Publications

196 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Apprenticeship in Scholarly Publishing: A Student Perspective on Doctoral Supervisors’ Roles

by Jun Lei and Guangwei Hu

Publications 2015, 3(1), 27-42; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications3010027 - 13 Feb 2015

Cited by 26 | Viewed by 8088

Although a large body of literature has suggested that doctoral supervisors play an important role in their students’ attempts at scholarly publishing, few studies have focused specifically on what roles they play. This study sought to address this gap by zooming in on [...] Read more.

Although a large body of literature has suggested that doctoral supervisors play an important role in their students’ attempts at scholarly publishing, few studies have focused specifically on what roles they play. This study sought to address this gap by zooming in on the various roles a group of Chinese doctoral students found their supervisors playing in their scholarly publishing endeavors. Our analysis revealed four important roles played by the supervisors: ‘prey’ searchers, managers, manuscript correctors and masters. The results showed that the supervisors not only facilitated the doctoral students’ publishing output, but also fostered their apprenticeship in scholarly publishing and the academic community. However, the results also unveiled a general unavailability of sorely-needed detailed and specific guidance on students’ early publishing attempts and some supervisors’ limited ability to correct students’ English manuscripts. These findings underscore the important contributions doctoral supervisors can make to their students’ academic socialization. They also suggest a need for external editorial assistance with doctoral students’ English manuscripts and ample opportunities for their scaffolded initiation into the tacit conventions and practices of scholarly publishing. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Research and Writing Processes before Publication: From The Researchers’ Perspective)

357 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Persistent Citation of the Only Published Randomised Controlled Trial of Omega-3 Supplementation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Six Years after Its Retraction

by Ashley S. Fulton, Alison M. Coates, Marie T. Williams, Peter R.C. Howe and Alison M. Hill

Publications 2015, 3(1), 17-26; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications3010017 - 11 Feb 2015

Cited by 7 | Viewed by 10753 | Correction

Abstract

Scientific articles are retracted infrequently, yet have the potential to influence the scientific literature for years. The only randomised controlled trial to explore the effects of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was retracted in 2008 due to [...] Read more.

Scientific articles are retracted infrequently, yet have the potential to influence the scientific literature for years. The only randomised controlled trial to explore the effects of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was retracted in 2008 due to falsified data. The objective of this research was to determine the frequency and nature of citations of this retracted paper. Web of Science and Google Scholar were used to determine the number of times the retracted article was cited. Citations were classified as either “retraction acknowledged” or “retraction not acknowledged”. The search was conducted on 6 August 2013 and updated on 25 March 2014. Results: The search resulted in 76 citations, of which 24 occurred prior to the retraction of the article. Of the 52 citations occurring after the retraction, only two acknowledged the retraction. Of the citations not acknowledging the retraction, 20 referred to specific data and 30 cited the reference in passing. This retracted article continues to be cited by authors, suggesting that information about the retraction was unsuccessfully communicated to the scientific community. Continual citation of retracted literature has the potential to bias a field of research and potentially misinform end-users. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

386 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Open Access Article Processing Charges: DOAJ Survey May 2014

by Heather Morrison, Jihane Salhab, Alexis Calvé-Genest and Tony Horava

Publications 2015, 3(1), 1-16; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications3010001 - 05 Feb 2015

Cited by 49 | Viewed by 38950

Abstract

As of May 2014, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) listed close to ten thousand fully open access, peer reviewed, scholarly journals. Most of these journals do not charge article processing charges (APCs). This article reports the results of a survey of [...] Read more.

As of May 2014, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) listed close to ten thousand fully open access, peer reviewed, scholarly journals. Most of these journals do not charge article processing charges (APCs). This article reports the results of a survey of the 2567 journals, or 26% of journals listed in DOAJ, that do have APCs based on a sample of 1432 of these journals. Results indicate a volatile sector that would make future APCs difficult to predict for budgeting purposes. DOAJ and publisher title lists often did not closely match. A number of journals were found on examination not to have APCs. A wide range of publication costs was found for every publisher type. The average (mean) APC of $964 contrasts with a mode of $0. At least 61% of publishers using APCs are commercial in nature, while many publishers are of unknown types. The vast majority of journals charging APCs (80%) were found to offer one or more variations on pricing, such as discounts for authors from mid to low income countries, differential pricing based on article type, institutional or society membership, and/or optional charges for extras such as English language editing services or fast track of articles. The complexity and volatility of this publishing landscape is discussed. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Beyond Literature: A Scholarly Infrastructure for Text, Data and Software)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Publications, Volume 3, Issue 1 (March 2015) – 3 articles , Pages 1-42

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI