Home  ›  What Kind of Papers Can I Upload to Academia

What Kind of Papers Can I Upload to Academia

Written By Wednesday, April 13, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Subfield of publishing which distributes academic research and scholarship

Scientific and technical periodical publications per one thousand thousand residents (2013)

Academic publishing is the subfield of publishing which distributes academic research and scholarship. Near academic work is published in bookish journal articles, books or theses. The part of academic written output that is not formally published but merely printed up or posted on the Internet is often called "grey literature". Virtually scientific and scholarly journals, and many academic and scholarly books, though not all, are based on some form of peer review or editorial refereeing to qualify texts for publication. Peer review quality and selectivity standards vary greatly from journal to periodical, publisher to publisher, and field to field.

Most established academic disciplines accept their own journals and other outlets for publication, although many academic journals are somewhat interdisciplinary, and publish work from several singled-out fields or subfields. There is also a trend for existing journals to carve up into specialized sections equally the field itself becomes more than specialized. Along with the variation in review and publication procedures, the kinds of publications that are accepted equally contributions to cognition or research differ greatly among fields and subfields. In the sciences, the desire for statistically meaning results leads to publication bias.[1]

Bookish publishing is undergoing major changes every bit information technology makes the transition from the print to the electronic format. Business organization models are dissimilar in the electronic environment. Since the early 1990s, licensing of electronic resources, particularly journals, has been very common. An important trend, particularly with respect to journals in the sciences, is open up access via the Cyberspace. In open access publishing, a journal article is made bachelor complimentary for all on the web by the publisher at the time of publication. Both open and airtight journals are sometimes funded by the author paying an article processing charge, thereby shifting some fees from the reader to the researcher or their funder. Many open or closed journals fund their operations without such fees and others employ them in predatory publishing. The Internet has facilitated open access cocky-archiving, in which authors themselves make a re-create of their published articles available gratis for all on the web.[2] [three] Some important results in mathematics take been published just on arXiv.[4] [5] [half dozen]

History [edit]

The Periodical des sçavans (later on spelled Journal des savants), established by Denis de Sallo, was the primeval bookish journal published in Europe. Its content included obituaries of famous men, church building history, and legal reports.[7] The first outcome appeared as a twelve-page quarto pamphlet[viii] on Monday, 5 Jan 1665,[9] soon before the starting time appearance of the Philosophical Transactions of the Majestic Social club, on six March 1665.[10]

The publishing of academic journals has started in the 17th century, and expanded greatly in the 19th.[11] At that time, the human action of publishing academic inquiry was controversial and widely ridiculed. It was non at all unusual for a new discovery to be announced as a monograph, reserving priority for the discoverer, but indecipherable for anyone not in on the secret: both Isaac Newton and Leibniz used this approach. Withal, this method did not piece of work well. Robert K. Merton, a sociologist, constitute that 92% of cases of simultaneous discovery in the 17th century ended in dispute. The number of disputes dropped to 72% in the 18th century, 59% by the latter half of the 19th century, and 33% past the showtime half of the 20th century.[12] The decline in contested claims for priority in inquiry discoveries can exist credited to the increasing acceptance of the publication of papers in modern bookish journals, with estimates suggesting that around 50 one thousand thousand journal manufactures[xiii] take been published since the first advent of the Philosophical Transactions. The Royal Society was steadfast in its non-yet-popular conventionalities that scientific discipline could only move forward through a transparent and open up exchange of ideas backed by experimental evidence.

Early scientific journals embraced several models: some were run by a single individual who exerted editorial control over the contents, often merely publishing extracts from colleagues' messages, while others employed a group controlling process, more closely aligned to modern peer review. It wasn't until the eye of the 20th century that peer review became the standard.[14]

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Scientific Publishing [edit]

The COVID-19 pandemic hijacked the entire globe of basic and clinical science, with unprecedented shifts in funding priorities worldwide and a boom in medical publishing, accompanied past an unprecedented increment in the number of publications.[xv] Preprints servers become much popular during the pandemic, the Covid situation has an impact also on traditional peer-review.[xvi]

Covid has also deepened the wests monopoly of scientific discipline-publishing, "by August 2021, at to the lowest degree 210,000 new papers on covid-nineteen had been published, co-ordinate to a Purple Society study. Of the 720,000-odd authors of these papers, near 270,000 were from the Usa, the UK, Italian republic or Spain."[17]

Publishers and business aspects [edit]

In the 1960s and 1970s, commercial publishers began to selectively larn "superlative-quality" journals that were previously published by nonprofit academic societies. When the commercial publishers raised the subscription prices significantly, they lost piddling of the market, due to the inelastic demand for these journals. Although in that location are over 2,000 publishers, five for-profit companies (Reed Elsevier, Springer Science+Business concern Media, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis, and Sage) accounted for fifty% of articles published in 2013.[xviii] [19] (Since 2013, Springer Science+Business Media has undergone a merger to class an fifty-fifty bigger company named Springer Nature.) Available data indicate that these companies accept turn a profit margins of around forty% making it 1 of the most profitable industries,[20] [21] especially compared to the smaller publishers, which likely operate with low margins.[22] These factors take contributed to the "serials crunch" – total expenditures on serials increased 7.vi% per yr from 1986 to 2005, yet the number of serials purchased increased an average of only 1.nine% per year.[23]

