Peer-review and open access to scientific information. Models and trends in the scientific communication process

Authors

  • María Dolores Ayuso García Universidadde Murcia
  • María José Ayuso Sánchez Universidad Carlos III

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.2751

Keywords:

open acces, digital journals, science communication, peer-review, publishing models, institutional repositories

Abstract

This article wants to analyze the tendencies, the projects and the initiatives, that leads to a model open to the scientific literature. We show the different experiences and models done around the evaluation process by Peer-review experts in the field of the editorial processes of well-known institutions: Nature, The Lancet, Pub Med Central, American Educational Research Association, Elsevier, etc. In the same way we review the digital journals impact in the communication models OA. To reach the proposed objectives we analized the indicators: evaluation processes and access level. We finished recognizing the influence of three models, open to science information evaluation process and a mixed model Peer-review that leads to a bigger transparency in the evaluation process. Also we note an alternative model: autor-pays- model
|Abstract
= 266 veces | PDF (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))
= 89 veces|

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

María Dolores Ayuso García, Universidadde Murcia

Researcher. PhD in Documentation. Professor of the Department of Information and Documentation of the University of Murcia. Principal Investigator of the FUSIDIT Research Group, Sources of Knowledge. Murcia, Spain.mayu@um.es

María José Ayuso Sánchez, Universidad Carlos III

PhD in Documentation. Professor of the Department of Library Science and Documentation of the Carlos III University of Madrid. Madrid Spain. ayuso@bib.uc3m.es

References

BARRUECO CRUZ, J.M.; SUBIRATS COLL, I. Open Archives Iniciative.«Protocol for MetadataHarvesting (OAI-PMH). Descripción, funciones yaplicación de un protocolo». El Profesional de la Información, 2003, vol. 12,no. 2, p. 99-106. [En línea]. Disponible en: < http://eprints.rclis.org/177/ >.[Consulta: 12-de mayo de 2008]

BENCE, V.; OPPENHEIM, C. The Influence of Peer Review on the ResearchAssessment Exercise. Journal of Information Science, 2004, vol. 30, no. 4,p. 347-368.

BINGHAM, C. Peer review on the Internet: A better class of conversation.The Lancet, 1998, vol. 351, p.10-14.

BJÖRK, B.C.; HEDLUND, T. A formalised model of the scientific publicationprocess. Online Information Review, 2004, vol. 28, no. 1, p. 8-21.

BOSC, H.; HARNAD, S. In a paperless world a new role for academiclibraries: providing open access. Learned Publishing. ALPSP Bulletin, 2005,vol. 18, no. 2, p.95-99.

BUTLER, D. Welcome to fund publication in open-access journals. Nature,October 2003, vol. 425, p.440. [En línea]. Disponible en: < http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6957/pdf/425440b.pdf>. [Consulta: 12de mayo 2008]

CAMPANARIO, J.M. El sistema de revisión por expertos (peer review):muchos problemas y pocas soluciones. Revista Española de DocumentaciónCientífica, 2002, vol. 25, no. 3, p.166-184.

CORREIA, A.M.R.; TEIXEIRA, J.C. Reforming scholarly publishing andknowledge communication: From the advent of the scholarly journal to thechallenges of open access. Online Information Review, 2005, vol. 29, no. 4,p.349-364.

THE SCIENCE AND DEVELOPMENT NETWORK AND UNESCO.Effective Science communication in an era of globalisation. A workshopfor Science journalists from East Asia. 9-13 March 2006. The Science andDevelopment Network (SciDev.Net). 28p. [En línea]. 2006. Disponible en:<http://www.scidev.net/misc Effective%20science% 20communication%20in%20an%20era%20of% 20globalisation.pdf>. [Consulta: 10 de mayo de2008]

EYSENBACH, G. Peer Review and Publication of Research Protocols andProposals: A Role for Open Access Journals. Journal of Medical InternetResearch, 2004, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 37.

FRANKLIN, J. Open Access to Scientific and Technical Information: Thestate of the art.Information Services and Use, 2003, vol. 23, no. 2/3,p.67-87.

HAMES, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in ScientificJournals: Guidelines for Good Practice. London: Blackwell Publishing,2007.

HERNÁNDEZ, A.; Rodríguez Mateos, D.; BUENO DE LA FUENTE, G.Open Access: el papel de las bibliotecas en los repositorios institucionales deacceso abierto. Anales de Documentación, 2007, no. 10, p.185-204. [Enlínea]. Disponible en: <http://www.um.es/fccd/anales/ad10/ad1010.pdf>.[Consulta: 10 de febrero de 2008]

LIESEGANG, T.J.; SCHACHAT, A.P.; ALBERT, D.M.The Open Accessinitiative in scientific and biomedical publishing: Fourth in the series on editorship.American Journal of Ophthalmology, 2005, vol. 139, no. 1, p.156-168.

MORRIS, S. The true costs of scholarly journal publishing. LearnedPublishing, April 2005, vol. 18, no. 2, p.115-126.

NATURE. Peer review and fraud: Two assessments of the refereeing processhighlight challenges for journals. Nature, 2006, no. 444, p. 971-972. [En línea].2006. Disponible en: <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7122/full/444971b.html>. [Consulta: 12 de mayo de 2008]

PROSSER, D. Institutional repositories and Open Access: The future ofscholarly communication.Information Services and Use, 2003, vol. 23, no.2/3, p.67-87.

ROSS, J.S.; GROSS, C.P.; DESAI, M.M. (et al.). Effect of Blinded PeerReview on Abstract Acceptance. JAMA (Reprinted), 2006, vol. 295, no. 14,p.1675-1680. [En línea]. Disponible en: <http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/295/14/1675>. [Consulta: 8 de mayo de 2008]

ROWLAND, F. The Peer Review Process. A Report to the JISC ScholarlyCommunications Group. 16p. [En línea]. Disponible en: <http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/rowland.pdf>. [Consulta: 12 de enerode 2008]

SCHROTER, S.; TITE, L. Open access publishing and author-pays businessmodels: a survey of authors’ knowledge and perceptions. Journal of the RoyalSociety of Medicine, 2006, vol. 99, p.141–148. [En línea]. Disponible en: <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?&pubmedid=16508053>.[Consulta: 12 de enero de 2008]

TAMBER, P.S.; GODLEE, F.; NEWMARK, M. Open access to peer-reviewed research: making it happen. Lancet, 2003, vol. 362, no. 9395, p.1575-1578

WAGER, E.; PARKIN, E.C.; TAMBER, P.S. Are reviewers suggested byauthors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded,retrospective study. BMC Medicine, 2006, vol. 4, no.13, p.1-5. [En línea].Disponible en: <http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/4/13>. [Consulta:12 de enero de 2008]

WALTHAM, M. JISC: Learned Society Open Access Business Models. .83p. [En línea]. 2005. Disponible en: <http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/themes/infoenvironment/learnedsocietyoabusinessmodels.pdf>. [Consulta: 2 defebrero de 2008]

WELLER, A. Electronic Scientific Information, Open Access, and EditorialPeer Review. Science and Technology Libraries, 2005, vol. 26, no. 1, p.89-108.

WOOLLEY, K.L. (et al.): Declaration of Medical Writing Assistance inInternational Peer-Reviewed Publications. JAMA, 2006, vol. 296, no. 8, p.932-934. [En línea]. Disponible en: < http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/296/8/932-a#JLD60012T1>. [Consulta: 12 de febrero de 2008]

Downloads

Published

2009-11-05

How to Cite

Ayuso García, M. D., & Ayuso Sánchez, M. J. (2009). Peer-review and open access to scientific information. Models and trends in the scientific communication process. Revista Interamericana De Bibliotecología, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.2751

Issue

Vol. 32 No. 1 (2009)

Section

Investigaciones

License

Copyright (c) 2009 Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC