Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] Jonathan P. Tennant,et al. The evolving preprint landscape: introductory report for the Knowledge Exchange Working Group on Preprints , 2018 .
[2] P. Haas,et al. Sustainable Development Goals: create a coordinating body , 2016, Nature.
[3] M. Wacha,et al. The State of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles , 2017 .
[4] Lauren B. Collister,et al. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. , 2016, F1000Research.
[5] K. C. Garg,et al. Uncitedness of Indian Scientific Output , 2014 .
[6] Rodrigo Costas,et al. Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..
[7] Definition of "sole contribution". , 1969, The New England journal of medicine.
[8] Kara H. Woo,et al. Data Organization in Spreadsheets , 2018 .
[9] F. Fahy,et al. From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research , 2018 .
[10] Holly Else,et al. Radical open-access plan could spell end to journal subscriptions , 2018, Nature.
[11] Erik Schultes,et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship , 2016, Scientific Data.
[12] Alessandro Blasimme,et al. Improving the Measurement of Scientific Success by Reporting a Self-Citation Index , 2017, Publ..
[13] Simone Raudino,et al. The Tyranny of Metrics , 2019, The European Legacy.
[14] Larry Peiperl,et al. Preprints in medical research: Progress and principles , 2018, PLoS medicine.
[15] M. Egger,et al. Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review , 2018, F1000Research.
[16] Lauren B. Collister,et al. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. , 2016, F1000Research.
[17] Jonathan P. Tennant,et al. The state of the art in peer review , 2018, FEMS microbiology letters.
[18] Vinay,et al. An integrative review of Web 3.0 in academic libraries , 2018 .
[19] Creative Commons,et al. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) , 2015 .
[20] Fytton Rowland,et al. The peer‐review process , 2002, Learn. Publ..
[21] B. Brembs. Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability , 2018, Front. Hum. Neurosci..
[22] G. Eysenbach,et al. Biomedical Research , 2020, Definitions.
[23] S. Haustein,et al. The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era , 2015, PloS one.
[24] Bo-Christer Björk,et al. Open access to scientific publications - an analysis of the barriers to change , 2003, Inf. Res..
[25] Wang Jun. Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting , 2005 .
[26] Peter Willett,et al. Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review , 2017, J. Documentation.
[27] Bo-Christer Björk,et al. Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006–2017 , 2018, PeerJ.
[28] Gunilla Widén,et al. Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media: A Finnish case study , 2011, Electron. Libr..
[29] Mike Thelwall,et al. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories , 2018, J. Informetrics.
[30] Tim Berners-Lee,et al. The read–write Linked Data Web , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.
[31] Björn Brembs,et al. RELX referral to EU competition authority , 2018 .
[32] Mike Buschman,et al. Are alternative metrics still alternative , 2013 .
[33] M. Fischer,et al. Beyond the Impact Factor – What do alternative metrics have to offer? , 2017, GMS journal for medical education.
[34] Cameron Neylon,et al. On the origin of nonequivalent states: How we can talk about preprints , 2016, bioRxiv.
[35] Martyn Rittman. Preprints as a Hub for Early-Stage Research Outputs , 2018 .
[36] P. Seglen,et al. Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. , 1998, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.
[37] Christina K. Pikas,et al. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review , 2017, F1000Research.
[38] Andy R Weale,et al. The level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality: a comparison to the impact factor , 2004, BMC medical research methodology.
[39] B Preedip Balaji,et al. Open Content: An Inference for Developing an Open Information Field , 2013 .
[40] David Ellis,et al. Changing styles of informal academic communication in the age of the web: Orthodox, moderate and heterodox responses , 2017, J. Documentation.
[41] Wei Jeng,et al. DataCite as a novel bibliometric source: Coverage, strengths and limitations , 2017, J. Informetrics.
[42] Rob Johnson,et al. Securing the Future of Open-Access Policies , 2015 .
[43] Andrea Widener. ACS proposed chemistry preprint server , 2016 .
[44] Sarah E Ali-Khan,et al. Defining Success in Open Science , 2018, MNI open research.
[45] Jeffrey R. Spies,et al. SHARE: Community-focused Infrastructure and a Public Goods, Scholarly Database to Advance Access to Research , 2017, D Lib Mag..
[46] Tom Sheldon,et al. Preprints could promote confusion and distortion , 2018, Nature.
[47] Björn Brembs,et al. Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..
[48] Lauren Brochu,et al. Librarians and Research Data Management–A Literature Review: Commentary from a Senior Professional and a New Professional Librarian , 2018, New Review of Academic Librarianship.
[49] Ariel Deardorff,et al. Open Science Framework (OSF) , 2017, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.
[50] Lai Ma,et al. Scholarly communication and practices in the world of metrics: An exploratory study , 2016, ASIST.
[51] R. Strax. Peer Review: Past, Present, and Future. , 2017, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.
[52] Lutz Bornmann,et al. Scientific Peer Review: An Analysis of the Peer Review Process from the Perspective of Sociology of Science Theories , 2008 .
[53] Jennifer S. Evans-Cowley. There's an App for That: Mobile Applications for Urban Planning , 2011 .
[54] P. Willett,et al. Open-Access Mega-Journals , 2019, Definitions.
[55] Enrique Orduña-Malea,et al. Author-level metrics in the new academic profile platforms: The online behaviour of the Bibliometrics community , 2018, J. Informetrics.
[56] Zewen Hu,et al. A probe into causes of non-citation based on survey data , 2015, ArXiv.
[57] Sarvenaz Sarabipour,et al. Maintaining confidence in the reporting of scientific outputs , 2018 .
[58] M. Cobb. The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s , 2017, PLoS biology.
[59] Richard Van Noorden. Open access: The true cost of science publishing , 2013, Nature.
[60] Colin Camerer. : Past , Present , Future , 2003 .
[61] F. Arnaud,et al. From core referencing to data re-use: two French national initiatives to reinforce paleodata stewardship (National Cyber Core Repository and LTER France Retro-Observatory) , 2017 .
[62] Cenyu Shen,et al. Open Access Scholarly Journal Publishing in Chinese , 2017, Publ..
[63] Policy,et al. Open Science by Design , 2018 .
[64] Teixeira da Silva,et al. The preprint wars , 2017 .