问编辑:评估教师编辑的出版需求

Q2 Social Sciences
M. E. Hunter, L. Dunne, Camille Thomas, Laura Miller, Devin Soper
{"title":"问编辑:评估教师编辑的出版需求","authors":"M. E. Hunter, L. Dunne, Camille Thomas, Laura Miller, Devin Soper","doi":"10.31274/jlsc.12912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This article reports results from a survey of faculty members with editorial responsibilities. The survey explored what publishing services and platform functionalities respondents found most valuable in their work as editors, how satisfied they were with the services provided by commercial publishers, and to what extent they were aware of alternative publishing practices. Method: The authors used data collected from a survey instrument that was distributed to a sample (n = 515) of faculty members with editorial responsibilities at their institution. Results: Collected data suggest that faculty editors value specific publishing services (e.g., coordination of peer review and copyediting) and platform functionality (e.g., submission and peer-review management) more than others, recognize several challenges facing academic publishing in their disciplines (including the transition to open access publishing models), and are mostly aware of common forms of open access research dissemination such as open access journals and institutional repositories. Discussion: The survey results may be helpful to library publishers in making decisions about what publishing services and platform functionalities to prioritize in the development of their publishing programs. In addition to utilizing the survey data to assess the needs of editors, the authors also identified a number of expanded uses of the survey related to marketing and outreach. Conclusion: Insofar as faculty editors are key stakeholders that library publishers seek to build partnerships with, it is important to understand their needs and preferences as editors. This article provides some insight into these questions that may prove helpful to library publishers.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ask the Editors: Assessing the Publishing Needs of Faculty Editors\",\"authors\":\"M. E. Hunter, L. Dunne, Camille Thomas, Laura Miller, Devin Soper\",\"doi\":\"10.31274/jlsc.12912\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: This article reports results from a survey of faculty members with editorial responsibilities. The survey explored what publishing services and platform functionalities respondents found most valuable in their work as editors, how satisfied they were with the services provided by commercial publishers, and to what extent they were aware of alternative publishing practices. Method: The authors used data collected from a survey instrument that was distributed to a sample (n = 515) of faculty members with editorial responsibilities at their institution. Results: Collected data suggest that faculty editors value specific publishing services (e.g., coordination of peer review and copyediting) and platform functionality (e.g., submission and peer-review management) more than others, recognize several challenges facing academic publishing in their disciplines (including the transition to open access publishing models), and are mostly aware of common forms of open access research dissemination such as open access journals and institutional repositories. Discussion: The survey results may be helpful to library publishers in making decisions about what publishing services and platform functionalities to prioritize in the development of their publishing programs. In addition to utilizing the survey data to assess the needs of editors, the authors also identified a number of expanded uses of the survey related to marketing and outreach. Conclusion: Insofar as faculty editors are key stakeholders that library publishers seek to build partnerships with, it is important to understand their needs and preferences as editors. This article provides some insight into these questions that may prove helpful to library publishers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.12912\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.12912","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

引言:本文报道了一项对承担编辑责任的教职员工的调查结果。该调查探讨了受访者认为哪些出版服务和平台功能在他们作为编辑的工作中最有价值,他们对商业出版商提供的服务有多满意,以及他们对替代出版做法的了解程度。方法:作者使用了从一个调查工具中收集的数据,该调查工具被分发给一个样本(n=515),该样本是在他们的机构中负责编辑的教员。结果:收集的数据表明,教员编辑比其他人更重视特定的出版服务(如同行评审和文案编辑的协调)和平台功能(如提交和同行评审管理),认识到其学科中学术出版面临的一些挑战(包括向开放获取出版模式的过渡),并且大多了解开放获取研究传播的常见形式,如开放获取期刊和机构资料库。讨论:调查结果可能有助于图书馆出版商决定在开发出版计划时优先考虑哪些出版服务和平台功能。除了利用调查数据评估编辑的需求外,作者还确定了调查在营销和外联方面的一些扩展用途。结论:鉴于教师编辑是图书馆出版商寻求建立合作伙伴关系的关键利益相关者,了解他们作为编辑的需求和偏好是很重要的。这篇文章对这些问题提供了一些见解,可能会对图书馆出版商有所帮助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ask the Editors: Assessing the Publishing Needs of Faculty Editors
Introduction: This article reports results from a survey of faculty members with editorial responsibilities. The survey explored what publishing services and platform functionalities respondents found most valuable in their work as editors, how satisfied they were with the services provided by commercial publishers, and to what extent they were aware of alternative publishing practices. Method: The authors used data collected from a survey instrument that was distributed to a sample (n = 515) of faculty members with editorial responsibilities at their institution. Results: Collected data suggest that faculty editors value specific publishing services (e.g., coordination of peer review and copyediting) and platform functionality (e.g., submission and peer-review management) more than others, recognize several challenges facing academic publishing in their disciplines (including the transition to open access publishing models), and are mostly aware of common forms of open access research dissemination such as open access journals and institutional repositories. Discussion: The survey results may be helpful to library publishers in making decisions about what publishing services and platform functionalities to prioritize in the development of their publishing programs. In addition to utilizing the survey data to assess the needs of editors, the authors also identified a number of expanded uses of the survey related to marketing and outreach. Conclusion: Insofar as faculty editors are key stakeholders that library publishers seek to build partnerships with, it is important to understand their needs and preferences as editors. This article provides some insight into these questions that may prove helpful to library publishers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信