Publication History: A Double-DOI-Based Method for Storing and/or Monitoring Information about Published and Corrected Academic Literature

Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A. and Nazarovets, Serhii Publication History: A Double-DOI-Based Method for Storing and/or Monitoring Information about Published and Corrected Academic Literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 2022, vol. 53, n. 2, pp. 85-108. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of Teixeira da Silva2021-preprint.pdf]
Preview
 Text
Teixeira da Silva2021-preprint.pdf - Accepted version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (251kB) | Preview
Alternative locations: https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2017-0017

English abstract

The status of published literature can change at any time in its history following publication, although current existing structures in academic publishing, despite the existence of some robust tools – such as the digital object identifier (DOI) – to record those changes, appear to be insufficiently robust, or their use is inconsistent or inefficient, to deal with multiple corrections of the literature. In this paper, an information storage method and corrective measure or tool is proposed – the “publication history” – that considers the full history and background of a paper’s publication record. The “publication history” is adjusted to record changes to a paper over time, and is thus a “live” document, i.e., always open to modification and updating. In theory, the “publication history” would accommodate, in a single document (PDF and HTML formats), information about pre-publication (e.g., preprints) and post-publication events, including submission, resubmission, acceptance dates, handling editors, peer review format, corrections, expressions of concern and retractions. The “publication history” employs two DOIs, one for the paper and one for any and all edits, to document these changes. Our proposal offers one possible solution to fortify the integrity of peer review and the publication process pre- and post-peer review. The double DOI-based “publication history” can be applied to any document.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: DDPH (double-DOI-based ‘publication history’); open access; open peer review; post-publication peer review; predatory publishing; preprint; retraction
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BF. Information policy
I. Information treatment for information services > IF. Information transfer: protocols, formats, techniques.
Depositing user: Serhii Nazarovets
Date deposited: 09 Mar 2023 13:39
Last modified: 09 Mar 2023 13:39
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/42883

References

Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C.A. (2011). Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics 87(3): 499-514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0352-7

Alves, T. (2020). Manuscript exchange common approach: Why we need it, what is it, and what’s next? Science Editor 43(4), 109-112. https://doi.org/10.36591/SE-D-4304-109

Bellini, E. (2019). A blockchain based trusted persistent identifier system for big data in science. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 44(4): 351–377. https://doi.org/10.2478/fcds-2019-0018

Birukou, A.A., Skalaban, A.B. (2020). Technical aspects of publication in several languages – how to link digital object identifiers (DOIs). Science Editor and Publisher 5(1): 29–39 (in Russian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2020-1-29-39

Blachowicz, J. (1995). Elimination, correction and Popper's evolutionary epistemology. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9(1): 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698599508573503

Bordignon, F. (2020). Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review. Scientometrics 124(2), 1225–1239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03536-z

Boudry, C., Chartron, G. (2017). Availability of digital object identifiers in publications archived by PubMed. Scientometrics 110(3): 1453–1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2225-6

Cabanac, G., Labbé, C. (2021). Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature. Learned Publishing 72(12): 1461–1476. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24495

Cabanac, G., Oikonomidi, T., Boutron, I. (2021). Day-to-day discovery of preprint-publication links. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5285–5304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03900-7

Campos-Varela, I., Villaverde-Castañeda, R., Ruano-Raviña, A. (2020). Retraction of publications: a study of biomedical journals retracting publications based on impact factor and journal category. Gaceta Sanitaria, 34(5), 430-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2019.05.008

Couldry, N., Hepp, A. (2016). The Mediated Construction of Reality. Cambridge: Polity Press.

de Vries, K. (2020). You never fake alone. Creative AI in action. Information, Communication & Society 23(14): 2110-2127. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1754877

DeRisi, S., Kennison, R., Twyman, N. (2003). The what and why's of DOIs. PLoS Biology 1(2): E57. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0000057

Di Cosmo, R., Gruenpeter, M., Zacchiroli, S. (2020). Referencing source code artifacts: a separate concern in software citation. Computing in Science & Engineering 22(2): 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2019.2963148

Forstmeier, W., Wagenmakers, E.J., Parker, T.H. (2017). Detecting and avoiding likely false-positive findings - a practical guide. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 92(4): 1941–1968. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12315

Greshake B. (2017). Looking into Pandora's Box: The content of Sci-Hub and its usage. F1000Research 6: 541. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11366.1

Hardwicke, T.E., Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2019). Petitions in scientific argumentation: Dissecting the request to retire statistical significance. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 49(10): e13162. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13162

Hauschke, C., Nazarovets, S., Altemeier, F., Kaliuzhna, N. (2021). Roadmap to FAIR research information in open infrastructures. Journal of Library Metadata (in press). https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2021.1999156

Hendricks, G., Tkaczyk, D., Lin, J., Feeney, P. (2020). Crossref: The sustainable source of community-owned scholarly metadata. Quantitative Science Studies 1(1): 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00022

Hillary, F.G., Medaglia, J.D. (2020). What the replication crisis means for intervention science. International Journal of Psychophysiology 154: 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2019.05.006

Hotez, P.J. (2020). Anti-science extremism in America: escalating and globalizing. Microbes and Infection 22(10): 505-507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2020.09.005

Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2(8): e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems (2021). Retraction notice regarding several articles published in the Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 41(5), 5769–5772. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-219218

Katz, D.S., Hong, N.P.C., Clark, T., Fenner, M., Martone, M.E. (2020). Software and data citation. Computing in Science & Engineering 22(2): 4-7. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2020.2969730

Krell, F-T. (2015). A mixed bag: when are early online publications available for nomenclatural purposes? The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 72(1): 19-32. https://doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v72i1.a14

