Il Blog di qualità

Proposta di un nuovo format di pubblicazione nell’editoria scientifica

Autori

  • Giovanni Salucci Università degli Studi di Firenze, Firenze, Italia.

Parole chiave:

Quality Blog, Journal, Academic publishing, Scholarly communication, Blog

Abstract

This paper aims at presenting the Quality Blog as a new inspiring model to reduce the critical issues typical of almost all scientific journals. In continuity with more traditional formats, the Quality Blog aims at visibility and it is characterized by five essential properties: i) a more communicative cut of the contributions, organized in sections/themes and often by invitation; ii) an internal organization consisting of a small group of experts supporting the Director; iii) a substantial focus on editorial and metadata management quality; iv) the lack of a peer-review process in favor of an internal evaluation; v) the coexistence of scientific and informational contributions having a more fluid structure and the presence of multimedia materials. Just like the blog or a scientific journal in Diamond Open Access, the Quality Blog adopts membership, sponsorship, and/or funding as the main economic models; it is free of charge both for authors and readers.

Riferimenti bibliografici

Aczel, Balazs, Barnabas Szaszi, and Alex O. Holcombe. 2021. “A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review.” Res Integr Peer Rev 6, no. 14: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2.

Ancion, Zoé, Lidia Borrell-Damián, Pierre Mounier, Johan Rooryck, and Bregt Saenen. 2022. “Action Plan for Diamond Open Acces.” https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6282402.

Brembs, Björn, Philippe Huneman, Felix Schönbrodt, Gustav Nilsonne, Toma Susi, Renke Siems, Pandelis Perakakis, Varvara Trachana, Lai Ma, and Sara Rodriguez-Cuadrado. 2021. “Replacing academic journals.” https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5526635.

Eve, Martin Paul, Cameron Neylon, Daniel Paul O’Donnell, Samuel Moore, Robert Gadie, Victoria Odeniyi, and Shahina Parvin. 2021. Reading Peer Review: PLOS ONE and Institutional Change in Academia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108783521.

Guatelli, Fulvio. 2016. “Lo spazio economico di una open access journal platform.” In Open Access e scienze umane. Note su diffusione e percezione delle riviste in area umanistica, edited by Luca Scalco, 43-53. Milano: Ledizioni.

Guerrini, Mauro. 2022. “Sua Maestà il revisore: alcune considerazioni sul processo di peer-review all’interno della LIS.” AIB Studi 61 (3): 585-92. https://doi.org/10.2426/aibstudi-13328.

Hames, Irene. 2014. “The Changing Face of Peer Review.” Science Editing 1 (1): 9-12. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.9.

Kyrillodou, Martha. 2012. “Research Library Trends: an historical picture of services resources, and spending.” In Research Library Issues: A Quarterly Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC, Washington, edited by Association of Research Libraries 280, 20-27. https://doi.org/10.29242/rli.280.4.

Larivière, Vincent, Stefanie Haustein, and Philippe Mongeon. 2015. “The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era.” PLOS ONE 10 (6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502.

Margoni, Thomas, and Prodromos Tsiavos. 2018. “Toolkit for Researchers on Legal Issues.”

Rousi, Amtti Mikal, and Mikael Laakso. 2022. “Overlay journals: a study of the current landscape.” arXiv:2204.03383. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.03383.

Salucci, Giovanni, e Roberto Cinotti. 2021. “Open Access e studi umanistici.” Studi Italiani 65 (1): 159-84.

Smith-Yoshimura, Karen. 2020. “Transitioning to the Next Generation of Metadata.” Dublin, OH: OCLC Research. https://doi.org/10.25333/rqgd-b343.

Urbano, Cristóbal, Sara Tafalla, Ángel Borrego, and Ernest Abadal. 2021. “Preprints as an alternative to conference proceedings: A hands-on experience at EDICIC Iberian Meeting 2019.” Learned Publishing 34: 558-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1402.

##submission.downloads##

Pubblicato

30-06-2022

Fascicolo

Sezione

Contributi