conference of Academic

72 Libraries 2009. October 5 -8, 2009: Globalizing Academic Libraries: Vision 2020.

Ed. Delhi University Library System. New Delhi: Mittal Publications, 2009. 389-395.

Rao, Y.S. (2017). C5 model for the consortium management: SWOT analysis.Library

Management,38(4/5), 248-262. doi: 10.1108/LM-09-2016-0073.

Rao, Y.S. (2014). Intellectual Property Rights in India: Significance of Patents. Paper

presented in the National Conference SCIPR during 4-5 August 2014 at School of

Planning and Architecture, Vijayawada, 121-134.

Rochmyaningsih, D. (2 February 2017).The developing world needs more than numbers.

Nature, 542, 7.

Romary, Laurent (2012). Scholarly Communication.In Mehler, Alexander&Romary, Laurent

(Eds.)Handbook of Technical Communication (pp.379-402).

Rosenfeld, R. M. (2010). How to review journal manuscripts. Otolaryngology - Head and

Neck Surgery, 142(4), 472–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2010.02.010.

Royal Society. (2015). 350 years of scientific publishing. Accessed 13 December

2015.https://royalsociety.org/journals/publishing-activities/publishing350/

Samset, K. (2010), Early Project Appraisal: Making the Initial Choices, Palgrave MacMillan,

New York, NY.

Sawant, Sarika. (2012). Transformation of the scholarly communication cycle. Library Hi

Tech News, 29(10), 21-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/07419051211294482.

Science (2018). The Science Contributors FAQ.

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/faq/index.xhtml, Retrieved

14.08.2018

Seethapathy, G. S., Santhosh Kumar, J. U. & Hareesha, A. S. (10 December 2016). India’s

scientific publication in predatory journals: need for regulating quality of Indian

science and education. Current Science, 111(11), 1759-1764.

Sevkli, M., Oztekin, A., Uysal, O., Torlak, G., Turkyilmaz, A. and Delen, D. (2012),

Development of a fuzzy ANP-based SWOT analysis for the airline industry in

Turkey.Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 14-24.

67

Shackel, B. (1991).BLEND-9: Overview and appraisal. Boston Spa, England: British Library.

Shearer, K. & Birdsall, W. (2005). A researcher’s research agenda for scholarly

communication in Canada.New Review of Information Networking, 11(1), 99-108.

Shehata, A., Ellis, D. & Foster, A. (2015). Scholarly communication trends in the digital age:

Informal scholarly publishing and dissemination, a grounded theory approach. The

Electronic Library, 33(6),1150-1162. doi: 10.1108/EL-09-2014-0160

Shehata, A., Ellis, D. & Foster, A. (2017). Changing styles of informal academic

communication in the age of the web: Orthodox, moderate and heterodox

responses. Journal of Documentation, 73(5), 825-842. doi: 10.1108/JD-06-2016-

0083

Shen,C &Björk, B.C (2015). ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes

and market characteristics. BMC Med., 13, 230. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2

Sizo, A and et al. (2018). An overview of assessing the quality of peer review reports of

scientific articles. International Journal of Information Management, In press,

corrected proof, Available online 20 July 2018

Solomon,D. J. (16 Sept 2014). The impact of digital dissemination for research and

scholarship. Ecancermedicalscience. 8, ed44. doi:10.3332/ecancer.2014.ed44

Sullivan, (2013). The evolution of scholarly communication programs. In Isaac Gilman (Ed.),

Library Scholarly Communication Programs: Legal and Ethical Considerations(pp.

3-14)Oxford: Chandos Information Professional Series.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-717-0.50001-5

Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2005).Open access self-archiving: an author study. Cornwall:Key

Perspectives Limited.

Tandon, Rajiv (2014). How to review a scientific paper. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 11, 124-

127. Doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2014.08.007

Tenopir, C.,Volentine, R &King, D.W. (2013) "Social media and scholarly reading", Online

Information Review, 37 (2), 193-216.https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2012-0062.

Thomas, Sarah E. (2006) "Publishing solutions for contemporary scholars: the library as

innovator and partner", Library Hi Tech, 24(4),563-573.

https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610715428

Thompson, A. A., Strickland, A. J. & Gamble, J. E. (2007). Crafting and Executing Strategy-

Concepts and Cases, (15th Edition), USA: McGrawHill/Irwin.

Tuncay, Musa (2015): SWOT Analysis in Strategıc Management and a Sample Application

in Public. International Research Journal of York University, 2(3), 276-301.

UNESCO (2015). Scholarly Communication: open access for researchers. United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, France

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002319/231938e.pdf

Venkataraman, G. (1998) The spirit of a giant. Current Science

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/nov251998/articles38.htm

Ware, M. and Mabe, M. (2012), The STM Report: An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly

Journal Publishing, 3rd ed., STM International Association of Scientific, Technical

and Medical Publishers, The Hague.

68

Ware, Mark (2015).International Encyclopaedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences

(Second Edition)Journals, Scholarly, 862-868. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-

8.41037-8

Widen, G. (2010). New modes of scholarly communication: implicationsof Web 2.0 in the

context of research dissemination. In Dewey, Barbara (Ed.), Transforming Research

Libraries for the Global Knowledge Society (pp. 133-146), Oxford: Chandos

Publishing.

Wink, R. (2007). Creativity and openness: the interrelationships between outsourcing

knowledge business services and metropolitan regions. In P. Cooke & D. Schwartz

(Eds.),Creative regions: Technology, culture and knowledge entrepreneurship (pp.

260–279). London: Routledge.

Xia, J. (2017) Creation and Dissemination: How?. Scholarly Communication At the

Crossroads in China (pp. 33-62), Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

Zhuanga, E.Chenb, G &Fenga, G. (2011). A network model of knowledge accumulation

through diffusion and upgrade.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications.

390 (13),2582-2592.

Further Reading

Digital preservation: https://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/collection_dev/reports/lockssclockss-

portico.shtml

Fjallbrant, N. Scholarly communication - historical development and new possibilities.

Retrieved June 03, 2018 from

http://internet.unib.ktu.lt/physics/texts/schoolarly/scolcom.htm

http://www.portico.org/digital-preservation/services/preservation-approach

https://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/30/most-predatory-publishing-occurs-in-asia-africareport/

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/daniel_j_boorstin_162110?src=t_diffusion

ICMJE, 2015 http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/archives/2008_urm.pdf

Key Perspectives Ltd: Truro. Retrieved 12 December 2011 from

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Open%20Access%20Self%20Archivingan%

20author%20study.pdf

Manuel, Thomas (25.01.2017) https://thewire.in/102950/predatory-journals-ugc-research/