trustworthy or reliable. For instance, there is almost univer-
sal agreement that writing about research in a blog and/or
tweeting about research will not be looked at positively.
Other alternative options are also not deemed trustworthy,
including disseminating research on a personal website,
publishing first in a subject repository, or using other types
of social media to disseminate research.
Ethical considerations are evident with the responses to
the survey. Researchers rate the following activities poorly:
(a) citing one’s own work to improve one’s citation ranking,
(b) citing papers in the journal to which an article is submit-
ted for publication to enhance the likelihood of acceptance,
(c) citing papers mentioned by reviewers to increase chances
of acceptance, (d) citing sources disseminated with com-
ments posted on a dedicated website (open peer review), (e)
citing a pre-print that has not yet been accepted by a journal,
(f) citing only sources published in developed countries, or
(g) citing the published version of a record but reading
another version found on the open web.
Although the climate within which scholars work has
changed, their needs have not. The changes over the past
decade or so seem to have influenced each field similarly.
Many respondents in each field think that there are more
outlets, resulting in more poor-quality material, and that
there is an increased pressure to publish. Respondents in
each field do not think easily available metrics make the
evaluation of trustworthiness easier or that there is a less
strict/less rigorous peer-review process.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: