In the digital era in which over 4 billion people regularly access the internet, the conventional process of publishing scientific articles in academic journals following peer review is undergoing profound changes. Following physics and mathematics scholars who started to publish their work on the freely accessible arXiv server in the early 1990s, researchers of all disciplines increasingly publish scientific articles in the form of freely accessible and fully citeable preprints before or in parallel to conventional submission to academic journals for peer review. The full transition to open science, I argue in this study, requires to expand the education of students and young researchers to include scholarly communication in the digital era.

We have previously reported on the diachronical changes in the narrative structure of research articles (RAs) and review manuscripts, using corpora of abstracts from MEDLINE. The present study investigates 5 linguistic dimensions (D1-5) of the text, following Biber’s well established Multimensional Analysis, on the same corpora, to assess how writing practices have changed in these two biomedical literature sub-genres over the years. Our analysis encompassed a sample of more than 1.2 million subtracts from manuscripts that were published over the course of more than 30 years. Both RAs and reviews have reinforced their informational, emotionally detached tone (D1), and have progressively refrained from the use of narrative devices (D2), while increasing their context-independent content (D3). Both RAs and reviews have displayed low levels of overt persuasion (D4), while steering away from abstract content to focus on a more marked author agency and identity adfirmation. When the linguistic features that underly these 5 dimensions are compared, it becomes apparent that RAs and review papers have often changed quite independently, both usually converging to standardized stylistic canons.

For doctoral students, publishing in peer reviewed journals is a task many face with anxiety and trepidation. The world of publishing, from choosing a journal, negotiating editors and navigating reviewers’ responses is a bewildering place. Looking in from the outside, it seems that successful and productive academic writers have knowledge that is inaccessible to novice scholars. While there is a growing literature on writing for scholarly publication, many of these publications promote writing and publishing as a straight-forward activity that anyone can achieve if they follow the rules. We argue that the specific and situated contexts in which academic writers negotiate publishing practices is more complicated and messy. In this paper, we attempt to make explicit our publishing processes to highlight the complex nature of publishing. We use autoethnographic narratives to provide discussion points and insights into the challenges of publishing peer reviewed articles. One narrative is by a doctoral student at the beginning of her publishing career, who expresses her desires, concerns and anxieties about writing for publication. The other narrative focuses on the publishing practices of a more experienced academic writer. Both are international scholars working in the Canadian context. The purpose of this paper is to explore academic publishing through the juxtaposition of these two narratives to make explicit some of the more implicit processes. Four key themes emerge from these narratives. To publish successfully, academic writers need: 1) to be discourse analysts; 2) to have a critical competence; and 3) to have writing fluency and 4) to be emotionally intelligent.

Due to resource constraints, most Diamond Open Access journals publish less than 25 articles per year, and 75% of journals are not able to provide their content in XML and HTML, primarily providing only PDFs (Bosman et al., 2021, p. 7-8). In order to keep up with larger commercial publishers, a high degree of automation and streamlining of processes is necessary. The Open Source Academic Publishing Suite (OS-APS) project funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research aims to achieve this. OS-APS automatically extracts the underlying XML from Word manuscripts and offers optimization and export options in various formats (PDF, HTML, EPUB). The professional corporate design, e.g., of the PDFs, is managed automatically by using templates or creating one's own using a Template Development Kit. OS-APS will also connect to scholarly-led and community-driven publishing platforms such as Open Journal Systems (OJS), Open Monograph Press (OMP), and DSpace: the software will be able to be integrated into a wide range of publication processes, whether at small, low-resource commercial Open Access Publishers, or institutional and Diamond Open Access Publishers. References: Bosman, J., Frantsvåg, J. E., Kramer, B., Langlais, P.‑C., & Proudman, V. (2021). Oa Diamond Journals Study. Part 1: Findings. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4558703

This paper explores whether preprints can better support open science by providing links to other early-stage research outputs. This potentially has benefits for transparency and discoverability of research projects. By looking at preprint submission systems, online preprints and surveying those who run preprint servers, I examined to what extent this is currently possible. No preprints server provided a complete service, however many allowed the linking of several open science elements from the abstract page. I looked at variation based on subject, age, and size of preprint server. In conclusion, authors posting preprints should consider the options provided by different preprint servers. It appears that open science is just one focus of preprint servers and further improvements will be dependent on preprint server policies and priorities rather than overcoming any technical difficulties.

Over the last twenty years, library publishing has emerged in higher education as a new class of publisher. Conceived as a response to commercial publishing practices that have strained library budgets and prevented scholars from openly licensing and sharing their works, library publishing is both a local service program and a broader movement to disrupt the current scholarly publishing arena. It is growing both in numbers of publishers and numbers of works produced. The commercial publishing framework which determines the viability of monetizing a product is not necessarily applicable for library publishers who exist as a common good to address the needs of their academic communities. Like any business venture, however, library publishers must develop a clear service model and business plan in order to create shared expectations for funding streams, quality markers, as well as technical and staff capacity. As the field is maturing from experimental projects to full programs, library publishers are formalizing their offerings and limitations. The anatomy of a library publishing business plan is presented and includes the principles of the program, scope of services, and staffing and governance requirements. Other aspects include production policies, financial structures, and measures of success.

Researchers, journals, and universities want to receive more citations for their scholarly publications. However, a paper citations depend on its quality, visibility and author’s online profile. Research support documents (unpublished papers, white papers, project reports, datasets, software, posters, online resources and teaching materials) can be additional source for increasing the author’s visibility. To enhance research visibility and impact, the full range of scholarly output should be available online on the open access platform. With open access platform, key research findings are made accessible immediately to the scientific community. Therefore, the publicly available research support documents may result in receiving more citations in addition to the published papers. In this paper we conducted a simplified three stages study on the benefits of research support documents publications on open access platform. We also elaborated on approaches of improving your research visibility and impact through these document.

Scientists observe, discover, justify and eventually share their findings with the scientific community. Dissemination is an integral aspect of scientific discovery since discoveries which go unnoticed have no or little impact on science. Today, peer-review is part of this process of scientific dissemination as it contributes proactively to the quality of a scientific article. As the numbers of scientific journals and scientific articles published therein are increasing steady, processes such as the single-blind or double-blind peer review are facing a near collapse situation. In fact, these traditional forms of reviewing have reached their limits and, because of this, are also increasingly considered as unfair, sloppy, superficial and even biased. In this manuscript we propose forms of Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R) as valuable alternatives to the traditional blind peer review system. We describe how the journal Sci has explored such an approach and provide first empirical evidence of the benefits and also challenges such a P4R approach is facing.

Many academics are critical of the current publishing system, but it is difficult to create a better alternative. This review relates to the Sciences and Social Sciences, and discusses the primary purpose of academic journals as providing a seal of approval for perceived quality, impact, significance, and importance. The key issues considered include the role of anonymous refereeing, continuous rather than discrete frequency of publications, avoidance of time wasting, and seeking adventure. Here we give recommendations about the organization of journal articles, the roles of associate editors and referees, measuring the time frame for refereeing submitted articles in days and weeks rather than months and years, encouraging open access internet publishing, emphasizing the continuity of publishing online, academic publishing as a continuous dynamic process, and how to improve research after publication. Citations and functions thereof, such as the journal impact factor and h-index, are the benchmark for evaluating the importance and impact of academic journals and published articles. Even in the very top journals, a high proportion of published articles are never cited, not even by the authors themselves. Top journal publications do not guarantee that published articles will make significant contributions, or that they will ever be highly cited. The COVID-19 world should encourage academics worldwide not only to rethink academic teaching, but also to re-evaluate key issues associated with academic journal publishing in the future.