|What Are The Alternatives To Peer Review? Quality Control in Scholarly Publishing on the Web. Journal of Electronic Publishing. 2002;8.||
In this article William Y. Arms discusses the state and practices of information review on the web. Arms asserts that while there is a lot of unreliable, sloppy, and simply terrible information on the Internet, there is also a lot of quality research - and the distinction between the two is not always as apparent as you would think. Arms focuses on the status of peer review. Arms argues that the varying degrees of peer review place resources on a spectrum of quality instead of decidedly categorizing these sources as the best of the best. In our quest as researchers to seek "Internet gold", it is paramount that we considering looking outside of the peer review framework to come in contact with some superior resources subject to other reviewing systems. Arms suggests that we look for resources where the publisher is the creator, where there is great editorial control, and where reputations are highly regarded.
|The rapid evolution of scholarly communication. Learned Publishing. 2002;15:7-19.||
In this article, Andrew Odlyzko discusses the state of scholarly communication both in print and online. Odlyzko argues that the scholarly information system is flawed because it doesn't provide the services wanted by its users. Odlyzko makes six claims main that he then attempts to evidence in the remainder of his article: online use is growing, online use will continue to grow, peer review is overrated, concern about web chaos is exaggerated, ease of access to information is extremely important, there are other forms of scholarly communication besides journals. Odlyzko defines online publishing as a "disruptive technology" because it initially underperforms other affiliated options but offers new applications to users and continues to improve. Odlyzko argues that print will eventually become irrelevant and will be replaced with digital publications. However, this will be a slow change.
|Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 2005;36:2-72.||
In this article, Borgman and Furner examine the effects of digital scholarship on bibliometrics. Borgman and Furner assert that "scholarly communication is being transformed through the use of [...] information technologies". Bergman and Furner argue that bibiometrics has risen in popularity as citation analysis, econometrics, social network analysis, and quantitative approaches have gained popularity. What is less clear, however, is have these changes in technology altered human behaviour? This article endeavours to seek out how "the communicative activity of scholars" has transformed with the rise of the digital and how bibliometrics methodologies may be altered and used to support these changes. They found that evaluative bibliometrics continues to receive the most attention. The "most promising developments are new theories of citation-related behavior." Overall, Borgman and Furner report that "trends in scholarly communication and bibliometrics reflect larger trends in social science and technology research."
|Defrosting the Digital Library: Bibliographic Tools for the Next Generation Web. PLoS Computational Biology. 2008;4.||
In this article, Hull, Pettifer, and Kell hone in on the challenges facing digital libraries. Specifically, they argue that the separation of data and metadata in the digital library structures prevents scholars from accessing all the information they need in a single action. Additionally, current digital libraries assign multiple URIs and well as DOIs to their resources, making its confusing to track down a single item within a massivee database. In order to rectify these problemts, Hull, Pettifer, and Kell propose using tools, like Zotero, that reunite data and metadata. As well, they suggest that digital libraries move to using simple, persistent URIs in order to eliminate the current issue of multiple identities.
|Peer‐to‐peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Authority. Social Epistemology. 2010;24:161-179.||
In this article, Kathleen Fitzpatrick explores shifts in peer review practices as publishing goes digital. Fitzpatrick controversially argues that digital peer review and publishing practices should not be echoes of our current print framework. Instead, she asserts that scholars should take advantage of the shifting authority and real-world practices of the digital medium to change peer review for the better. Fitzpatrick discusses alternative models such as pre-print review and open review platforms. She argues that the central motivation behind peer review - that one's work should be evaluated by one's peers - is a good one but that the development and maintenance of a reliable online community is essential for the carrying out of this practice.
|Beyond Metrics: Community Authorization and Open Peer Review. In: Gold MK, editor. Debates in the Digital Humanities. U of Minnesota Press; 2012. 4. p. 452-459p.||
In this article, Kathleen Fitzpatrick investigates the future of peer review as scholarship transitions from the age of print to the digital realm. Fitzpatrick argues that current peer review practices are designed to interact with print scholarship and are, therefore, in some cases, ill suited for providing feedback on digital publications. Fitzpatrick acknowledges that peer review as a concept cannot be forgotten, as it remains the gold standard for academic publications and can ease the academic’s uncertainty over the “promiscuity” of the online publishing world. Fitzpatrick goes on to discuss the benefits and challenges of revitalized models of peer review such as “our-crowd” sourcing and the publish-then-filter model.
|Scholarly publishing, peer review and the Internet. First Monday. 1999;4.||
In this article, Peter Roberts discusses the changing practices of publication and peer review since the advent of the Internet. As a living, borderless, moving space, the Internet - Roberts argues - prevents many potential benefits for the academic discipline. Roberts uses the example of email to illustrate how easy and instantaneous long distance communication has become. Roberts asserts that this same speed could help to alleviate some of the issues present in academic publication and peer review. While print publications can take 1-3, Roberts believes that the Internet can offer a faster solution. Roberts continues by introducing and discussing several alternative models of peer review that are also possible because of the Web Wide Web. He argues that we should take advantage of these new platforms without forgetting the objectives of our current, less-digital models.
|Open Access. Journal of Library Administration. 2005;42:107-124.||
In this article, Richard Johnson explores the challenges and benefits of open access publishing. Johnson argues that open access is the best way to “maximize societal benefits of our research investment.” Currently, the problem with journal publications is that they are too expensive and this is forcing universities to cancel or reduce their subscriptions. Johnson argues that the cost effective nature of digital publication lessens this issue. Open access digital journals scale in terms of production, distribution, storage, and usage argues Johnson; however, they are not a business model. Johnson concludes by asserting that we must shift our questioning of open access from “why should we have it” to “how should we implement it.”
|Archaeology, e-publication and the Semantic Web. Antiquity. 2006;80:970-979.||
In this article, Richards explores the potential of the Semantic Web for archaeological scholarship. He begins by discussing the design of the web as an only human readable structure. However, despite the web’s current structure, Richards argues that there is a lot of potential for the web to support scholarship through sustainable publishing and the rise of e-Journals. Richards suggests that theories of the Semantic Web be put into practice by using XML to identify and tag archaeological resources. As a first step, Richards urges for the development of ontologies to categorize the literature.
|The Nine Flavours of Open Access Scholarly Publishing. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine. 2003;49:263.||
John Willinsky opens this essay by discussing the rise of electronic textual materials. Focusing first on electronic journals and then on eBooks, Willinsky argues that these manifestations of text serve their audiences well because of their ease of access. However, Willinsky notes that this access is not free. In fact, he emphasizes that most online journal publishers have implemented a subscription system that regulates access and keeps the journal's economy afloat. For those journals that have retained open-access, alternative economic models have been employed to ensure the journal's success. Willinsky recounts these nine "flavours" of successful open access journals - ranging from delayed free access to author-fee formats.
|The convergence of digital libraries and the peer-review process. Journal of Information Science. 2006;32:149-159.||
This article discusses alternative peer review models for pre-print materials and publications. The article begins by asserting how fundamental the process of peer review is to academic knowledge production and circulation. The authors also identify the four key players in academic peer review: author, editor, publisher, and reviewer. This article looks at various models of peer review such as staged review, interactive review, and journal banks. The final alternate review model that is proposed uses authorship networks and metadata records to identify, rank, and organize reviewers for publications. This repository model of peer review promotes community feedback.
|Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 2013;44:311-326.||
This article presents a literature review of articles across scholarly disciplines that discuss open peer review practices. Ford argues that technological innovation has changed the landscape of scholarly publishing by introducing digital venues. Specifically, peer review practices have been influenced by this progression of the digital. Ford examines 35 articles all focused on peer review: 15 articles published in the sciences, 14 articles categorized as interdisciplinary, and 7 articles published in the humanities/social sciences. Ford argues that while, unsurprisingly, open peer review has yet to be defined, it is characterized by openness, unmasked identities, and transparency. Ford submits that overall the biggest benefits of open peer review are efficiency/speed and creating a community of practice. On the other hand, challenges of abuse and accountability temper the usefulness of open peer review.
|Electronic publishing of professional articles: Attitudes of academics and implications for the scholarly communication industry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1994;45:73-100.||
This article strives to provide an answer to this query, "what contribution, if any, can the publishing of professional articles join electronic affirm make to scholarly and research communication?" Schauder argues that academic article publication is fundamental to Western scholarship. Schauder sees two competing philosophies at play in electronic, academic publishing: (a) the belief that articles should be free and available as part of an academic, economic commons and (b) that articles are part of the prestige and competition of academic and should therefore be subject to regulated distribution. Schauder provides suggestions for the facilitation of both ideologies as well as general recommendations from his survey on the future of electronic publishing.