1 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

scholarly publishing:

process, tools, and metrics

Library Resources

Devon Olson, MLIS, AHIP,

Research & Education Librarian, School of Medicine and Health Sciences Library, UND

devon.olson.2@und.edu

Brittany Fischer, MLS

Social Sciences & Scholarly Communications Librarian, Chester Fritz Library, UND

brittany.fischer@und.edu

2 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Today

topics
How journals work	history
	legal structure
	activity - explore a journal's review process, licensing, and access model
	types of articles
Choosing a journal	activity – journal finder tools
	audience and scope
	metrics
	activity – journal evaluation

3 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Today

topics		learning outcomes
How journals work	history
	legal structure
	activity	Students will
	types of articles
Choosing a journal	activity	Students will
	audience and scope
	metrics
	activity	Students will be able to

4 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Today

topics		learning outcomes	documentation
How journals work	history	Students will explore a journal’s review process and licensing options	presentation slides
	legal structure
	activity		your own notes
	types of articles		presentation slides
Choosing a journal	activity	Students will utilize different tools to help identify journals	your own notes
	audience and scope		presentation slides
	metrics
	activity	Students will identify aspects of a quality journal	shared MS Word document

5 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Now, a brief history* of

Western Academic Publishing

*this history will be highly Eurocentric, mostly because academic publishing is also a very Western system

6 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

November 1660:�the western world’s first “learned society” was founded by royal charter by �King Charles II of England.

https://pictures.royalsociety.org/image-rs-9673

7 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

For 500 years intellectual societies published scientific articles.

https://pictures.royalsociety.org/image-rs-9673

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:American_Chemical_Society_logo.svg

American Chemical Society – chartered by US Congress -Established 1876

Royal Society of London -established 1660

rsai.ie

Royal Society of Antiqaries of Ireland -established 1849

Academia dei Segreti (The Academy of the Mysteries of Nature)-established 1560

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia_Secretorum_Naturae#/media/File:Giambattista_della_Porta.jpeg

Giambattista della Porta

Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (The Academy of Sciences Leopoldina) –established 1652

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Sciences_Leopoldina#/media/File:I_lipot.jpg

Leopold I of the Holy Roman Empire

8 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Peer review also evolved at this time

17^th century: Peer review has its roots in century book censorship

As learned societies emerged, so did an informal exchange of experimental reports and findings via the correspondence of gentlemen

19^th century: professionalization of science and growth of scholarly journals pushes formalization of peer review

Post WWII: modern peer review emerged as a response to “modern academic prestige economy based on the perception of quality or excellence surrounding journal-based publications” (Tennant 2017)

Nature did not initiate any sort of peer review process until at least 1967, only formalizing the process in 1973

Tennant 2017

9 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Different Models of Peer Review

Smith, Richard. “The Paradoxical Evolution of Peer Review”. July 20, 2018. https://www.mpip-initiative.org/transparencymatters/wtmtmblog.html#Peer_Review

Slide contens from Olson, Devon; Yousif, Zeineb; and Fischer, Brittany, "Peer Who? Introducing Peer Review and You" (2022). Librarian Posters and Presentations. 22.

https://commons.und.edu/cfl-lpp/22

10 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

And then in the 1900’s: buy-outs

"By W.H. Egleton, after K. Meadows." - Desmond A. 1989. The politics of evolution p108 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Wakley#/media/File:Thomas_Wakley72.jpg

The Lancet – established in 1823

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vol386no9989/PIIS0140-6736(15)X6150-2

Wakley, Thomas, 1795-1862 - https://ia600503.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/20/items/lancetmed1823wakl/lancetmed1823wakl_jp2.zip&file=lancetmed1823wakl_jp2/lancetmed1823wakl_0007.jp2&scale=4&rotate=0 https://archive.org/details/lancetmed1823wakl

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FElsevier&psig=AOvVaw1uzKyI1fFe-g6CtPmfdP9Q&ust=1603838344042000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCLCZ55iq0-wCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

Was bought by Elsevier in 1991

11 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

The internet did facilitate some piracy

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278792392_The_Value_of_Clinical_Laboratory_Sciences_Research

But it didn’t affect the publishing industry as expected

12 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

By 2013, just five for-profit publishing companies,

Reed Elsevier
Springer Science+Business Media
Wiley-Blackwell
Taylor&Francis
and Sage,

accounted for 50% of all articles published.

(Lariviere 2015)

13 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Speaking of money…

http://www.righttoresearch.org/learn/problem/index.shtml#Image_1

14 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Speaking of money…

The estimated monetary value of the time US-based reviewers spent on reviews was over 1.5 billion USD in 2020

Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., & Holcombe, A. O. (2021).

15 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

The Ingelfinger Rule:

In 1969, Franz Ingelfinger, editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, drew up a new rule for authors submitting to NEJM:

articles submitted could not be published anywhere else

Marshall 1998

NLM B015431

CC-BY 4.0 License Devon Olson, MLIS, AHIP

Why are journals so profitable?

16 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

https://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/authors/tl-info-for-authors.pdf

Why are journals so profitable?

17 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

1976: Copyright Act revised in Title 17 of the U.S. Code in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8

protects “fixed” expressions of ideas, and guarantees the creator exclusive rights to

reproduce
distribute
perform
display
and produce derivatives

of the work

18 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Diagram adapted from: ‘Copyright, Publisher Policies, and Authors Rights: An Introduction for ScholarlyCommons Student Interns. Kenny Whitebloom. University of Pennsylvania Libraries. <https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B5PBGPEYJd0xekt0Z3owNWhtSzg>

You own

Publisher owns

Submitted Version

Accepted Version

Published Version

Original Version

Peer-Review

Published Version

Slide contens from Olson, Devon; Yousif, Zeineb; and Fischer, Brittany, "Peer Who? Introducing Peer Review and You" (2022). Librarian Posters and Presentations. 22.

https://commons.und.edu/cfl-lpp/22

19 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Why are journals profitable?

Copyright law enables publishers to put articles behind paywalls
Ingelfinger rule means each journal has a monopoly on each article, and can charge whatever the market will bear

20 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

What about open access?

Open access journals

Authors pay “author publications charges” (APCs) rather than readers paying subscription fees

Creative commons licenses allow specific kinds of reuse

Most follow COPE guidelines

Most have peer review*

Traditional, paywalled journals

Readers or institutions pay subscription charges to read articles

21 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

What about open access?

APCs in traditionally paywalled journals are much higher than APCs in OA journals

VanNoorden 2013

22 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

You own

You own*

Submitted Version

Accepted Version

Published Version

Original Version

Peer-Review

Creative commons license application & Publisher Formatting

Published Version

Creative commons and your article

*usually

Slide contents from Olson, Devon; Yousif, Zeineb; and Fischer, Brittany, "Peer Who? Introducing Peer Review and You" (2022). Librarian Posters and Presentations. 22.

https://commons.und.edu/cfl-lpp/22

23 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

OA journal w/a CC-BY-NC-ND license

24 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

OA article w/a CC-NC-ND license

25 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Activity: explore a journal

What is its review process, licensing, and access model?

26 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

choosing a journal choosing an article type

Some journal formatting conventions may influence the type of research you do and the way you write it up

For example: scoping reviews

Is the PRISMA extension required?
Registration of your protocol? In a specific place?
Peer review of your database search phrases?

Image: https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/en/view-image.php?image=5761&picture=chicken-and-eggs

27 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Peer review isn’t the only formalized process

For systematic and scoping reviews, your search process needs to be based on a highly structured search phrase tailored to each database

For example, this search phrase created by the Canadian Health Libraries Association to retrieve articles on Indigenous peoples:

(Aborigin*[TIAB] OR Aleut*[TIAB] OR Amerind*[TIAB] OR autocht*[TIAB] OR Eskimo*[TIAB] OR indigenous[TIAB] OR Inuit*[TIAB] OR Innuit*[TIAB] OR Inuk[TIAB] OR Inuktitut-speaker*[TIAB] OR Inupiat*[TIAB] OR "First Nation"[TIAB] OR "First Nations"[TIAB] OR "First Peoples"[TIAB] OR Kalaallit*[TIAB] OR Metis[TIAB] OR Native[TIAB] OR Natives[TIAB] OR tribe[TIAB] OR tribes[TIAB] OR tribal[TIAB] OR Abenaki*[TIAB] OR Pima[TIAB] OR Pimas[TIAB] OR Navajo*[TIAB] OR Cherokee*[TIAB] OR Shawnee*[TIAB] OR Lakota[TIAB] OR Coushatta[TIAB] OR Tlingit*[TIAB] OR Arapaho*[TIAB] OR Assiniboine[TIAB] OR Beothuk[TIAB] OR Blackfeet[TIAB] OR Blackfoot[TIAB] OR Cabazon*[TIAB] OR Caddo*[TIAB] OR Chickasaw[TIAB] OR Chippewa[TIAB] OR Chitimacha*[TIAB] OR Choctaw*[TIAB] OR Cocopah*[TIAB] OR "Coeur D'alene"[TIAB] OR Comanche*[TIAB] OR Muscogee*[TIAB] OR Duwamish[TIAB] OR Elwha*[TIAB] OR Flathead*[TIAB] OR Goshute*[TIAB] OR Ho-Chunk*[TIAB] OR Hopi[TIAB] OR Hopis[TIAB] OR Hoopa*[TIAB] OR S'klallam[TIAB] OR Jatibonicu[TIAB] OR Jumano*[TIAB] OR Kalapuya*[TIAB] OR Kiowa*[TIAB] OR Kootenai*[TIAB] OR Lemhi*[TIAB] OR Shoshone*[TIAB] OR Makah*[TIAB] OR Pequot*[TIAB] OR Mechoopda*[TIAB] OR Menominee*[TIAB] OR Miccosukee*[TIAB] OR Mi'kmaq[TIAB] OR Mohegan*[TIAB] OR Muscogee*[TIAB] OR Navajo*[TIAB] OR "Nez Perce"[TIAB] OR "Nez Pierce"[TIAB] OR Oneida*[TIAB] OR Osage*[TIAB] OR Passamaquoddy[TIAB] OR Pawnee*[TIAB] OR "Pend D'oreille"[TIAB] OR Pomo[TIAB] OR Pomos[TIAB] OR Potawatomi*[TIAB] OR Pueblo*[TIAB] OR Quinault*[TIAB] OR Salish[TIAB] OR Saponi[TIAB] OR Saponis[TIAB] OR Seminole*[TIAB] OR Shawnee*[TIAB] OR Shoshone*[TIAB] OR Siletz[TIAB] OR Nakota[TIAB] OR S'klallam[TIAB] OR Suquamish[TIAB] OR Taino[TIAB] OR Tainos[TIAB] OR Tohono[TIAB] OR "O'Odham"[TIAB] OR Tunica-Biloxi[TIAB] OR Tunicas[TIAB] OR Umatilla*[TIAB] OR Umpqua*[TIAB] OR Waccamaw*[TIAB] OR Wampanoag*[TIAB] OR Washoe*[TIAB] OR Wiyot*[TIAB] OR Yakama*[TIAB] OR Ute[TIAB] OR Utes[TIAB] OR Apache*[TIAB] OR Cheyenne*[TIAB] OR Spokane[TIAB] OR Tuscarora[TIAB] OR Sioux[TIAB] OR (Indian*[TIAB] NOT (India[TIAB] OR China[TIAB] OR Chinese*[TIAB])) OR ((isolated[TI] OR remote[TI] OR "underserved medically"[TI] OR "under-served medically"[TI]) AND (area[TI] OR areas[TI] OR population*[TI] OR community[TI] OR communities[TI] OR group[TI] OR groups[TI] OR band[TI] OR bands[TI] OR reserve[TI] OR reserves[TI])))

28 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Peer review isn’t the only formalized process

For systematic and scoping reviews, there are tools available to systematize the review and coding processes

Rayyan
Covidence
(similar to nVivo)

Image of rayyan interface

29 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Peer review isn’t the only formalized process

For systematic and scoping reviews, transparent reporting requirements begin before you get writing

Open Science Framework
BioArxiv

Screenshot of OSF search results page

30 of 38

Identify Journals

Consider the articles you are reading--what journals are they published in?
Research on quality journals in your discipline

Journal finder tools: Ulrichsweb, Elsevier Journal Finder, Directory of Open Access Journals

Journal Impact Factor and other quality metrics
Time to publication
Acceptance rates
Article Processing Charge (APC) and other fees
Open Access options

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Slide contents from Fischer, Brittany and Yousif, Zeineb, “Publishing Strategies" (2023).

Brittany

Now that we’ve talked about the publishing process, we’re going to spend a little bit of time talking about what makes a quality journal and how you can identify journals to publish in. Ensuring you have met all your requirements is a great first step in the publishing process. For example, there may be some requirements from your funding agency on if you need to publish open access.

Once you have all the necessary information ready, you can start identifying key journals to submit to. One way to target key journals is to consider the journals that you’ve been citing in your own. This can give you a good idea of where your article fits in with the conversations that others are having in your discipline. You could also do some research on what the quality journals are in your discipline.

Journal finder tools like Ulrichsweb (a global serials director), Elsevier journal finder, and the directory of open access journals can be helpful tools in this process. The journal finder tools take the title of your article and abstract and tries to identify journals that match what you’ve entered. Keep in mind that they are vendor specific, so for example, the Elsevier journal finder tool is going to find only Elsevier journals. We’ll do a quick demonstration on how to use the Elsevier journal finder tool with an already published article so you can see how it works.

http://journalfinder.elsevier.com/

Bibilometrics Services and the Academic Library: Meeting the Emerging Needs of the Campus Community

The increasing importance of research assessment is but one factor within the ever-changing scholarly communication landscape that is challenging libraries to develop new services to serve the needs of their academic communities. Institutional budget allocations, grant funding, and faculty tenure and promotion increasingly depend on performance indicators, including bibliometrics such as citation counts, impact factors, the h-index, and other quantitative measurements of research output. With their longstanding expertise in collecting, categorizing, and analyzing data, not to mention their familiarity with scholarly databases and indexes tracking cited references, librarians are well qualified to meet the emerging demand for bibliometrics services.

Journal impact factor and other quatliy metrics can be used to identify a journal. You can also look at that authors that have published in the journals you’re considering and see how much of an impact they’ve had in your field and whether your research is of a similar level. Additionally, you may want to consider the time to publication. Each journal varies on how long it takes for a decision to be made and for how long it takes to publish the article. Keep in mind the acceptance rates of the journals you are looking at and also be mindful of Open Access options, Article Processing charges and other fees.

31 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Activity: journal-finder tools

Elsevier Journal Finder, Directory of Open Access Journals

Use these journal finder tools to identify journals that match your article or fit within your discipline

32 of 38

Quality journals

From Berger & Cirasella (2015), A journal must:

Be chiefly scholarly
Make content available without embargo (immediately)
Have an editor, editorial board and peer review structure (even better if this structure is transparent) for quality control
Have an ISSN (International Standard Serial Number)
Engage in transparency around article processing charges (APCs)

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Slide contents from Fischer, Brittany and Yousif, Zeineb, “Publishing Strategies" (2023).

Brittany

So, what makes a quality journal? A quality journal should be mainly scholarly. For open access journals, the journal should make content available without an embargo (it should have almost immediate access). It should have an editor, editorial board and peer-review structure for quality control. If the peer-review structure is transparent, that's also really good. It should also have an international standard serial number. As mentioned earlier some journals have an article processing charge, and quality journals should be transparent around this charge.

You can use thinkchecksubmit.org as a tool to help you with identifying trusted journals and publishers. The website provides checklists to help you make sure you choose a trusted journal for your research.

Berger, M., & Cirasella, J. (2015). Beyond Beall’s List: Better Understanding of Predatory Publishers. College & Research Libraries News, 76(3), 132-135.

Can use Ulrichsweb (ISSN) and Sherpa/RoMEO to find most of this info identified by Berger & Ciresella

ThinkCheckSubmit.org

Sharing research results with the world is key to the progress of your discipline and career. But with so many publications, how can you be sure you can trust a particular journal? Follow this check list to make sure you choose trusted journals for your research.

33 of 38

Assessing Journals

What is the journal’s funding model? Does it incentivize a lack of rigor?
What is the journal’s review method? Is there a clear editorial board for the specific journal?
Do they have a simple method for tracking retractions?
Where is it indexed? If it’s an open access journal is it listed in the DOAJ?
How frequently do they publish? Do they maintain a consistent publishing schedule?

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Slide contents from Fischer, Brittany and Yousif, Zeineb, “Publishing Strategies" (2023).

Brittany

Now that you know what a quality journal looks like, let's look at the practical details of how you can assess that for yourself.

Show of hands and comments: How many of you have heard of the term predatory publishing? (Wait for responses)

The problem of ‘predatory publishing’ has received a lot of attention in the research community. There’s concern that things like author publishing fees incentivize the creation of low quality journals created to profit off money from researchers. While this can be an issue, problems of low academic rigor persist across academia regardless of the journal’s funding models. Whether you choose to publish in a traditional journal or an open access journal, you’ll want to assess the quality of any publication you consider. Here are some questions to consider:

What is the journal’s funding model? Does it incentivize a lack of rigor?
What is the journal’s review method? Is there a clear editorial board for the specific journal?
Do they have a simple method for tracking retractions?
Where is it indexed? If it’s an open access journal is it listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)?
How frequently do they publish? Do they maintain a consistent publishing schedule?

34 of 38

Activity:

Evaluate these journals:

BEST Journals
Frontiers in Global Women’s Health
Medical Research Archives
International Journal of Environmental Research in Public Health

2. Type your responses in the chat:

What are some markers of quality?
What might lead you to have some concerns about a journal?

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

35 of 38

Author’s Rights

What is the publisher’s copyright transfer agreement?
Do they let you post your work on your institutional repository or other sites? Which version does the publisher let you post?
You don’t have to give up your copyright!
Creative Commons licenses provide more options

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Slide contents from Fischer, Brittany and Yousif, Zeineb, “Publishing Strategies" (2023).

After you’ve had your article selected for submission, I would suggest you look closely at the publishing agreement the journal sends you. Many traditional publishers will request you transfer your copyright over to them in what's called a copyright transfer agreement. Take a few minutes to think about whether there's particular rights you want to retain with your journal article. Do you want to make sure you're able to give copies of it to students in a class you might teach in the future? Do you want to deposit a copy of your manuscript in your institutional repository to make sure the public can at least access a version of your work? While this is harder to do with an online submission form, you don’t have to agree to everything put before you in your publishing agreement - you can cross things off or add your own wording. Maybe you want to look into using a Creative Commons licenses which are a type of licenses that ensure you keep your copyright while permitting specific reuse cases. Think of your publishing agreement as similar to a job contract – you're probably really excited to get it but pay attention to the terms they're offering and negotiate if you're not satisfied with them.

36 of 38

Research Metrics

How do you tell the story of your research?

Journal –

Impact Factor (importance of a journal measured by the number of times its' published articles are cited)

Author –

H-index (based on citation counts)

Article/Item

Citation counts

altmetrics / web metrics

Alternative + Metrics = Altmetrics

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Slide contents from Fischer, Brittany and Yousif, Zeineb, “Publishing Strategies" (2023).

Brittany

A publishing plan doesn’t just include deciding where to publish, but what to do after you're published. How do you show your impact as a researcher? How do you market your work? Research metrics sort of tell the story of your research.

They can be a useful way to show the impact that you’ve done in your field, and they are an evaluation of research products, often articles, but can be other output such as books, datasets, theses, and more…

Impact metrics are...

Quantified and presented in a variety of ways depending upon the tool used, the publisher of that tool, and the method of calculation employed;
Part of a complex, and somewhat subjective system;
Incorporated into various tools, websites, and databases;
Used to support Publishing strategies, Promotion & Tenure (P&T). and other institutional competitive decision-making including hiring new faculty and attracting students as well as increasing profile of university in quality lists.

There are three “traditional” metrics that are used to measure impact and the three are journal level metrics (which is measured by impact factor and this is the importance of a journal measured by the number of times it’s published articles are cited), Author, and Article level metrics.

Another way to measure impact is with Altmetrics. Altmetrics are used to measure impact beyond citation counts and it began as an online academic lead discussion on impact via social media and the need for greater focus on article level metrics that follow the ways articles are being shared beyond citation counts.

37 of 38

Communicating Your Research

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Video from Open Science MOOC: libguides.und.edu/researcher-profiles

Start thinking about how you will present yourself as a researcher and how you will collocate your citations.

Research impact and visibility, and being noted as a respected researcher, are strongly tied to self-promotion and self-marketing.

Slide contents from Fischer, Brittany and Yousif, Zeineb, “Publishing Strategies" (2023).

Brittany

As I said, a publishing plan doesn’t just include where to publish, but what to do after you're published. Think about the story you want to tell about yourself as a researcher. What do you want to be known for? Do you want to be known as being passionate about open science, research transparency, or the impact your research has on society? How do you make your work visible to your communities of practice? It comes down to making an effort to brand yourself as a certain type of researcher and picking relevant venues and platforms to put your researcher profile on, which can lead to higher visibility, impact, and credibility.

On the right side of the screen we’ve included links to four different tools that can help you craft your answer to these questions.

1. An important prerequisite for marketing your research is making sure its correctly attributed to you. ORCID is a persistent identifier for you and your research; making sure your work isn’t accidentally attributed to another researcher who shares your names

2. ImpactStory - A place to document how your research has been shared and re-used online. Essentially it’s a place to collect some of those altmetrics Brittany mentioned -- tracking whether your research is being shared on Twitter, Facebook, or cited through news outlets.

3. Publons - A place to document your peer review activities. For those of you planning to continue working in academia, peer review opportunities will probably start coming in sooner than you think -- after publishing a few articles you may start getting requests to serve on peer review boards. While peer review is unpaid it gives you the opportunity to learn about research developments in your discipline early on and will help you get to know your disciplinary colleagues. That could turn into opportunities for collaboration and depending on where you work, may count for service when you’re looking to start building a tenure & promotion package. Publons is helpful because it offers free training on how to do peer review and ensures you receive credit for your work. There are other peer review platforms out there but this is one of the most established one so far.

4. Open Science Framework - A place to openly collaborate on your research. It hosts several preprint servers (one for engineering, engrXiv, one that covers social sciences, SocArXiv, and one for psychology, PsyArXiv) and tools for pre-registering hypotheses. It integrates with a number of discovery, reference, and storage resources.

What these tools have in common is they allow you to take credit for your research, promote it, and better familiarize yourself with the disciplinary communities you want to be known in. The link at the bottom of this slide is to a 20 minute video that explains how to use them in more detail and I would encourage you to take some time to watch it if any of them sound like they could be useful to you.

38 of 38

CC-BY 4.0 License, Devon Olson & Brittany Fischer

Sources

Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., & Holcombe, A. O. (2021). A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2

Fyfe, A., Coate, K., Curry, S., Lawson, S., Moxham, N., & Røstvik, C. M. (2017). Untangling Academic Publishing: A history of the relationship between commercial interests, academic prestige and the circulation of research. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.546100

Larivière, V., Haustein, S., Mongeon, P.. 2015. The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLOS. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

New York. Retrieved 2010-12-19

Marshall, E. (1998). Franz Ingelfinger's Legacy Shaped Biology Publishing. Science, 282(5390), 861. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5390.861

Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y., B. Collister, L., Pikas, C. K., Crick, T., Masuzzo, P., Caravaggi, A., Berg, D. R., Niemeyer, K. E., Ross-Hellauer, T., Mannheimer, S., Rigling, L., Katz, D. S., Greshake Tzovaras, B., … Colomb, J. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6, 1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3

Toy, J. (2002). Ingelfinger rule. Science Editor, 25(6), 195 https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/v25n6p195-198.pdf

Van Noorden, R. (2013). Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature, 495(7442), 426–429. https://doi.org/10.1038/495426a