Matching Items (2)
Description
This qualitative study examined how the scientific journal PLOS ONE assembled its editorial board, which is made up of more than 10,000 academic editors based in 131 countries. The study investigated how the board’s geographic diversity is enacted by the human and nonhuman actors of the assemblage. PLOS ONE is an open-access (OA) mega-journal launched in 2006 by the nonprofit organization Public Library of Science (PLOS). It publishes over 16,000 papers yearly, covering more than 200 scientific subjects of science and medicine. I drew on Actor-Network Theory (ANT), which proposes that processes, ideas, organizations, or objects are continuously generated within a network of relationships between human and nonhuman actors. I used the case study methodology and employed two qualitative research methods. First, I conducted semi-structured interviews with 26 academic editors from different fields, including biology and life sciences, chemistry, medicine and health sciences, physics, and social sciences. These editors are affiliated with research institutions across 14 countries. Additionally, I interviewed PLOS leaders, staff members, and a representative from an external contractor. Second, I employed documentary analysis of organizational documents and online secondary data. Findings showed that the human and nonhuman actors of the PLOS ONE editorial board reproduce biases in science based on authors’ and editors’ geographic origin, the journal’s size and the low diversity of PLOS staff members. I also identified that APCs (Article Processing Charges) act as mediators that trigger betrayals among the actors, which has consequences on the stability of the assemblage, especially in terms of trust between the publisher and the scientific community. Finally, this study also identified that publishing an OA mega-journal has contradictions and unexpected effects on the publishing landscape due to its large scale.
ContributorsLujano Vilchis, Ivonne (Author) / Fischman, Gustavo (Thesis advisor) / Kim, Jeongeun (Committee member) / Hailu, Meseret (Committee member) / Dussel, Inés (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
Objectives: To develop an experiential understanding of what services and resources are most valuable to faculty throughout research and publishing processes. To use this understanding in combination with information in the literature to develop and provide services that anticipate researcher needs at each step of the process.
Methods: Facilitating open access publishing, best practices in literature reviews, scholarly research writing, clinical research data management, preservation, and accessibility: all of these are areas that librarians are working to support in many institutions. In this paper, two librarians from two research-1 universities provide a brief review of relevant literature. They follow with lessons learned and best practices identified during experiences as part of graduate student or faculty learning and working groups. These include: participation in a clinical research evaluation course; being a coauthor during writing, submitting, and revising of a scholarly peer-reviewed article, and negotiating copyright terms with an academic publisher; and participating in a faculty writing group for mutual motivation and constructive commentary on in-process writing projects.
Results: In this observational and participative study, the authors found that by taking advantage of opportunities to join groups in their research communities, they expanded their own skill sets while also expanding their contextual understanding of researcher support needs, including faculty, instructors, researchers, and graduate students. Through physical and online participation in learning, training, and working spaces along with their constituent communities, the authors built strong connections and mutual understanding. By being present (online or in-person) when questions occurred, they increased opportunities to provide in-context support for literature review searching techniques; citation management tools; copyright, journal selection, and publishing questions; and data management planning.
Conclusions: Each profession, discipline, and employment has its learning communities, informal or time-specific subgroups that come about as needed or for required trainings. Learning communities are where those in a given discipline or employment explore tasks in a collaborative setting and learn together, developing new skills and mastery through practice with peer and expert feedback. Such communities might take the form of a course on clinical research, an informal writing group, a seminar series, or even a cross-department event-planning group. By joining such groups, librarians can build on common experiences to form stronger relationships with their communities, gaining two critical benefits: (1) opportunities to provide research and information expertise in context and (2) greater recognition as part of the community and of what librarians do and their areas of expertise.
Methods: Facilitating open access publishing, best practices in literature reviews, scholarly research writing, clinical research data management, preservation, and accessibility: all of these are areas that librarians are working to support in many institutions. In this paper, two librarians from two research-1 universities provide a brief review of relevant literature. They follow with lessons learned and best practices identified during experiences as part of graduate student or faculty learning and working groups. These include: participation in a clinical research evaluation course; being a coauthor during writing, submitting, and revising of a scholarly peer-reviewed article, and negotiating copyright terms with an academic publisher; and participating in a faculty writing group for mutual motivation and constructive commentary on in-process writing projects.
Results: In this observational and participative study, the authors found that by taking advantage of opportunities to join groups in their research communities, they expanded their own skill sets while also expanding their contextual understanding of researcher support needs, including faculty, instructors, researchers, and graduate students. Through physical and online participation in learning, training, and working spaces along with their constituent communities, the authors built strong connections and mutual understanding. By being present (online or in-person) when questions occurred, they increased opportunities to provide in-context support for literature review searching techniques; citation management tools; copyright, journal selection, and publishing questions; and data management planning.
Conclusions: Each profession, discipline, and employment has its learning communities, informal or time-specific subgroups that come about as needed or for required trainings. Learning communities are where those in a given discipline or employment explore tasks in a collaborative setting and learn together, developing new skills and mastery through practice with peer and expert feedback. Such communities might take the form of a course on clinical research, an informal writing group, a seminar series, or even a cross-department event-planning group. By joining such groups, librarians can build on common experiences to form stronger relationships with their communities, gaining two critical benefits: (1) opportunities to provide research and information expertise in context and (2) greater recognition as part of the community and of what librarians do and their areas of expertise.
ContributorsPannabecker, Virginia (Author) / Lee, Young-Joo (Author)
Created2014-05-19