Kosmarski, A., Gordiychuk, N. (2020). Token‐curated registry in a scholarly journal: Can blockchain support journal communities? Learned Publishing, 33(3), 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1302

Lammey, R. (2020). Crossref at 20 years: what do the community need? Science Editing 7(2): 125–129. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.206

Lee, D.J., Stvilia, B. (2014). Developing a data identifier taxonomy. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 52(3), 303–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2014.880166

Liang, L., Zhong, Z., Rousseau, R. (2015). Uncited papers, uncited authors and uncited topics: A case study in library and information science. Journal of Informetrics 9(1): 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.001

Mayernik, M.S., Maull, K.E. (2017). Assessing the uptake of persistent identifiers by research infrastructure users. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0175418. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175418

Mehra, M.R., Desai, S.S., Ruschitzka, F., Patel, A.N. (2020b). Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. The Lancet https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6; erratum https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31249-6; expression of concern https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31290-3; retraction https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31324-6

Millar, N., Budgell, B., Salager-Meyer, F. (2020). Hype in reports of clinical research: The authors' perspectives. English for Specific Purposes, 60, 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.07.001

Morgan, C. (2008). Journal article version nomenclature: the NISO/ALPSP recommendations. Learned Publishing 21(4): 273–277. http://doi.org/10.1087/095315108x356699

Paskin, N. (2005). Digital Object Identifiers for scientific data. Data Science Journal 4: 12–20. https://doi.org/10.2481/dsj.4.12

Peroni, S., Shotton, D. (2020). OpenCitations, an infrastructure organization for open scholarship. Quantitative Science Studies 1(1): 428–444. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00023

Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge Classics

Roemer R.C., Borchardt, R. (2015). Altmetrics and the role of librarians. Library Technology Reports 51(5): 31-37. https://doi.org/10.5860/ltr.51n5

Schneider, J. Avissar-Whiting, M., Bakker, C., Heckner, H., Massip, S., Townsend, R., Woods, N. D. (2021). Addressing disorder in scholarly communication: strategies from NISO 2021. Information Services & Use, (in press). https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-210113

Shashok, K., Matarese, V. (2018). Post-publication peer review in biomedical journals: overcoming obstacles and disincentives to knowledge sharing. Roars Transactions 6(1): 10125. http://doi.org/10.13130/2282-5398/10125

Siler, K. (2020). Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(11), 1386-1401. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24339

Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2016) Silent or stealth retractions, the dangerous voices of the unknown, deleted literature. Publishing Research Quarterly 32(1): 44-53. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-015-9439-y

Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2020a). Evolution in the correction of the literature: preprints, manuscript versioning, error amendment, and retract and replace. Preprints.org (preprint, not peer reviewed) http://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201708.0029.v2

Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2020b). Suggestions for fortifying the discoverability of papers published in European Science Editing. European Science Editing 46: e57377. http://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e57377

Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2021). Reference rot degrades information preservation and induces the loss of intellectual integrity. Epistēmēs Metron Logos 6: 1-6. http://doi.org/10.12681/eml.25792

Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2022). Two disturbing trends about expressions of concern. Medical Journal Armed Forces India (in press) http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.12.004

Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Al-Khatib, A. (2021). Ending the retraction stigma: encouraging the reporting of errors in the biomedical record. Research Ethics 17(2): 251-259. http://doi.org/10.1177/1747016118802970

Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Al-Khatib, A., Dobránszki, J. (2017). Fortifying the corrective nature of post-publication peer review: identifying weakness, use of journal clubs, and rewarding conscientious behavior. Science and Engineering Ethics 23(4): 1213-1226. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9854-2

Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Bornemann-Cimenti, H. (2017). Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited? Scientometrics 110(1): 365-370. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2178-9

Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Dobránszki, J. (2015). Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research 22(1): 22-40. http://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.899909

Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Dobránszki, J., Tsigaris, P., Al-Khatib, A. (2019) Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: An assessment. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45(6): 102071. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102071

van Rossum, J. (2018). The blockchain and its potential for science and academic publishing. Information Services and Use 38(1–2): 95–98. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-180003

Vergoulis, T., Kanellos, I., Chatzopoulos, S., Karidi, D. P., Dalamagas, T. (2021a). BIP4COVID19: Impact metrics and indicators for coronavirus related publications (Version 70) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5759169

Vergoulis, T., Kanellos, I., Chatzopoulos, S., Karidi, D. P., Dalamagas, T. (2021b). BIP4COVID19: Releasing impact measures for articles relevant to COVID-19. bioRxiv (preprint, not peer reviewed, version 4) https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.11.037093

Vergoulis, T., Kanellos, I., Chatzopoulos, S., Karidi, D. P., Dalamagas, T. (2021c). BIP4COVID19: Releasing impact measures for articles relevant to COVID-19. Quantitative Science Studies (in press) https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00169

Vuong, Q-H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature 582(7811): 149. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x

Wang, J. (2007). Digital Object Identifiers and their use in libraries. Serials Review 33(3): 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2007.10765116

Wang, W., Deng, L., You, B., Zhang, P., Chen, Y. (2017). Digital object identifier and its use in core Chinese academic journals: A Chinese perspective. Learned Publishing 31(2): 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1137

Wang, Y., Zhao, L. (2021). Blockchain for scholarly journal evaluation: Potential and prospects. Learned Publishing, 34(4), 682–687. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1408

Whelan, A. (2015). Academic critique of neoliberal academia. Sites 12(1): 130-152. http://dx.doi.org/nd.nnnu2/sites-volnoissni

Wilkinson, M., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. et al. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data 3: 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18

Williams, M. (2015). Situated objectivity, values and realism. European Journal of Social Theory 18(1): 76-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431014549681


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS