Published research promoted on twitter reaches more readers. Tweets with graphics are more engaging than those without. Data are limited, however, regarding how to optimize a multimedia tweets for engagement
The “Three facts and a Story” trial is a randomized-controlled trial comparing a tweet featuring a graphical abstract to paired tweets featuring the personal motivations behind the research and a summary of the findings. Fifty-four studies published by the Journal of Hepatology were randomized at the time of online publication. The primary endpoint was assessed at 28-days from online publication with a primary outcome of full-text downloads from the website. Secondary outcomes included page views and twitter engagement including impressions, likes, and retweets.
Overall, 31 studies received standard tweets and 23 received story tweets. Five studies were randomized to story tweets but crossed over to standard tweets for lack of author participation. Most papers tweeted were original articles (94% standard, 91% story) and clinical topics (55% standard, 61% story). Story tweets were associated with a significant increase in the number of full text downloads, 51 (34-71) versus 25 (13-41), p=0.002. There was also a non-significant increase in the number of page views. Story tweets generated an average of >1,000 more impressions than standard tweets (5,388 vs 4,280, p=0.002). Story tweets were associated with a similar number of retweets, and a non-significant increase in the number of likes.
Tweets featuring the authors and their motivations may increase engagement with published research.
“When SMRJ was started, the editors used email and Word docs to track peer review, and they published all articles in PDF format. However, with the journal continuing to expand, the editors realized they were in need of an easier way to track submissions and a new publishing system to improve the journal’s online reading experience and chances of being added to relevant indexes. As a result, Chief Editor William Corser and Assistant Editor Sam Wisniewski began searching for publishing tools and services, focused on three key areas: streamlining peer review, modernizing the journal’s website, and producing XML for all articles.
After considering different options, Corser and Wisniewski chose to use Scholastica’s peer review and open access publishing software, as well as Scholastica’s typesetting service to produce PDF, HTML, and XML article files. Since making the switch, they’ve found that peer review is smoother for editors and authors and they’re making strides towards reaching their article discovery and indexing goals….”
“In 2020, DADOS began accepting the submission of manuscripts from preprint servers. However, there are still many concerns from the academic community, especially in the Social Sciences, about what preprints are and what changes they bring to the traditional framework of scientific assessment and publication. Our goal here is to answer these questions briefly, in addition to explaining in a simple way how to submit a preprint to DADOS. To this end, we have prepared a schematic of how manuscripts are evaluated in the traditional double-blind review system and how it has been modified in the preprint model. Next, we have a video and a podcast episode (both available in Portuguese only) about how DADOS will incorporate preprints, followed by a text summarizing this material….”
“Diamond open access (OA), sometimes also referred to as platinum open access, is a form of gold open access – which means that there is permanent and unrestricted online access to an article in its final published form (or version of record). Diamond OA means there is no requirement for authors to pay article processing charges, writes May Copsey.
The diamond model for open access has recently been in the spotlight, due to the publication of a report from Coalition S and Science Europe looking into the landscape of these journals that are free for readers and authors.1 Chemical Science, from the Royal Society of Chemistry, was one of the journals that fed into this report and as executive editor, I was interested to see the full picture of these journals across scientific publishing.
The report shows that there are a huge number of relatively small diamond OA journals, run and managed by the scientific community themselves, usually on a volunteer basis. The costs of these journals are generally taken on by the institutions that run them, such as universities and societies. The study found there to be multiple scientific strengths with this model, however they face some key challenges, including indexing and archiving, governance and technical capabilities around editorial systems and publication platforms. …
So the conversation doesn’t always have to be about gold versus green or how much the APC will be. Societies, with the strong support of their communities, can help lead the way.”
“Five years on, the Open Science-driven journal Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO) published an editorial that looks back on the 300 research ideas and research outcomes it has published so far.
Since its early days, RIO has enjoyed quite positive reactions from the open-minded academic community for its innovative approach to Open Science in practice: it provides a niche that had long been missing, namely the publication of early, intermediate and generally unconventional research outcomes from all around the research cycle (e.g. grant proposals, data management plans, project deliverables, reports, policy briefs, conference materials) in a cross-disciplinary scientific journal. In fact, several months after its launch, in 2016, the journal was acknowledged with the SPARC Innovator Award….”
Abstract: The Corona pandemic as never before shows the advantages of Open Science and Open Access (OA), understood as the unrestricted access to research data, software and publications over the internet. It might accelerate the long-predicted “access revolution” in the academic publishing system towards a system in which scientific publications are freely available for readers over the internet. This paradigm shift, for which the “flipping” of this journal is but one of many examples, is underway, with major research funding organisations at the national and international levels massively supporting it. The call for OA has now also been taken up by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which in its recent General Comment (GC) No. 25 explicitly asks states to promote OA. Following the line of argument of the OA movement, the Committee finds that OA is beneficial to democracy, scientific progress and furthermore a tool to bridge the “knowledge gap”. The aim of this paper is to critically examine the GC and its implications for the global science system in the digital age. It argues that the great merit of the GC lies in highlighting that “benefitting” from science includes access to science as such and not only to its material outcomes. This underscores the independent meaning of the right to science which so far was primarily seen as an enabler for other social rights. However, when it comes to OA, the GC has problematic flaws. It simply assumes that OA is beneficial to the right to science, overlooking that the OA model which is likely to become the global standard risks to benefit the already privileged, namely researchers and publishers of wealthy institutions in the Global North, further sidelining those at the margins. Rather than narrowing existing gaps, it risks to further deepen them. In order to remain meaningful in the face of the fundamental criticism it faces, human rights law needs to address systemic issues and inequalities in the science system and beyond.
“As societies grapple with questions around how to approach OA publishing, one of the best ways to identify viable options is to look to other societies with successful OA titles. A great example is the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The society launched its first fully open access journal, the Journal of Global Oncology (JGO), in 2015. The journal, which focuses on cancer research and care in low- and middle-income countries, has grown significantly over the last four years and is now a thriving publication for global oncology research….”
“The advantages of open access (OA) publishing focussed on scientific publishing in 2020, the year of COVID-19. Can it benefit higher education teaching and learning practice too?…
As an example, the Student Success journal is the result of a simple question posed by a leading academic: How do we keep dynamic conference and symposia conversations related to teaching and learning going, outside events?…
Instead, the Journal pivots towards its strengths as an OA publication. Indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Student Success is only one of nine Australian OA journals that meet its specific criteria for best practice in OA publishing. There are no article processing charges and authors retain copyright while articles are licenced via Creative Commons Attribution License, which ensures the content can be used and reused. Authors are encouraged to submit research on practice that clearly identifies elements transferable to other domains and detail how a specific initiative contributes to the broader knowledge base….”
“In the context of this journal, Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem, the debate on the particularities regarding the new preprint model of publication has been a present topic and has stimulated intense debate in the scientific communication and editorial communities considering the contradictions that surround this model. At the same time, the editors have been consulted regarding the priority action lines of SciELO, the Scientific Electronic Library Online, in order to consolidate their own preprint repository, according to the international scientific publication trends towards Open Science, which has been integrating more and more the debate in forums and specific events (1-2….”
Abstract: This paper studies a selection of 11 Norwegian journals in the humanities and social sciences and their conversion from subscription to open access, a move heavily incentivized by governmental mandates and open access policies. By investigating the journals’ visiting logs in the period 2014–2019, the study finds that a conversion to open access induces higher visiting numbers; all journals in the study had a significant increase, which can be attributed to the conversion. Converting a journal had no spillover in terms of increased visits to previously published articles still behind the paywall in the same journals. Visits from previously subscribing Norwegian higher education institutions did not account for the increase in visits, indicating that the increase must be accounted for by visitors from other sectors. The results could be relevant for policymakers concerning the effects of strict policies targeting economically vulnerable national journals, and could further inform journal owners and editors on the effects of converting to open access.