Ten myths around open scholarly publishing
Open accessAbstract
The changing world of scholarly communication and the emergence of ‘Open Science’ or ‘Open Research’ has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly-debated topics. Yet, evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. The aim of this article is to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices and policies. We address preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, and the legitimacy of ‘global’ databases. The presented facts and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and may be used to inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The 'publish or perish' attitude stimulates productivity of researchers but creates a bias towards quantity, often overlooking quality.
“this 'publish or perish' attitude, on the one hand, stimulates the productivity of researchers, but, on the other, creates a bias towards quantity, often overlooking quality [2,3,6-8,44,81,163,260,263,284-288].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [163]
WoS and Scopus data are questionable for Social Sciences & Humanities because these disciplines are clearly underrepresented in the DBs.
“The same can be said about the use of WoS and Scopus data in Social Sciences & Humanities, since these disciplines are clearly underrepresented in the DBs [5,44,47,88,91,163,263].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [163]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World
Pranckutė, R. (2021) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications9010012 · Cited by 2,696 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tennant, J. P., Crane, H., Crick, T., Davila, J., Enkhbayar, A., Havemann, J., Kramer, B., Martin, R., Masuzzo, P., Nobes, A., Rice, C., Rivera-López, B. S., Ross-Hellauer, T., Sattler, S., Thacker, P., & Vanholsbeeck, M.
- Affiliations
- IGDORE, Leicester, United Kingdom
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Swansea University (GB)
- CESIMO, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá, Venezuela
- Simon Fraser University (CA)
- IGDORE, Berlin, Germany
- Utrecht University (NL)
- North Carolina State University (US)
- Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education (SE)
- International Network for Advancing Science and Policy (GB)
- OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University (NO)
- Instituto Nacional de Capacitación Profesional (CL)
- Institute for Interactive Systems and Data Science, Graz University of Technology and Know-Center GmbH, Graz, Austria
- Imperial College London (GB)
- NA, Madrid, Spain
- Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
- ORCID
- Publisher
- PeerJ
- Published
- 2019-03-11
- OpenAlex
- W4251853320
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- open science, scholarly communication, preprints, scooping, copyright transfer, peer review, misinformation, scholarly publishing policy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
