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.

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.

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 study analyzes the scholarly landscape of data literacy through citation and co-citation analyses of documents, sources, and authors. Using Scopus data and VOSviewer, the study identifies significant contributions and thematic trends. A minimum criterion of 10 citations per document was applied, filtering the dataset to 205 documents, with a focus on 81 interlinked documents. Citation analysis covered document, source, and author metrics, while co-citation analysis examined cited authors, sources, and references. The study found 997 documents on data literacy, narrowed down to 205 significant ones, with 81 interlinked documents showing a high average citation rate. Key sources included the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series and Teachers College Record, and prominent authors like Ellen B. Mandinach and Kim Schildkamp emerged as central figures. Data literacy research spans fields like education, sociology, and information science, highlighting its interdisciplinary nature. The study's focus on citation metrics may introduce selection bias, emphasizing widely cited works. Future research could explore less-cited but influential works and broader datasets to mitigate biases. Policymakers can use these insights to integrate data literacy into educational curricula and design targeted professional development programs. Promoting interdisciplinary collaboration and supporting open access to scholarly literature can enhance data literacy initiatives. This study provides a comprehensive citation and co-citation analysis of data literacy research, offering valuable insights into key contributions and thematic trends, informing policy and practice, and underscoring the importance of data literacy in contemporary education and society.

Scholarly publication in international journals depends on qualified, unbiased and available referees: (1) qualified in their ability to assume each role inherent to being a peer reviewer and in willingly and competently accepting the responsibilities that coincide with these roles; (2) unbiased in focusing on the submitted research content irrespective of their own research programs in judging the submission’s merit; and (3) available to devote time to read and understand the paper, check the accuracy and relevance of references, and write a comprehensive review commenting on the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, the ability of the research to be replicated, and the contribution of the work to the discipline. This study investigates the range of reviewer’s roles and responsibilities in relation to author’s own assessment as a frequent reviewer for fourteen journals representing five publishing houses—and as an active researcher—in comparison with a 2019 comprehensive study of the views of 224 authors on peer review. Based on this investigation, advice will be provided to potential reviewers regarding what is expected of them in undertaking their work. Recommendations will be offered for peer review to mitigate weaknesses in the process and increase the pool of qualified peer reviewers.

The aim of this article is to shed some light on ‘black open access’ model, that still remains poorly understood and largely neglected in the literature, despite being widely adopted in practice. I give an overview of the historical development of black OA and its most important projects: Sci-Hub and Library Genesis. Arguments are provided for why the term ‘black OA’ is misleading and the term ‘RGB OA’ (red, green and blue) would better describe a diverse landscape of open access projects that emerged after 2001. While practical approaches towards OA evolved dramatically in the past 20 years, theoretical discussion is still operating the same two-color scheme of ‘green’ and ‘gold’ open access from BOAI declaration of 2001: novel approaches are either not recognized as OA at all or are neglected as ‘black’. A new and more inclusive OA declaration might be needed to account for greater diversity of approaches.

Preprints are regularly cited in peer reviewed journal articles, books and conference paper. Are preprint citations somehow less important than citations to peer reviewed research papers? This study investigates citation patterns between 2017 and 2020 for preprints published in three preprint servers, one specializing in biology (bioRxiv), one in chemistry (ChemRxiv), and another hosting preprints in all disciplines (Research Square). As evaluation of scholarship continues to largely rely on citation-based metrics, this analysis and its outcomes will be useful to inform new research-based education in today’s scholarly communication.

This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the use of theories in open access resources during the COVID-19 pandemic would be greater than in copyrighted resources. Using the Scopus database from August 18-28, 2023, the search terms “COVID-19,” “Coronavirus,” “SARS-CoV-2,” and “2019-nCoV” retrieved 511,920 results, of which 17,487 were selected. After filtering, 8,254 studies were analyzed. These were categorized as "Both Theory and Model," "Only Theory," and "Only Model." Using MS Excel, the researchers sorted studies based on titles, abstracts, and keywords to assess the magnitude of theory and model use. The study found that theories and models were employed across various disciplines and indexed accordingly. Further analysis included term categories, year-wise distribution, and citation patterns in relation to access categories. The study recommended future research to explore the connection between theories/models and factors such as publication trends, geography, and funding. The study concluded that, journals should encourage authors to include theories/models used in their studies in titles, especially during health emergencies, to provide early insights into handling pandemics.

Keywords: Academic Trends; Energy Consumption; Higher Education Institutions; Systematic Literature Review; Scholarly output; University buildings

The digital transformation has initiated a paradigm shift in research and scholarly communication practices towards a more open scholarly culture. Although this transformation is slowly happening in the Digital Humanities field, open is not yet default. The article introduces the OpenMethods metablog, a community platform that highlights open research methods, tools, and practices within the context of the Digital Humanities by republishing open access content around methods and tools in various formats and languages. It also describes the platform’s technical infrastructure based on its requirements and main functionalities, and especially the collaborative content sourcing and editorial workflows. The article concludes with a discussion of the potentials of the OpenMethods metablog to overcome barriers towards open practices by focusing on inclusive, community sourced information based around opening up research processes and the challenges that need to be overcome to achieve its goals.

This article challenges the assumption that journals and peer review are essential for developing, evaluating and disseminating scientific and other academic knowledge. It suggests a more flexible ecosystem, and examines some of the possibilities this might facilitate. The market for academic outputs should be opened up by encouraging the separation of the dissemination service from the evaluation service. Publishing research in subject-specific journals encourages compartmentalising research into rigid categories. The dissemination of knowledge would be better served by an open access, web-based repository system encompassing all disciplines. There would then be a role for organisations to assess the items in this repository to help users find relevant, high-quality work. There could be a variety of such organisations which could enable reviews from peers to be supplemented with evaluation by non-peers from a variety of different perspectives: user reviews, statistical reviews, reviews from the perspective of different disciplines, and so on. This should reduce the inevitably conservative influence of relying on two or three peers, and make the evaluation system more critical, multi-dimensional and responsive to the requirements of different audience groups, changing circumstances, and new ideas. Non-peer review might make it easier to challenge dominant paradigms, and expanding the potential audience beyond a narrow group of peers might encourage the criterion of simplicity to be taken more seriously - which is essential if human knowledge is to continue to progress.

We introduce the Open Research Knowledge Graph Agriculture Named Entity Recognition (the ORKG Agri-NER) corpus and service for contribution-centric scientific entity extraction and classification. The ORKG Agri-NER corpus is a seminal benchmark for the evaluation of contribution-centric scientific entity extraction and classification in the agricultural domain. It comprises titles of scholarly papers that are available as Open Access articles on a major publishing platform. We describe the creation of this corpus and highlight the obtained findings in terms of the following features: 1) a generic conceptual formalism focused on capturing scientific entities in agriculture that reflect the direct contribution of a work; 2) a performance benchmark for named entity recognition of scientific entities in the agricultural domain by empirically evaluating various state-of-the-art sequence labeling neural architectures and transformer models; and 3) a delineated 3-step automatic entity resolution procedure for the resolution of the scientific entities to an authoritative ontology, specifically AGROVOC that is released in the Linked Open Vocabularies cloud. With this work we aim to provide a strong foundation for future work on the automatic discovery of scientific entities in the scholarly literature of the agricultural domain.