Unlike most industries, in academic publishing the ii most important inputs are provided "virtually free of charge".[22] These are the articles and the peer review process. Publishers fence that they add together value to the publishing process through support to the peer review group, including stipends, likewise as through typesetting, printing, and spider web publishing. Investment analysts, nonetheless, have been skeptical of the value added by for-profit publishers, equally exemplified past a 2005 Deutsche Bank analysis which stated that "we believe the publisher adds relatively little value to the publishing procedure... We are simply observing that if the procedure really were every bit complex, costly and value-added as the publishers protest that it is, forty% margins wouldn't be available."[22] [twenty]

Crisis [edit]

A crunch in academic publishing is "widely perceived";[24] the apparent crisis has to practice with the combined pressure of budget cuts at universities and increased costs for journals (the serials crisis).[25] The university budget cuts accept reduced library budgets and reduced subsidies to university-affiliated publishers. The humanities accept been particularly affected past the force per unit area on university publishers, which are less able to publish monographs when libraries can not afford to buy them. For instance, the ARL plant that in "1986, libraries spent 44% of their budgets on books compared with 56% on journals; twelve years later on, the ratio had skewed to 28% and 72%."[24] Meanwhile, monographs are increasingly expected for tenure in the humanities. In 2002 the Mod Language Association expressed hope that electronic publishing would solve the upshot.[24]

In 2009 and 2010, surveys and reports found that libraries faced continuing budget cuts, with one survey in 2009 finding that 36% of Uk libraries had their budgets cut past 10% or more than, compared to 29% with increased budgets.[26] [27] In the 2010s, libraries began more aggressive cost cut with the leverage of open access and open data. Information analysis with open source tools like Unpaywall Journals empowered library systems in reducing their subscription costs by 70% with the counterfoil of the big deal with publishers like Elsevier.[28]

Academic periodical publishing reform [edit]

Several models are being investigated, such as open up publication models or calculation community-oriented features.[29] It is too considered that "Online scientific interaction outside the traditional periodical space is becoming more and more than important to academic communication".[30] In addition, experts have suggested measures to brand the publication process more efficient in disseminating new and of import findings by evaluating the worthiness of publication on the footing of the significance and novelty of the research finding.[31]

Scholarly paper [edit]

In academic publishing, a newspaper is an bookish work that is usually published in an academic periodical. It contains original inquiry results or reviews existing results. Such a paper, also chosen an commodity, will only be considered valid if it undergoes a process of peer review by one or more than referees (who are academics in the same field) who bank check that the content of the paper is suitable for publication in the journal. A newspaper may undergo a series of reviews, revisions, and re-submissions before finally being accepted or rejected for publication. This process typically takes several months. Next, at that place is often a delay of many months (or in some fields, over a yr) earlier an accepted manuscript appears.[32] This is particularly true for the most popular journals where the number of accepted articles often outnumbers the infinite for printing. Due to this, many academics self-archive a 'preprint' or 'postprint' copy of their paper for free download from their personal or institutional website.

Some journals, peculiarly newer ones, are now published in electronic form only. Paper journals are now more often than not made bachelor in electronic form too, both to private subscribers, and to libraries. Almost ever these electronic versions are available to subscribers immediately upon publication of the paper version, or even before; sometimes they are also made bachelor to not-subscribers, either immediately (by open admission journals) or afterwards an embargo of anywhere from ii to twenty-four months or more, in order to protect against loss of subscriptions. Journals having this delayed availability are sometimes called delayed open admission journals. Ellison in 2011 reported that in economic science the dramatic increase in opportunities to publish results online has led to a decline in the use of peer-reviewed manufactures.[33]

Categories of papers [edit]

An academic paper typically belongs to some detail category such as:

  • Concept paper[34] [35]
  • Research paper
  • Case written report or Case series
  • Position paper
  • Review article or Survey newspaper
  • Species paper
  • Technical paper

Annotation: Police force review is the generic term for a periodical of legal scholarship in the Usa, often operating by rules radically unlike from those for most other academic journals.

Peer review [edit]

Peer review is a central concept for virtually academic publishing; other scholars in a field must detect a work sufficiently high in quality for it to merit publication. A secondary do good of the procedure is an indirect guard against plagiarism since reviewers are usually familiar with the sources consulted by the writer(south). The origins of routine peer review for submissions dates to 1752 when the Royal Order of London took over official responsibility for Philosophical Transactions. All the same, there were some earlier examples.[36]

While periodical editors largely agree the system is essential to quality command in terms of rejecting poor quality work, there have been examples of important results that are turned downwards past 1 periodical before being taken to others. Rena Steinzor wrote:

Perhaps the virtually widely recognized failing of peer review is its inability to ensure the identification of high-quality work. The list of of import scientific papers that were initially rejected by peer-reviewed journals goes back at to the lowest degree as far equally the editor of Philosophical Transaction'due south 1796 rejection of Edward Jenner'south report of the first vaccination against smallpox.[37]

"Confirmatory bias" is the unconscious tendency to take reports which back up the reviewer's views and to downplay those which practise not. Experimental studies show the problem exists in peer reviewing.[38]

In that location are various types of peer review feedback that may be given prior to publication, including but non limited to:

  • Single-blind peer review
  • Double-bullheaded peer review
  • Open peer review

Rejection rate [edit]

The possibility of rejections of papers is an important aspect in peer review. The evaluation of quality of journals is based as well on rejection charge per unit. The best journals have the highest rejection rates (around 90–95%).[39] American Psychological Clan periodical's rejection rejection rates "ranging from a depression of 35 per cent to a loftier of 85 per cent."[twoscore]

Publishing procedure [edit]

The process of academic publishing, which begins when authors submit a manuscript to a publisher, is divided into ii singled-out phases: peer review and product.

The process of peer review is organized by the periodical editor and is consummate when the content of the article, together with any associated images, information, and supplementary material are accepted for publication. The peer review process is increasingly managed online, through the utilise of proprietary systems, commercial software packages, or open up source and gratuitous software. A manuscript undergoes one or more rounds of review; later each round, the author(s) of the article modify their submission in line with the reviewers' comments; this process is repeated until the editor is satisfied and the work is accepted.

The production process, controlled past a production editor or publisher, then takes an commodity through copy editing, typesetting, inclusion in a specific issue of a journal, then printing and online publication. Academic copy editing seeks to ensure that an article conforms to the journal's business firm mode, that all of the referencing and labelling is correct, and that the text is consistent and legible; often this work involves substantive editing and negotiating with the authors.[41] Because the work of academic copy editors can overlap with that of authors' editors,[42] editors employed by journal publishers oftentimes refer to themselves as "manuscript editors".[41] During this process, copyright is often transferred from the writer to the publisher.

In the late 21st century author-produced camera-ready copy has been replaced past electronic formats such as PDF. The writer will review and correct proofs at one or more than stages in the product process. The proof correction cycle has historically been labour-intensive as handwritten comments by authors and editors are manually transcribed by a proof reader onto a make clean version of the proof. In the early 21st century, this process was streamlined by the introduction of e-annotations in Microsoft Give-and-take, Adobe Acrobat, and other programs, just information technology still remained a time-consuming and fault-prone process. The total automation of the proof correction cycles has only become possible with the onset of online collaborative writing platforms, such every bit Authorea, Google Docs, and various others, where a remote service oversees the copy-editing interactions of multiple authors and exposes them as explicit, actionable historic events. At the end of this procedure, a final version of record is published.

From fourth dimension to time some published periodical articles have been retracted for unlike reasons, including research misconduct.[43]

Citations [edit]

Bookish authors cite sources they have used, in guild to support their assertions and arguments and to help readers observe more information on the subject. It as well gives credit to authors whose work they use and helps avoid plagiarism. The topic of dual publication (as well known as self-plagiarism) has been addressed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), likewise as in the research literature itself.[44] [45] [46]

Each scholarly journal uses a specific format for citations (also known equally references). Among the most common formats used in research papers are the APA, CMS, and MLA styles.

The American Psychological Clan (APA) style is often used in the social sciences. The Chicago Manual of Style (CMS) is used in business, communications, economic science, and social sciences. The CMS manner uses footnotes at the bottom of page to help readers locate the sources. The Modernistic Language Clan (MLA) style is widely used in the humanities.

Publishing by discipline [edit]

Natural sciences [edit]

Scientific, technical, and medical (STM) literature is a big industry which generated $23.5 billion in revenue in 2011; $nine.4 billion of that was specifically from the publication of English-linguistic communication scholarly journals.[47] Most scientific research is initially published in scientific journals and considered to be a primary source. Technical reports, for small inquiry results and engineering and design work (including estimator software), circular out the primary literature. Secondary sources in the sciences include manufactures in review journals (which provide a synthesis of research manufactures on a topic to highlight advances and new lines of research), and books for large projects, broad arguments, or compilations of articles. Tertiary sources might include encyclopedias and similar works intended for broad public consumption or academic libraries.

A fractional exception to scientific publication practices is in many fields of applied science, particularly that of U.S. computer science research. An equally prestigious site of publication within U.S. computer science are some academic conferences.[48] Reasons for this departure include a large number of such conferences, the quick stride of research progress, and computer scientific discipline professional society back up for the distribution and archiving of conference proceedings.[49]

[edit]

Publishing in the social sciences is very different in different fields. Some fields, like economics, may have very "hard" or highly quantitative standards for publication, much like the natural sciences. Others, like anthropology or folklore, emphasize field work and reporting on first-paw observation as well as quantitative work. Some social science fields, such as public health or demography, have significant shared interests with professions like constabulary and medicine, and scholars in these fields often as well publish in professional magazines.[fifty]

Humanities [edit]

Publishing in the humanities is in principle similar to publishing elsewhere in the university; a range of journals, from general to extremely specialized, are available, and university presses result many new humanities books every year. The arrival of online publishing opportunities has radically transformed the economics of the field and the shape of the time to come is controversial.[51] Different science, where timeliness is critically of import, humanities publications often accept years to write and years more than to publish. Unlike the sciences, research is most frequently an individual process and is seldom supported by large grants. Journals rarely make profits and are typically run past university departments.[52]

The post-obit describes the state of affairs in the United States. In many fields, such as literature and history, several published articles are typically required for a start tenure-track job, and a published or forthcoming book is at present frequently required before tenure. Some critics mutter that this de facto system has emerged without thought to its consequences; they merits that the predictable upshot is the publication of much shoddy piece of work, every bit well as unreasonable demands on the already limited research time of immature scholars. To make matters worse, the circulation of many humanities journals in the 1990s declined to almost untenable levels, every bit many libraries cancelled subscriptions, leaving fewer and fewer peer-reviewed outlets for publication; and many humanities professors' first books sell just a few hundred copies, which frequently does not pay for the cost of their printing. Some scholars take called for a publication subvention of a few m dollars to be associated with each graduate student fellowship or new tenure-rail hire, in order to convalesce the financial pressure on journals.

Open admission journals [edit]

Nether Open Access, the content tin exist freely accessed and reused by anyone in the world using an Internet connectedness. The terminology going back to Budapest Open up Admission Initiative, Berlin Annunciation on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, and Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing. The impact of the piece of work available as Open Access is maximised because, quoting the Library of Trinity College Dublin:[53]

  • Potential readership of Open Access material is far greater than that for publications where the full-text is restricted to subscribers.
  • Details of contents can be read by specialised web harvesters.
  • Details of contents also appear in normal search engines like Google, Google Scholar, Yahoo, etc.

Open up Access is often dislocated with specific funding models such as Commodity Processing Charges (APC) being paid by authors or their funders, sometimes misleadingly called "open access model". The reason this term is misleading is due to the existence of many other models, including funding sources listed in the original the Budapest Open up Access Initiative Declaration: "the foundations and governments that fund research, the universities and laboratories that apply researchers, endowments gear up by discipline or institution, friends of the crusade of open up access, profits from the sale of add-ons to the bones texts, funds freed upwardly by the demise or cancellation of journals charging traditional subscription or access fees, or even contributions from the researchers themselves". For more than recent open up public discussion of open access funding models, see Flexible membership funding model for Open Admission publishing with no author-facing charges.

Prestige journals using the APC model often charge several m dollars. Oxford Academy Printing, with over 300 journals, has fees ranging from £1000-£2500, with discounts of fifty% to 100% to authors from developing countries.[54] Wiley Blackwell has 700 journals bachelor, and they charge unlike amounts for each journal.[55] Springer, with over 2600 journals, charges U.s.a.$3000 or EUR 2200 (excluding VAT).[56] A study found that the average APC (ensuring open up access) was between $1,418 and $two,727 USD.[57]

The online distribution of private articles and academic journals then takes identify without accuse to readers and libraries. Virtually open up access journals remove all the fiscal, technical, and legal barriers that limit admission to academic materials to paying customers. The Public Library of Science and BioMed Primal are prominent examples of this model.

Fee-based open admission publishing has been criticized on quality grounds, every bit the desire to maximize publishing fees could cause some journals to relax the standard of peer review. Although, similar desire is also nowadays in the subscription model, where publishers increase numbers or published articles in order to justify raising their fees. It may exist criticized on financial grounds as well considering the necessary publication or subscription fees have proven to be college than originally expected. Open access advocates generally reply that because open access is as much based on peer reviewing equally traditional publishing, the quality should be the same (recognizing that both traditional and open access journals have a range of quality). It has likewise been argued that good science done past academic institutions who cannot afford to pay for open access might not get published at all, but well-nigh open up access journals permit the waiver of the fee for financial hardship or authors in underdeveloped countries. In any instance, all authors have the option of self-archiving their articles in their institutional repositories or disciplinary repositories in order to make them open up access, whether or non they publish them in a periodical.

If they publish in a Hybrid open access journal, authors or their funders pay a subscription journal a publication fee to brand their individual commodity open access. The other articles in such hybrid journals are either fabricated bachelor subsequently a filibuster or remain available merely by subscription. Nearly traditional publishers (including Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press, and Springer Science+Concern Media) have already introduced such a hybrid option, and more than are post-obit. The fraction of the authors of a hybrid open admission journal that makes employ of its open up admission option can, however, exist small-scale. Information technology besides remains unclear whether this is practical in fields outside the sciences, where at that place is much less availability of outside funding. In 2006, several funding agencies, including the Wellcome Trust and several divisions of the Research Councils in the UK appear the availability of extra funding to their grantees for such open admission journal publication fees.

In May 2016, the Council for the European Union agreed that from 2020 all scientific publications as a result of publicly funded research must be freely bachelor. Information technology also must exist able to optimally reuse research data. To achieve that, the data must exist made accessible, unless there are well-founded reasons for not doing so, for example, intellectual holding rights or security or privacy problems.[58] [59]

Growth [edit]

In recent decades there has been a growth in academic publishing in developing countries equally they go more advanced in science and technology. Although the large majority of scientific output and academic documents are produced in developed countries, the charge per unit of growth in these countries has stabilized and is much smaller than the growth rate in some of the developing countries. The fastest scientific output growth rate over the last two decades has been in the Middle East and Asia with Iran leading with an 11-fold increase followed by the Republic of Korea, Turkey, Cyprus, China, and Oman.[sixty] In comparison, the but G8 countries in pinnacle 20 ranking with fastest operation comeback are, Italy which stands at tenth and Canada at 13th globally.[61] [62]

By 2004, it was noted that the output of scientific papers originating from the European Matrimony had a larger share of the world'due south total from 36.6% to 39.3% and from 32.8% to 37.five% of the "top one per cent of highly cited scientific papers". However, the United States' output dropped from 52.3% to 49.4% of the globe's total, and its portion of the height ane percent dropped from 65.6% to 62.8%.[63]

Iran, China, India, Brazil, and S Africa were the only developing countries among the 31 nations that produced 97.5% of the most cited scientific articles in a report published in 2004. The remaining 162 countries contributed less than 2.five%.[63] The Royal Society in a 2011 report stated that in share of English scientific research papers the U.s.a. was first followed past China, the Britain, Germany, Japan, France, and Canada. The report predicted that China would overtake the United States sometime before 2020, possibly as early on as 2013. People's republic of china's scientific impact, every bit measured by other scientists citing the published papers the next year, is smaller although also increasing.[64] Developing countries proceed to detect means to ameliorate their share, given research budget constraints and limited resources.[65]

Part for publishers in scholarly communication [edit]

There is increasing frustration amongst OA advocates, with what is perceived as resistance to change on the part of many of the established academic publishers. Publishers are oftentimes accused of capturing and monetising publicly-funded research, using free academic labour for peer review, and and so selling the resulting publications back to academia at inflated profits.[66] Such frustrations sometimes spill over into hyperbole, of which "publishers add together no value" is i of the nigh common examples.[67]

Yet, scholarly publishing is not a simple process, and publishers practise add together value to scholarly communication as it is currently designed.[68] Kent Anderson maintains a list of things that journal publishers practice which currently contains 102 items and has notwithstanding to be formally contested from anyone who challenges the value of publishers.[69] Many items on the list could be argued to be of value primarily to the publishers themselves, e.g. "Make money and remain a constant in the system of scholarly output". Nonetheless, others provide directly value to researchers and research in steering the academic literature. This includes arbitrating disputes (e.g. over ethics, authorship), stewarding the scholarly tape, copy-editing, proofreading, type-setting, styling of materials, linking the articles to open and accessible datasets, and (perhaps most chiefly) arranging and managing scholarly peer review. The latter is a chore that should non be underestimated as information technology effectively entails coercing busy people into giving their time to ameliorate someone else's piece of work and maintain the quality of the literature. Not to mention the standard management processes for large enterprises, including infrastructure, people, security, and marketing. All of these factors contribute in one way or another to maintaining the scholarly tape.[67]

Information technology could be questioned though, whether these functions are actually necessary to the core aim of scholarly communication, namely, dissemination of inquiry to researchers and other stakeholders such as policy makers, economic, biomedical and industrial practitioners every bit well as the general public.[70] Above, for example, we question the necessity of the current infrastructure for peer review, and if a scholar-led crowdsourced alternative may be preferable. In addition, ane of the biggest tensions in this space is associated with the question if for-profit companies (or the private sector) should exist allowed to exist in accuse of the management and dissemination of academic output and execute their powers while serving, for the most part, their own interests. This is often considered alongside the value added by such companies, and therefore the two are closely linked as part of broader questions on advisable expenditure of public funds, the function of commercial entities in the public sector, and issues effectually the privatisation of scholarly noesis.[67]

Publishing could certainly be done at a lower cost than mutual at nowadays. There are significant researcher-facing inefficiencies in the organisation including the common scenario of multiple rounds of rejection and resubmission to various venues as well equally the fact that some publishers profit beyond reasonable scale.[71] What is missing most[67] from the current publishing marketplace, is transparency nigh the nature and the quality of the services publishers offer. This would permit authors to make informed choices, rather than decisions based on indicators that are unrelated to research quality, such as the JIF.[67] All the above questions are being investigated and alternatives could be considered and explored. Notwithstanding, in the current system, publishers notwithstanding play a role in managing processes of quality assurance, interlinking and findability of inquiry. As the role of scholarly publishers inside the noesis communication manufacture continues to evolve, it is seen as necessary[67] that they can justify their operation based on the intrinsic value that they add,[72] [73] and combat the perception that they add no value to the process.

Meet also [edit]

  • Bookish authorship
  • Academic writing
  • Acquittance index
  • Listing of academic preprint servers
  • List of bookish databases and search engines
  • AuthorAID
  • Council of Science Editors
  • Current research information system
  • European Association of Scientific discipline Editors
  • EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Manufactures
  • Google Scholar
  • HAL (open archive)
  • IMRAD
  • Library publishing
  • List of scholarly publishing stings
  • Monographic series
  • Preprints
  • Proceedings
  • Rankings of academic publishers
  • Research paper mill
  • Scientific method
  • Serials, periodicals and journals
  • Technical writing

References [edit]

  1. ^ Pearce, J; Derrick, B (2019). "Preliminary testing: The devil of statistics?". Reinvention: An International Journal of Undergraduate Research. 12 (2). doi:ten.31273/reinvention.v12i2.339.
  2. ^ Harnad, Southward., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y, Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H., & Hilf, E. (2004) The green and the gilt roads to Open Access. Nature Web Focus.
  3. ^ Jeffery, Keith Yard. (2006) Open up Access: An Introduction. ERCIM News 64. January 2006
  4. ^ Perelman, Grisha (November xi, 2002). "The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications". arXiv:math.DG/0211159.
  5. ^ Nadejda Lobastova and Michael Hirst, "Maths genius living in poverty", Sydney Morning Herald, Baronial 21, 2006
  6. ^ Kaufman, Marc (July two, 2010), "Russian mathematician wins $1 million prize, but he appears to be happy with $0", Washington Mail
  7. ^ The Amsterdam printing of the Journal des sçavans, Dibner Library of the Smithsonian Establishment
  8. ^ Brown, 1972, p. 368.
  9. ^ Hallam, 1842, p. 406.
  10. ^ Philosophical Transactions of the Majestic Society Vol. 1, Issue 1, is dated March half dozen, 1665. Meet besides History of the Journal [ permanent dead link ]
  11. ^ "history of publishing - Scholarly journals | Britannica". www.britannica.com . Retrieved 2022-03-09 .
  12. ^ Merton, Robert K. (December 1963). "Resistance to the Systematic Study of Multiple Discoveries in Science". European Periodical of Sociology. four (2): 237–282. doi:10.1017/S0003975600000801. ISSN 1474-0583. S2CID 145650007.
  13. ^ Jinha, A. E. (2010). "Article 50 million: An judge of the number of scholarly manufactures in beingness" (PDF). Learned Publishing. 23 (3): 258–263. doi:ten.1087/20100308. hdl:10393/19577. S2CID 9578039. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-03-23.
  14. ^ "The History of Scientific Publishing: An interview with Aileen Fyfe" (Podcast). 2016. Archived from the original on 2017-11-08. Retrieved 2017-06-xix .
  15. ^ Sloane, Philip D.; Zimmerman, Sheryl (2021). "The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Scientific Publishing". Journal of the American Medical Directors Clan. 22 (3): 484–488. doi:x.1016/j.jamda.2021.01.073. ISSN 1538-9375. PMC8791445. PMID 33549563.
  16. ^ Else, Holly (2020-12-16). "How a torrent of COVID science changed research publishing — in seven charts". Nature. 588 (7839): 553. Bibcode:2020Natur.588..553E. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03564-y. PMID 33328621. S2CID 229301049.
  17. ^ Subramanian, Samanth. "The Due west already monopolized scientific publishing. Covid made it worse". Quartz . Retrieved 2022-02-23 .
  18. ^ "5 companies control more than one-half of academic publishing". Phys.org. x June 2015.
  19. ^ Larivière, Vincent; Haustein, Stefanie; Mongeon, Philippe (10 June 2015). "The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era". PLOS ONE. 10 (6): e0127502. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1027502L. doi:x.1371/journal.pone.0127502. PMC4465327. PMID 26061978.
  20. ^ a b Buranyi, Stephen (27 June 2017). "Is the staggeringly profitable business organization of scientific publishing bad for science?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077.
  21. ^ "Time to pause academic publishing'due south stranglehold on research". New Scientist. 21 November 2018. Retrieved 27 Nov 2018.
  22. ^ a b c McGuigan, GS; Russell, RD (Winter 2008). "The Concern of Bookish Publishing: A Strategic Analysis of the Bookish Journal Publishing Industry and its Bear upon on the Futurity of Scholarly Publishing". Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship. nine (3).
  23. ^ Association of Research Libraries, ARL Statistics: 2004-2005 Archived 2008-12-16 at the Wayback Machine. As cited in McGuigan & Russell 2008.
  24. ^ a b c Modern Linguistic communication Association. Report from the Ad Hoc Commission on the Future of Scholarly Publishing. 2002. Archived 2006-09-23 at the Wayback Car.
  25. ^ Sample, Ian (24 April 2012). "Harvard University says it tin't afford periodical publishers' prices". The Guardian.
  26. ^ Seeking the New Normal: Periodicals Price Survey 2010 Archived 2010-09-28 at the Wayback Machine. LibraryJournal.com.
  27. ^ Nicholas, David; Rowlands, Ian; Jubb, Michael; Jamali, Hamid R. (2010). "The impact of the economic downturn on libraries: With special reference to university libraries". The Journal of Bookish Librarianship. 36 (five): 376–382. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2010.06.001.
  28. ^ Denise Wolfe (2020-04-07). "SUNY Negotiates New, Modified Understanding with Elsevier - Libraries News Heart University at Buffalo Libraries". library.buffalo.edu. University at Buffalo. Retrieved 2020-04-18 .
  29. ^ Hendler, James (2007). "Reinventing Bookish Publishing - Office 1". IEEE Intelligent Systems. 22 (5). doi:10.1109/MIS.2007.93. S2CID 11493002.
  30. ^ Hendler, James (2008). "Reinventing Academic Publishing - Part 3". IEEE Intelligent Systems. 23 (1): 2–3. doi:10.1109/MIS.2008.12.
  31. ^ J. Scott Armstrong (1997). "Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Command, Fairness, and Innovation" (PDF). Free energy & Environment. three: 63–84. CiteSeerX10.1.i.37.5054. doi:10.1007/s11948-997-0017-3. S2CID 7920654. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-06-xx.
  32. ^ Björk, Bo-Christer; Solomon, David (Oct 2013). "The publishing filibuster in scholarly peer-reviewed journals". Journal of Informetrics. 7 (4): 914–923. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001. hdl:10138/157324.
  33. ^ Ellison, Glenn (July 2011). "Is Peer Review in Pass up?". Economic Research. 49 (three): 635–657. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2010.00261.x. hdl:1721.ane/74594. S2CID 53051479.
  34. ^ "Brief: How to Write a Concept Paper" (PDF). Hanover Grants. 2011. Archived from the original (PDF download) on 2013-06-26. Retrieved 2013-07-04 . Funders ofttimes ask for cursory one- to five-page concept papers (also called "white papers" in the government contracting sector) prior to submission of a full proposal.
  35. ^ "Format for a Concept paper". The Gerber Foundation. 2012. Archived from the original on 2013-07-05. Retrieved 2013-07-04 .
  36. ^ Kronick, David A. (9 March 1990). "Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism". JAMA: The Periodical of the American Medical Clan. 263 (ten): 1321–1322. doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100021002. PMID 2406469.
  37. ^ Wagner, Wendy Elizabeth; Steinzor, Rena (2006-07-24). Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research. Cambridge University Printing. ISBN9780521855204 – via Google Books.
  38. ^ Mahoney, Michael J. (June 1977). "Publication prejudices: An experimental report of confirmatory bias in the peer review organization". Cognitive Therapy and Enquiry. one (ii): 161–175. doi:10.1007/BF01173636. S2CID 7350256.
  39. ^ Khadilkar, Suvarna Satish (2018-08-01). "Rejection Blues: Why Do Research Papers Get Rejected?". The Periodical of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India. 68 (four): 239–241. doi:10.1007/s13224-018-1153-1. ISSN 0975-6434. PMC6046667. PMID 30065536.
  40. ^ "Rejection Rate - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics". world wide web.sciencedirect.com . Retrieved 2022-03-09 .
  41. ^ a b Iverson, Cheryl (2004). ""Re-create editor" vs. "manuscript editor" vs...: venturing onto the minefield of titles" (PDF). Science Editor. 27 (ii): 39–41. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 December 2010. Retrieved nineteen Nov 2013.
  42. ^ de Jager, Marije (2013). "Journal copy-editing in a non-anglophone surroundings". In Matarese, Valerie ) (ed.). Supporting Research Writing: Roles and challenges in multilingual settings. Oxford: Chandos. pp. 157–171. ISBN978-1843346661.
  43. ^ Vuong, Quan-Hoang (2020). "Reform retractions to make them more transparent". Nature. 582 (7811): 149. Bibcode:2020Natur.582..149V. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-ten. S2CID 219529301.
  44. ^ Weber-Wulff, D. (2019). A Breakdown in Communication: Periodical Reactions to Information most Plagiarism and Indistinguishable Publications. Paper presented at the sixth World Conference on Enquiry Integrity (WCRI) 2019. https://wcrif.org/images/2019/ArchiveOtherSessions/day2/36.%20CC4%twenty-%20Debora%20Weber-wulffO-019%2020190602-HongKong.pdf
  45. ^ Eaton, Sarah Elaine; Crossman, Katherine (2018). "Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review". Interchange. 49 (3): 285–311. doi:10.1007/s10780-018-9333-6. ISSN 0826-4805. S2CID 149828057.
  46. ^ Roig, M. (2015). Fugitive plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to upstanding writing. U.S. Department of Wellness & Human Services: Part of Research Integrity Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/fugitive-plagiarism-self-plagiarism-and-other-questionable-writing-practices-guide-ethical-writing
  47. ^ Ware, Mark; Wabe, Michael (November 2012). The STM Report: An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Publishing (PDF) (Tertiary ed.). International Clan of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.
  48. ^ Patterson, David (University of California, Berkeley); Snyder, Lawrence; Ullma, Jeffrey (Baronial 1999). "Evaluating Computer Scientists and Engineers For Promotion and Tenure" (PDF). Calculating Research News . Retrieved 2013-07-04 .
  49. ^ Grudin, Jonathan (April 2–7, 2005). "Why CHI Fragmented". CHI '05 extended abstracts on Man factors in computing systems. Portland, Oregon: ACM Press. pp. 1083–1084. doi:10.1145/1056808.1056822.
  50. ^ All-time, Joel (September 2016). "Following the Money Across the Landscape of Sociology Journals". The American Sociologist. 47 (2–iii): 158–173. doi:ten.1007/s12108-015-9280-y. S2CID 145451172.
  51. ^ Davidson, Cathy (1 Apr 2004). "The Futures of Scholarly Publishing". Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 35 (three): 129–142. doi:10.1353/scp.2004.0013. S2CID 145373845.
  52. ^ Miller, Toby (2012). Blow Up the Humanities. Temple University Press. ISBN9781439909836.
  53. ^ "About Open Access - the Library of Trinity College Dublin - Trinity Higher Dublin".
  54. ^ "Oxford Open". Oxford Academic Journals. Archived from the original on 2011-05-24.
  55. ^ "Open Access". Wiley . Retrieved 22 May 2019.
  56. ^ "Open Choice". Springer.
  57. ^ Robin. "What'due south the bargain with Article Processing Charges (APCs)? | MSK Library Blog". Retrieved 2022-04-13 .
  58. ^ Zaken, Ministerie van Buitenlandse. "All European scientific articles to be freely attainable by 2020". english.eu2016.nl . Retrieved 2016-05-28 .
  59. ^ "Competitiveness Council, 26-27/05/2016 - Consilium". www.consilium.europa.eu . Retrieved 2016-05-28 .
  60. ^ MacKenzie, Debora (2010-02-18). "Iran showing fastest scientific growth of whatever country". New Scientist . Retrieved 2012-08-07 .
    • S. M. J. Mortazavi; Z. Hashemi (June 2011). "Tiger or Rabbit does not Matter: a New Look into the Recent Great Achievements of Iranian Scientists". Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 4 (six): 716. doi:x.17485/ijst/2011/v4i6.21.
  61. ^ "2005 OST PSA written report" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-07-21. Retrieved 2012-x-02 .
  62. ^ "Message Board - Which nation's scientific output is rising fastest?". IPM. Retrieved 2012-08-07 .
  63. ^ a b David Dickson (2004-07-sixteen). "China, Brazil and India pb southern scientific discipline output". SciDev.Net . Retrieved 2012-08-07 .
  64. ^ Alok Jha (28 March 2011). "China poised to overhaul Usa as biggest publisher of scientific papers". The Guardian.
  65. ^ Vuong, Quan-Hoang (2019). "Breaking barriers in publishing demands a proactive attitude". Nature Human Behaviour. 3 (10): 1034. doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0667-6. PMID 31602012. S2CID 204030775.
  66. ^ Beverungen, Armin; Böhm, Steffen; Land, Christopher (2012). "The Poverty of Journal Publishing" (PDF). Organization. nineteen (vi): 929–938. doi:ten.1177/1350508412448858. S2CID 145686977.
  67. ^ a b c d e f Vanholsbeeck, Marc; Thacker, Paul; Sattler, Susanne; Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Rivera-López, Bárbara S.; Rice, Curt; Nobes, Andy; Masuzzo, Paola; Martin, Ryan; Kramer, Bianca; Havemann, Johanna; Enkhbayar, Asura; Davila, Jacinto; Crick, Tom; Crane, Harry; Tennant, Jonathan P. (2019-03-eleven). "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing". Publications. seven (two): 34. doi:10.3390/publications7020034.
  68. ^ Luzón, María José (2007). "The Added Value Features of Online Scholarly Journals". Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. 37: 59–73. doi:x.2190/H702-6473-8569-2R3Q. S2CID 62152187.
  69. ^ Anderson, Kent (2018-02-06). "Focusing on Value — 102 Things Journal Publishers Practice (2018 Update)". Scholarly Kitchen.
  70. ^ Vuong, Quan-Hoang (2018). "The (ir)rational consideration of the cost of scientific discipline in transition economies". Nature Human Behaviour. 2 (ane): v. doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0281-4. PMID 30980055. S2CID 46878093.
  71. ^ Van Noorden, Richard (2013). "Open Admission: The True Cost of Scientific discipline Publishing". Nature. 495 (7442): 426–429. Bibcode:2013Natur.495..426V. doi:10.1038/495426a. PMID 23538808.
  72. ^ Inchcoombe, Steven (2017). "The changing role of research publishing: A case study from Springer Nature". Insights: The UKSG Journal. 30 (2): 13–19. doi:ten.1629/uksg.355.
  73. ^ De Camargo, Kenneth R. (2014). "Big Publishing and the Economics of Competition". American Periodical of Public Health. 104 (1): viii–ten. doi:ten.2105/AJPH.2013.301719. PMC3910061. PMID 24228678.

Further reading [edit]

  • Belcher, Wendy Laura. "Writing Your Periodical Article in Twelve Weeks: A Guide to Bookish Publishing Success." ISBN 9781412957014
  • Best, Joel (2016). "Post-obit the Money Beyond the Landscape of Folklore Journals". The American Sociologist. 47 (2–three): 158–173. doi:10.1007/s12108-015-9280-y. S2CID 145451172.
  • Brienza, Casey (2012). "Opening the wrong gate? The academic spring and scholarly publishing in the humanities and social sciences". Publishing Enquiry Quarterly. 28 (3): 159–171. doi:ten.1007/s12109-012-9272-5. S2CID 144975300.
  • Culler, Jonathan, and Kevin Lamb. Just Being Difficult? Bookish Writing in the Public Loonshit. Stanford, Calif. : Stanford Academy Press, 2003. ISBN 0-8047-4709-ane
  • Germano, William. Getting it Published, 2nd Edition: A Guide for Scholars and Anyone Else Serious About Serious Books. ISBN 978-0-226-28853-6. Read a affiliate.
  • Greco, Albert N (2015). "Academic Libraries and the Economics of Scholarly Publishing in the Twenty-Start Century: Portfolio Theory, Production Differentiation, Economic Hire, Perfect Price Discrimination, and the Cost of Prestige". Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 47 (1): ane–43. doi:10.3138/jsp.47.1.01. S2CID 145144718.
  • Nelson, Cary and Stephen Watt. "Scholarly Books" and "Peer Review" in Bookish Keywords: A Devil'south Lexicon for Higher Education. ISBN 0-415-92203-8.
  • Tenopir, Carol and Donald King. "Towards Electronic Journals: Realities for Librarians and Publishers. SLA, 2000. ISBN 0-87111-507-7.
  • Wellington, J. J. Getting published : a guide for lecturers and researcher (RoutledgeFalmer, 2003). ISBN 0-415-29847-4
  • Yang, Rui. "Scholarly publishing, noesis mobility and internationalization of Chinese universities." in Tara Fenwick and Lesley Farrell, eds. Knowledge mobilization and educational research: Politics, languages and responsibilities (2012): 185–167.

External links [edit]

  • Journal of Scholarly Publishing

marouoverects.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_publishing

0 Response to "What Kind of Papers Can I Upload to Academia"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel