Publikationswesen

Mandatory Open Acess nimmt zu – Getrübte Freude

by  • 

Open Access News berichtete am 27.8.: „The Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology (JBB) is converting to open access, effective immediately. Quoting from yesterday’s press release: „JBB will adopt a mandatory open access model whereby authors will be required to pay an article processing charge of $495 for any article published in JBB. The journal will continue to have both an online (which is now freely available with no subscription or registration barriers) and print editions.“ Ich kann mich diesem freudigen Unterton in den News nicht so recht anschliessen. Natürlich werden immer mehr Verlage auf mandatory open access umsteigen! Aber doch nicht aus purer Menschenfreundlichkeit, sondern weil es momentan gut ankommt, sich nicht gegen Open Access zu stellen. Und nebenbei – siehe Springer, siehe OUP – gibt es auch die Chance auf höhere Profite!

Literatursuche

RDR- New Method of Evaluating Scientific Journals

by  • 

In a press release, CAS Science spotlight ratings show journals‘ significance for scientists. Real-Time Document Requests (RDR) for full-text articles transmitted via CAS search services sollen eine bessere Evaluierung von Zeitschriftenartikeln ermöglichen. Gleichzeitig wird ein (kostenfreier) Zitationstool angeboten: The Medical Sciences category identifies the most highly cited medical science documents appearing in the 1999-2003 published literature and appearing in journals covered by CAS. Leider werden nur die obersten 10 Journale angezeigt, von daher ist die folgende CAS-Aussage irreführend: Visitors […] can compare the „Most Cited“ articles of 2003 versus the „Most Requested“ articles of 2003. Typically, there is little if any correlation between the two lists – possibly indicating authors sometimes cite articles mainly because they have been cited by other researchers. aus STLQ

Bibliotheken

„The library is indeed doing its job“

by  • 

Das folgende Paper untersucht die Nutzung elektronischer und gedruckter Ressourcen an 4 Academic Health Sciences Libraries in den USA: B.Franklin & T.Plum: „Library usage patterns in the electronic information environment“ In: Information Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, July 2004. Eine von mehreren interessanten Resultaten/Empfehlungen dieser Studie: Further, many libraries are re-inventing their library as a place to attract grant funded researchers and scientists into the library. It may be felt that the lack of researchers or grant-funded scientists physically present in the library is a result of dissatisfaction with or disinterest in library services. The data presented here support the notion that the library is indeed doing its job, and delivering resources electronically to its patrons, even though they do not come into the library. To reach funded researchers, the library should offer more electronic services in a virtual library, and not worry about their lack of attendance in the physical library. Aus dem Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog.

Publikationswesen

Springer’s „Open Choice“ als Mißerfolg geplant?

by  • 

Ist das Open Choice Modell von Springer (gebloggt am 5.7.2004) derartig hochpreisig und unfreundlich gestaltet worden, nur um den Mißerfolg von Autorengebühren und damit von Open Access zu „beweisen“? Aus dem Sept. 2004-Heft (Seite 7) von Cites & Insights: One rival says Springer’s plan represents little more than a ‚public relations initiative.‘ It is an accusation Mr. Haank [CEO von Springer] would likely deny, although he does appear to relish the challenge he is presenting to some academics to put their money where their protest are. „Let’s see how serious they really are…we expect that not more than 10 percent will be interested in this option,“ he says. As Suber notes, „Haank sounds as if his plan is designed more to generate low uptake, and ground a rebuke to OA advocates, than to test the waters in good faith.“ Sure sounds that way to this interested observer.