Search results

The existing, and still evolving, Internet technologies have, up to now, only been used for paper‐free distribution and hypermedia presentation of electronic documents. But today’s business and research often require more ‐ the compilation of knowledge worked out asynchronously by different distributed knowledge holders. This is in general connected with diverse review and revise processes. Owing to awkward paper‐based information flows lacking in control, this task is often characterized by exceptionally lengthy, spontaneous, unsystematic work, high error frequency and lack of transparency, which results in a lack of quality. Coming from the initial goal of supporting a process‐oriented management of distributed editorial work in the publishing sector ‐ which is analogous to the problem outlined above ‐ INTERFYS is an innovative Internet‐based system concept for making such processes more efficient by applying the concepts of workflow management using Web technologies only. With INTERFYS not only the distribution and presentation, but also the creation process of documents is supported using Internet technologies only. The paper explains and evaluates the conceptual and technical aspects of the System INTERFYS 1.0 which has just been realized and was presented on the CeBIT 1998 in Hanover.

This paper aims to determine the gender composition of journal editorial boards in the field of library and information science and to identify trends in the gender composition of different editorial roles and the country of affiliation and occupation of people fulfilling these roles.

In an analysis of 13 selected Library Information Science journals published by the Emerald Publishing group, data relating to 549 editors and editorial board members were obtained from the Open Editors online database. Data were assessed by role, gender, country and continent of their affiliation, and occupation.

Women were found to be under-represented as editors and editorial board members in 10 of the 13 journals. This was most evident in the highest-ranking role of editor or editor-in-chief. The majority of editors and editorial board members were from English-speaking countries located in Europe and the Americas, followed by Asia. The vast majority of editorial personnel belonged to the teaching and learning profession, with relatively few support staff, or researchers taking on these roles.

The findings of this study highlight the gender inequality in prestigious and career-advancing academic roles across multiple research areas. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no such research has yet been conducted in the field of library and information science.

This chapter is an in-depth description of a change process when a company in the media industry carries out a major reorientation of its business. Its old product-oriented business model has become obsolete and it turns toward a solutions-oriented business. But that turns out to be a much more complicated process than anticipated.

The chapter provides a lively story about this process: Why did it start to begin with, what are the kinds of critical events, which are the turning points, resistance to change, tensions, how are they managed, etc.

The chapter and the story told serves as an illustration and a representative for many other similar processes.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the editorial operations underpinning the Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management in light of the review process and the quality of articles. It further outlines the articles in the special issue and relates them to the scope of the journal.

The editorial processes of the journal are analysed and reviewed.

The journal draws on a variety of research streams in humanitarian logistics; it is concluded that there is a need to stress the importance of research with managerial insights for humanitarians still further.

Humanitarian logistics is an emerging field and, unsurprisingly, there is still a lack of good empirical research and research with rigor as well as relevance. Based on submission statistics it can be concluded that the field has already reached a global dimension.

There is still a lack of empirical studies in humanitarian logistics research regardless of methods. However, an explicit discussion of managerial implications alongside theoretical conclusions would be essential in order to lead to any social and practical implications of the research.

These reflections on the editorial processes of JHLSCM as a new journal are used to raise the transparency of these processes.

The article shows how global the field of humanitarian logistics research has become, already, throughout the first year of the journal.

The Wilson System is a computerized information system supporting both editorial and manufacturing processes involved in the creation of the H. W. Wilson Company's subject indexes and catalogs, as well as the selective online retrieval of information from bibliographic and other databases through WILSONLINE—the Company's online search system. The system was designed to provide an automated means for the gathering, storage, retrieval, and management of the Company's editorial data.

In order to improve decision support through knowledge management it is becoming increasingly important to combine internal and external as well as quantitative and qualitative management information. The Internet is already one of the most important media for accessing external data and it might continue to grow in significance. The article describes the concept and prototype of an “Editorial Workbench” that helps to manage knowledge spread in internal and external sources in order to distribute the right information to the responsible decision maker in time. SAP decided to use parts of the prototype for the development of their new product SAP Strategic Enterprise Management (SAP SEM)TM.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the online information system Redalyc as an intermediary tool that provides Latin American scientific articles with international standards (mostly related to natural sciences and developed countries) as well as with specific areas to host local research.

