“The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) today announces the publication of its Recommended Practice, RP-31-2021, Reproducibility Badging and Definitions. Developed by the NISO Taxonomy, Definitions, and Recognition Badging Scheme Working Group, this new Recommended Practice provides a set of recognition standards that can be deployed across scholarly publishing outputs, to easily recognize and reward the sharing of data and methods….”
“We are thrilled to announce that Heather Joseph, Executive Director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), will be the recipient of the 2021 Miles Conrad Award, a lifetime achievement award for those working in the information community.
A well-known and highly respected member of the global information community, Heather will join a long list of industry leaders, innovators, and opinion-makers who have received this prestigious award. She will deliver the Miles Conrad Lecture during the NISO Plus 2021 conference, on February 24 at noon (Eastern Standard Time US & Canada), so be sure to register now and mark your calendars!…”
“The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) announced today that their Voting Members have approved a new work item to update the 2008 Recommended Practice, NISO RP-8-2008, Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group. A NISO Working Group is being set up, and work is expected to begin in early 2021.
Publication practices have changed rapidly since the publication of the original recommendations. For example, preprints have become much more important as a publication type in many disciplines, and publishers are increasingly experimenting with new ways to publish, update, and keep research alive. All of these versions of an article are important and citable, making the concept of a single ‘version of record’ less relevant. These additional processes to support public availability make the consistent assignment of DOIs to one or more versions challenging.
The NISO JAV working group will define a set of terms for each of the different versions of content that are published, as well as a recommendation for whether separate DOIs should be assigned to them. They will address questions such as: Should there be a single DOI for an article, regardless of version? Different DOIs for each version? How are the identifiers connected and used? How do we define a version? As with all NISO output, the group’s draft recommendations will be shared for public comment before publication….”
“1) Voted YES on Approval of Proposed New Work Item: Update NISO RP-8-2008, Journal Article Versions (JAV)
Do you approve of a Proposed New Work Item: Update NISO RP-8-2008, Journal Article Versions (JAV)?
This ballot is to approve a proposed new work item to Update NISO RP-8-2008, Journal Article Versions (JAV) [https://www.niso.org/publications/niso-rp-8-2008-jav] to take into account publication practices that have been adopted over the past 12 years, especially the increasing circulation of preprints and the application of DOIs across the landscape….”
“By Faculty and For Students: Supporting Open Educational Resources, Part One:
How do participating players — whether the librarian or the member of the faculty — successfully drive buy-in by the target audience, the undergraduates? What is important to consider in terms of design that engages students/ What indicators of use are deemed valuable? Some texts may not lend themselves to being printed out. In some instances, the subject matter may dictate appropriate design (interactive? Text only? Images?). The creation of low-cost textbooks and curriculum support is recognized as important, but, moving forward, how is the community dealing with the challenges of ensuring currency and quality? How does the community ensure access for all users who may not have access to the same technology? What support might be made available to faculty interested in developing these materials?
Open Access Monographs: What You Need To Know, Part Two:
A 2019 article in The Atlantic observed that the current disruption in scholarly book publishing might result in the Great Sorting, what the author saw as a beneficial “matching of different kinds of scholarly uses with the right media, formats and locations.” In this specific arena, who are the stakeholders currently delivering open access monographs? What are the current business models that represent sustainability for those stakeholders? Recognizing that the population of interested readers of these works may be far larger than the actual revenues derived, how can both publishing professionals as well as librarians assist users in discovering such high-value OA monographs?…”
“Public Comment Period Open! June 18 – August 2, 2020
The NISO E-Book Metadata Working Group looks forward to receiving your comments! You may access the draft document, add a comment, and view comments received, which will be considered by the Working Group prior to final publication.
This NISO Working Group will collect the minimal metadata requirements necessary to describe e-books in order to support sales, discovery, delivery, deaccessioning, and preservation, and identify the most effective and efficient way for metadata to be moved through the entire supply chain. This project will help the creators and managers of bibliographic records to cooperate to minimize duplication of work and ensure overall quality of metadata….”
“NISO constituted a new Open Discovery Initiative Standing Committee following the approval of the ODI Recommended Practice. This standing committee has worked to facilitate the adoption of the principals of the Recommended Practice and to promote the adoption of conformance statements from discovery service providers and content providers. The committee has extended the work of the ODI Working Group by conducting additional surveys addressed to Content Providers, Discovery Service Providers, and to libraries to gather more extensive and recent data regarding the content discovery environment and to identify interest in enhancements to the Recommended Practice. Informed by these survey responses, the ODI Standing Committee has developed a revision to the Recommended Practice….”
“Ensuring that researchers get credit for all the work they do, not just for the papers they write, is essential if we are ever to move beyond the current culture of “publish or perish.” Securing funding, managing data, writing software, and more are every bit as important to the success of a research project. But these roles are typically harder to identify and, therefore, tend to be overlooked when a researcher’s work is being evaluated, for example, when they are applying for promotion or tenure or seeking funding.
The CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) initiative aims to make it easier for researchers to get the credit they deserve for all their contributions, by identifying 14 different roles that can be assigned to one or more contributors to a research project. This information can then be included in the metadata for any research output — articles, books/book chapters, datasets, etc.
The CRediT taxonomy grew out of a Wellcome Trust/Harvard University workshop in 2012, which led to a pilot project to test it out with a group of science journal editors, the results of which were reported in Nature Communications. The 14 roles that have been defined are:
Conceptualization: formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims
Data curation: management activities to annotate, scrub data, and maintain research data for initial use and later re-use
Formal analysis: application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data
Funding acquisition: getting financial support for the project leading to the publication
Investigation: conducting the research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection
Methodology: development or design of the methodology; creation of models
Project administration: management and coordination responsibility for the research activity, planning, and execution
Resources: providing study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools
Software: programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms; testing of existing code components
Supervision: oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team
Validation: verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs
Visualization: preparation, creation, and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/data presentation
Writing – original draft: preparation, creation, and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation)
Writing – review and editing: reparation, creation, and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision, including pre- or post-publication stages …”
“Response to the Current Pandemic by the Information Community
NOTE: This news and resource page is being updated as information makes its way to us. The content is not confined just to those from the NISO membership. Did we overlook something that your organization is doing? Please send releases and announcements to Jill O’Neill, Director of Content, NISO, at email@example.com….”
“One vision (hereafter, referred to as “model”) for preprint publication, disclosed in an evolving preprint , focuses on physics preprints in arXiv. This focus is natural, given that physicists and allied practitioners of other mathematical and quantitative fields have been long-standing adopters of preprints. Unsurprisingly, arXiv has therefore played a lead role in the preprint space. Preprint servers that share the “-rXiv” suffix with arXiv have emerged.
The model may never materialize in pristine form. This would take decades at a minimum. However, it provides one analytical framework for understanding the interplay of various components of scholarly journals publishing and for thinking about how preprints can mitigate problems that beset this complicated market. (A new version of the aforementioned preprint will further develop this critique, which is beyond the scope of this paper and discusses open access generally.)
The model suggests that journal publishing and preprints in physics should be increasingly symbiotic. They have distinct roles that reflect historically recurring needs in physics (and STEM) publishing generally….
The model suggests, by contrast, that journal articles take the form of traditional review articles  that cite other journal articles, conference proceedings, books, and — increasingly — research disclosed over several preprints. Journal articles should play a pedagogical role in orienting researchers and students to new fields, creating narratives about newly emerging trends, contextualizing discoveries, and fostering interdisciplinary research.
The model calls for the journal market to contract significantly but not entirely as preprints supplant journal articles as the place to disclose small slivers of research. Re-purposing journal articles and correspondingly trimming their numbers will decrease demand for journal subscriptions that pressure budget-strapped libraries. An increased emphasis on review articles will assist researchers in navigating their fields, help counter hyper-specialization, and make the inter-generational transmission of science much more efficient. Also, contracting the journals market and re-purposing it almost exclusively toward review articles can save genius-hours spent doing peer-review, time better spent doing research disclosed in preprints, writing or reviewing integrative journal articles, and teaching….”