Czasopismo
Tytuł artykułu
Autorzy
Treść / Zawartość
Pełne teksty:
![http://www.folia-turistica.pl/attachments/article/402/FT_50_1_2019.pdf [zdalny]](images/mime-icons/pdf.gif "FT_50_1_2019.pdf")
Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
Abstrakty
Purpose. The presentation of challenges with which scientific journals and - more broadly - scientific communication, will have to face in the substantive, technological and financial sphere in the conditions of constant evolution of the digital world, dynamic development of new information systems in science (e-library, library 2.0) and new phenomena conditioning the behaviour of Internet users.
Method. The views presented in the article are the result of a review of literature regarding scientific journals and empirical research, which was conducted from April to August 2018 among 132 authors representing the world of science and economic practices.
Findings. The open access (OA) movement has caused significant changes in the behaviour of people of science in publishing and depositing research results. The prospect of taking over all the functions of scientific journals by scientific repositories still seems to be distant due to the lack of alternative methods for assessing the quality of scientific publications. There are doubts about the division into scientific, institutional repositories and the repositories belonging to scientific journals, which results from unclear business models of individual solutions. The phenomenon of self-publishing is stimulated by the dynamic development of research carried out by business units, skilfully analysing the resources of large data sets and successfully popularising research results in social repositories. This is new quality in the area of information exchange, which requires rapid adaptation on scientific grounds. An insufficiently implemented postulate to popularise scientific knowledge and its transfer to business practice remains an equally important challenge.
Research and conclusions limitations. The results of the survey based on the respondents' subjective assessment should be treated with caution and do not allow to draw general conclusions. The research revealed significant discrepancies in respondents' opinions regarding the future of scientific journals and their prospects for functioning in new information systems. The highest doubts concern the quality assessment system of scientific publications and the business model of scientific repositories: the significant number of stakeholders of the scientific communication system, dispersed in various scientific, political and economic systems, further limits the possibility of formulating unambiguous decisions in this respect.
Originality. The presented article formulates challenges for scientific journals whose functions are being increasingly taken over by scientific and social repositories. In contrast to the previously published works, this suggests solutions in the field of artificial intelligence, which will enable complete change in the way of publishing and validation of knowledge as well as quality control of scientific research.
Type of work. Review article. (original abstract)
Method. The views presented in the article are the result of a review of literature regarding scientific journals and empirical research, which was conducted from April to August 2018 among 132 authors representing the world of science and economic practices.
Findings. The open access (OA) movement has caused significant changes in the behaviour of people of science in publishing and depositing research results. The prospect of taking over all the functions of scientific journals by scientific repositories still seems to be distant due to the lack of alternative methods for assessing the quality of scientific publications. There are doubts about the division into scientific, institutional repositories and the repositories belonging to scientific journals, which results from unclear business models of individual solutions. The phenomenon of self-publishing is stimulated by the dynamic development of research carried out by business units, skilfully analysing the resources of large data sets and successfully popularising research results in social repositories. This is new quality in the area of information exchange, which requires rapid adaptation on scientific grounds. An insufficiently implemented postulate to popularise scientific knowledge and its transfer to business practice remains an equally important challenge.
Research and conclusions limitations. The results of the survey based on the respondents' subjective assessment should be treated with caution and do not allow to draw general conclusions. The research revealed significant discrepancies in respondents' opinions regarding the future of scientific journals and their prospects for functioning in new information systems. The highest doubts concern the quality assessment system of scientific publications and the business model of scientific repositories: the significant number of stakeholders of the scientific communication system, dispersed in various scientific, political and economic systems, further limits the possibility of formulating unambiguous decisions in this respect.
Originality. The presented article formulates challenges for scientific journals whose functions are being increasingly taken over by scientific and social repositories. In contrast to the previously published works, this suggests solutions in the field of artificial intelligence, which will enable complete change in the way of publishing and validation of knowledge as well as quality control of scientific research.
Type of work. Review article. (original abstract)
Rocznik
Numer
Strony
307--349
Opis fizyczny
Twórcy
autor
- Warsaw School of Economics
Bibliografia
- Alejziak W., Liszewski S. (2016), Rola czasopism naukowych w transferze wiedzy w turystyce [The role of scientific journals in the transfer of knowledge in tourism] "Folia Turistica", Vol. 41, pp. 81-135.
- Antelman K. (2004), Do open-access articles have a greater research impact?, "College and Research Libraries", Vol. 65, No. 5, pp. 372-82.
- Bachrach S., Berry R.S., Blume M., von Foerster T., Fowler A., Ginsparg P., Heller S., Kestner N., Odlyzko A., Okerson A., Wigington R., Moffat A. (1998), Intellectual property: who should own scientific papers, "Science", Vol. 281, No. 5382, pp. 1459-60.
- Barrat J. (2013), Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era, New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2013, pp. 152.
- Bednarek-Michalska B. (2013), Modele biznesowe otwartego publikowania naukowego [Business models of Open Access scientific publishing], EBIB Society, https://tiny.pl/g6b9z (access 07.08.2018).
- Bot M., Burgemeester J. (1998), Costing Model for Publishing an Electronic Journal, Price Waterhouse Coopers, Utrecht.
- Boyce P. (2000), For better or for worse: preprints are here to stay, "College and Research Libraries News", Vol. 61, No. 5, pp. 404-714.
- Brown C. (2001a), The coming of age of e-prints in the literature of physics, "Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship", www.library.ucsb. edu/istl/01-summer/refereed.html (access 14.08.2018).
- Brown C. (2001b), The e-volution of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomers, "Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology", Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 187-200.
- Bruce R., Cordewener B. (2018), Open science is all very well but how do you make it FAIR in practice?, https://tiny.pl/g6b4q (access 08.08.2018).
- Bush V. (1996/1945), As we may think, "Interactions", Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 35-46 (pierwotnie opublikowany w "Atlantic Monthly", Vol. 176, No. 1, pp. 101-8.
- Chan L., Hodges T. (2009), Cataloging and Classification, Lanham, 2007.
- Chan L.,Kirsop B. (2001), Open archiving oppportunities for developing countries: towards equitable distribution of global knowledge, "Ariadne", Vol. 30, www.aariadne.ac.uk/issue30/oai-chan/intro.html (access 08.07.2018).
- Correia A.M, Teixeira J.C. (2005), Reforming Scholarly Publishing and Knowledge Communication, "Online International Review", Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 349-364.
- Cronin B., Overfelt K. (1995), E-journals and tenure, "Journal of the American Society for Information Science", Vol. 46, No. 9, pp. 700-3.
- Crow R. (2002), The Case of Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper, SPARC, Washington, DC, www.arl.org/sparc/IR/ir.html (access 20.07.2018).
- Day M. (1999), The scholarly journal in transition and the Pub Med Central proposal, "Ariadne", No. 21, www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue21/pubmed/intro. html (access 07.07.2018).
- Drabek A. (2009), Polskie czasopisma open access- próba charakterystyki [Polish open access periodicals - an intent of characterization], "Bibliotheca Nostra", Vol. 3/4(19).
- Drabek A., Pulikowski A. (2005-2009), Arianta - Naukowe i fachowe polskie czasopisma elektroniczne, [Arianta - Polish scientific and professional electronic journals] http://www1.bg.us.edu.pl/bazy/czasopisma (access 04.06.2018).
- Allen R., Hartland D. (2018), FAIR in practice - Jisc report on the Findable Accessible Interoperable and Reuseable Data Principles, https://zenodo. org/record/1245568
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikatory
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.ekon-element-000171569777
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.