Redalyc is based on a semantic intersection model proposed by Russian semiologist Yuri Lotman. This model allows us to visualize the role played by Redalyc as a mediator between opposites, i.e. local science versus global science, and natural sciences versus social sciences. The paper presents some of the projects Redalyc has developed in conjunction with different countries and different scientific communities.

The paper describes some characteristics that local projects, similar to Redalyc, must have in order to become an intermediary between scientific journal production indexes that link global parameters for scientific communication with local production. The paper finds that efforts should not only be centered on the development of strategies to change certain inertias that distinguish local social scientific production (e.g. dependence on literary resources, lack of recognition of periodical media), but also on the way they could help these disciplines and local media overcome certain barriers, namely: normalization, language and technological handicaps.

The recognition of Latin American scientific production implies a dual process that not only involves local policies (scientific councils), but also requires producing reliable databases to provide scientists and journal editors with global references on how to produce visible scientific literature and pertinent knowledge for their contexts. Redalyc is currently a database that contributes in both ways.

The study aims to provide an analytical overview of current innovations in peer review and their potential impacts on scholarly communication.

The authors created a survey that was disseminated among publishers, academic journal editors and other organizations in the scholarly communication ecosystem, resulting in a data set of 95 self-defined innovations. The authors ordered the material using a taxonomy that compares innovation projects according to five dimensions. For example, what is the object of review? How are reviewers recruited, and does the innovation entail specific review foci?

Peer review innovations partly pull in mutually opposed directions. Several initiatives aim to make peer review more efficient and less costly, while other initiatives aim to promote its rigor, which is likely to increase costs; innovations based on a singular notion of “good scientific practice” are at odds with more pluralistic understandings of scientific quality; and the idea of transparency in peer review is the antithesis to the notion that objectivity requires anonymization. These fault lines suggest a need for better coordination.

This paper presents original data that were analyzed using a novel, inductively developed, taxonomy. Contrary to earlier research, the authors do not attempt to gauge the extent to which peer review innovations increase the “reliability” or “quality” of reviews (as defined according to often implicit normative criteria), nor are they trying to measure the uptake of innovations in the routines of academic journals. Instead, they focus on peer review innovation activities as a distinct object of analysis.

The purpose of this paper is to examine perceived and factual realities of open access predators and further delve into usage patterns of predatory open access journals (OAJs) by researchers and its implication on quality assurance in Library and Information Science Research. It also investigates factors promoting use of these outlets, as well as authors’ perspectives on quality control for OAJs.

The paper reviewed available literature on OAJs and the proliferation of predatory journals. It also presents author’s viewpoint on the implication of using predatory journals for Library and Information Science Research in Nigeria.

The number of predatory publishers globally has grown rapidly from 18 in 2011 to 693 in 2015, whereas standalone journals increased from 126 to 507 in 2015. Library and information science (LIS) studies were published in some of the listed predatory journals by Jeffrey Beall, and this has reduced global recognition of LIS researchers in Nigeria. Upcoming authors were easily attracted to publishing their work in predatory journals because of fast review process, prompt publishing and quest for global visibility. Checking against plagiarism, ensuring quality control, increased awareness for non-use of predatory journals were some of the recommendations given.

It is clear that if LIS educators report their research in predatory OA outlets, individual and institutional reputation will be affected which may eventually lead to low ranking status of institutions. Nigerian universities low ranking status by several indices can be traced to the nonappearance or low scholarly literature published in reputable and respected journal outlets. Scholars with less quality studies will not be invited to feature as reviewers and international panelist in reputable thematic conferences and meetings neither can they be invited as external examiners in universities abroad.

This work is very valuable in evaluating the growth of predatory journals in Library and information Science Research in Nigeria. It provides distinctive ways to evaluating OAJs and how to identify and avoid predatory journals.

In my talk today I plan to talk about the challenges and pressures that face us all and then try to depict some of the opportunities that lie before us in the economic, technological and co‐operative areas.