在线咨询“科学出版系统”:文献和主要成果

Niels C. Taubert, Kevin Schön
{"title":"在线咨询“科学出版系统”:文献和主要成果","authors":"Niels C. Taubert, Kevin Schön","doi":"10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-SOCSCI.AE2GYG.v1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This short report provides a description of an online-consultation on the scientific publication system. German-speaking scientists from all disciplines were invited to articulate their perspectives on principles and current problems in scientific publishing in the dialogical procedure. 697 participants addressed their opinion in two areas of consultation (a) Consultation area “evaluate principles”: the goal in this section was to find out whether there is a general consensus throughout academia of what constitutes a good publication system. For this purpose, principles of a good scientific publication system could be commented on and evaluated with positive or negative votes. (b) Consultation area “name problems”: this section aimed at obtaining the perspective of the participants on current challenges and problems of the publication system. The contributions of the participants focus on eight topics: (1) printed vs. digital publication, (2) business models of large publishing houses, (3) open access, (4) publication-based performance indicators, (5) authorship, (6) peer review, (7) publication bias, and (8) research data.","PeriodicalId":91169,"journal":{"name":"ScienceOpen research","volume":"24 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Online-Consultation “scientific publication system”: documentation and main results\",\"authors\":\"Niels C. Taubert, Kevin Schön\",\"doi\":\"10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-SOCSCI.AE2GYG.v1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This short report provides a description of an online-consultation on the scientific publication system. German-speaking scientists from all disciplines were invited to articulate their perspectives on principles and current problems in scientific publishing in the dialogical procedure. 697 participants addressed their opinion in two areas of consultation (a) Consultation area “evaluate principles”: the goal in this section was to find out whether there is a general consensus throughout academia of what constitutes a good publication system. For this purpose, principles of a good scientific publication system could be commented on and evaluated with positive or negative votes. (b) Consultation area “name problems”: this section aimed at obtaining the perspective of the participants on current challenges and problems of the publication system. The contributions of the participants focus on eight topics: (1) printed vs. digital publication, (2) business models of large publishing houses, (3) open access, (4) publication-based performance indicators, (5) authorship, (6) peer review, (7) publication bias, and (8) research data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91169,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ScienceOpen research\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-02-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ScienceOpen research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-SOCSCI.AE2GYG.v1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ScienceOpen research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-SOCSCI.AE2GYG.v1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这个简短的报告提供了一个关于科学出版系统的在线咨询的描述。来自所有学科的讲德语的科学家应邀在对话程序中阐明他们对科学出版的原则和当前问题的看法。697名与会者就两个协商领域发表了意见(a)协商领域“评价原则”:本节的目标是查明整个学术界是否就什么是良好的出版制度达成普遍共识。为此,一个好的科学出版制度的原则可以通过正面或负面的投票进行评论和评价。(b)协商领域“名称问题”:本节旨在了解与会者对出版制度目前面临的挑战和问题的看法。参与者的贡献集中在八个主题上:(1)印刷与数字出版,(2)大型出版社的商业模式,(3)开放获取,(4)基于出版的绩效指标,(5)作者身份,(6)同行评议,(7)出版偏倚,(8)研究数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Online-Consultation “scientific publication system”: documentation and main results
This short report provides a description of an online-consultation on the scientific publication system. German-speaking scientists from all disciplines were invited to articulate their perspectives on principles and current problems in scientific publishing in the dialogical procedure. 697 participants addressed their opinion in two areas of consultation (a) Consultation area “evaluate principles”: the goal in this section was to find out whether there is a general consensus throughout academia of what constitutes a good publication system. For this purpose, principles of a good scientific publication system could be commented on and evaluated with positive or negative votes. (b) Consultation area “name problems”: this section aimed at obtaining the perspective of the participants on current challenges and problems of the publication system. The contributions of the participants focus on eight topics: (1) printed vs. digital publication, (2) business models of large publishing houses, (3) open access, (4) publication-based performance indicators, (5) authorship, (6) peer review, (7) publication bias, and (8) research data.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
1 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