Document Type : Articles
Authors
1 Ph.D. in Knowledge and Information Science, Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IranDoc), Information Science Research Department, Scientometrics and Information Analysis Research Group, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Prof., Knowledge and Information Science, Research Institution for Information Science and Technology (IranDoc), Information Science Research Department, Scientometrics and Information Analysis Research Group, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor of Human Science Faculty, Islamic Azad University, Yadegar Imam Khomeini (RAH) branch, Shahr-e-Rey, Tehran. Iran
Abstract
This paper provides a systematic review of scientific resources to determine the components and indicators of the scholarly publication system. The research community includes 1070 documents from Scopus and the Web of Science databases. Another researcher was used to determine the degree of accuracy, reliability, and quality of the final documents, and the agreement between the two researchers was calculated with the Kappa coefficient. Finally, 331 documents were studied in full text. Possible components and indicators were identified from these documents, and their information was entered into Excel software. Based on the frequency and similarity of the contents, the conceptual framework of the scholarly publication system was designed. Research findings show that the main components of this system include infrastructure, technology, management, access, evaluation, support, language, communication, control, education, and ethics. Each of the components also has specific indicators and sub-indicators. Some issues, such as rights, laws, regulations, standards, repositories, scientific players, and centers, are not mentioned among the components because these concepts are integrated into other parts.
Keywords
- Scholarly Publication System
- Systematic Review
- Conceptual Framework
- Academic Publishing
- Scholarly Publication
Main Subjects
Aaron, A., Fritsch, D. R. & Sullenger, P. (2000). Push technology: applications for scholarly communications and information management. The Serials Librarian, 38(3-4), 233-236. https://doi.org/10.1300/J123v38n03_04
Aghili, S. F., Mala, H., Shojafar, M. & Peris-Lopez, P. (2019). LACO: Lightweight three-factor authentication, access control and ownership transfer scheme for e-health systems in IoT. Future Generation Computer Systems, 96, 410-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.02.020
Aguzzi, A. (2015). Scientific publishing in the times of open access. Swiss Medical Weekly, 145(0506), w14118. https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2015.14118
Al-Aufi, A. & Fulton, C. (2015). Impact of social networking tools on scholarly communication: a cross-institutional study. The Electronic Library, 33(2), 224-241. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-05-2013-0093
Aliakbari, M. (2002). Writing in a foreign language: A writing problem or a language problem? Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 157-168.
Allen, B. M. (2008). All hype or real change: Has the digital revolution changed scholarly communication? Journal of Library Administration, 48(1), 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930820802029391
Alperin, J. P., Babini, D., Chan, L., Gray, E., Guédon, J.C., Joseph, H., Rodrigues, E. & Vessuri, H. (2015). Open Access in Latin America: A paragon for the rest of the world. Authorea. https://dx.doi.org/10.15200/winn.143982.27959
Anglada, L. & Abadal, E. (2023). Open access: a journey from impossible to probable, but still uncertain. Profesional De La información, 32(1). e320113. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.ene.13
Ardani, J. A., Utomo, C. & Rahmawati, Y. (2021). Model ownership and intellectual property rights for collaborative sustainability on building information modeling. Buildings, 11(8), 346. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11080346
Arunachalam, S. and Madhan, M. (2016). Adopting ORCID as a unique identifier will benefit all involved in scholarly communication. The National Medical Journal of India, 29(4), 227-234.
Asamoah‐Hassan, H. (2010). Alternative scholarly communication: Management issues in a Ghanaian university. Library Management, 31(6), 420-426. https://doi.org/10.1108/01435121011066171
Asogwa, B. E. (2011). Digitization of archival collections in Africa for scholarly communication: Issues, strategies, and challenges. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 651. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/651
Assante, M., Candela, L., Castelli, D., Manghi, P., Pagano, P. & Nazionale, C. (2015). Science 2.0 repositories: Time for a change in scholarly communication. D-Lib Magazine, 21(1/2). https://doi.org/10.1045/january2015-assante
Baro, E. E. & Eze, M. E. (2017). Perceptions, preferences of scholarly publishing in open access routes. A survey of academic librarians in Nigeria. Information And Learning Science, 118(3/4), 152-169. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-03-2017-0015
Bernius, S., Hanauske, M., König, W. & Dugall, B. (2009). Open access models and their implications for the players on the scientific publishing market. Economic Analysis & Policy, 39(1),103-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0313-5926(09)50046-X
Besir Demir, S. (2018). A mixed-methods study of the ex post funding incentive policy for scholarly publications in Turkey. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 49(4), 453-476. http://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.49.4.05
Biagioli, M. (2002). From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences: Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures, 12(1), 11-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045722022000003435
Bohlin, I. (2004). Communication regimes in competition: The current transition in scholarly communication seen through the lens of the sociology of technology. Social Studies of Science, 34(3), 365-391. https://doi:10.1177/0306312704041522
Bolek, C., Marolov, D., Bolek, M. & Shopovski, J. (2020). Revealing Reviewers' Identities as Part of Open Peer Review and Analysis of the Review Reports. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 30(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10347
Borrero, A., Ramos, M., Arsenal, A., Lopez, K. & Hettel, G. (2007). Scholarly publishing initiatives at the International Rice Research Institute: Linking users to public goods via open access. First Monday, 12(10). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i10.1955
Bosah, G. and Okeji C., Clement; E. & Baro E. (2017). Perceptions, preferences of scholarly publishing in Open Access journals a survey of academic librarians in Africa. Digital Library Perspectives 33(4). 378-394. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-03-2017-0011
Bosch, X. (2008). An open challenge: Open access and the challenges for scientific publishing. EMBO Reports, 9(5), 404-408. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2008.60
Bowdoin, N. T. (2011). Open access, African scholarly publishing, and cultural rights: An exploratory usage and accessibility study. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-Journal), 619. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/619
Brainard, J. (2020). Publishers try out alternative pathways to open access. Science (New York, N.Y.), 367(6483), 1179. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.367.6483.1179
Brantley, S., Bruns, T. A. & Duffin, K. I. (2017). Librarians in transition: Scholarly communication support as a developing core competency. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 29(3), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2017.1340718
Brien, D. L., Burr, S. & Webb, J. (2010). Dispirited, often ineffectual, and in some respects corrupt?: Re-assessing 'the invisible hand' of peer review. Text: Journal of Writing and Writing Courses, 14(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.52086/001c.31506
Brown, R. C. (1990). Changing patterns of scholarly communication and the need to expand the library's role and services. Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, 14(4), 371-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-6408(90)90008-I
Byiringiro, F. (2013). Open access, knowledge sharing and sustainable scholarly communication. Rwanda Medical Journal, 70(2), 25-26. Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/41187/1/rw13013.pdf
Carvalho Neto, S., Willinsky, J. & Alperin, J. P. (2016). Measuring, rating, supporting, and strengthening open access scholarly publishing in Brazil. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(54). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2391
Chicaiza, J., Piedra, N., López, J., Quituisaca, L., Montaño-Sosoranga, F., Medina, P. & Tovar-Caro, E. (2016, April). A contribution to encourage the dissemination of academic publishing: Finding diffusion media by means of a search engine based on semantic technologies. In 2016 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 854-859). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2016.7474652
Chien, S. C. (2019). Writing for scholarly publication in English for Taiwanese researchers in the field of English teaching. Sage Open, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019870187
Cho, J. (2007). An evaluation plan for Korean university libraries to revitalize academic resource-sharing. The Journal of academic librarianship, 33(4), 515-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2007.03.009
Collins, J. (2005). The future of academic publishing: what is open access? Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2(4), 321-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2004.07.018
Conley, J.P. & Wooders, M. (2009). But what have you done for me lately? Commercial publishing, scholarly communication, and open-access. Economic Analysis and Policy, 39(1), 71-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0313-5926(09)50044-6
Ramalho Correia, A. M. & Carlos Teixeira, J. (2005). Reforming scholarly publishing and knowledge communication: From the advent of the scholarly journal to the challenges of open access. Online Information Review, 29(4), 349-364. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520510617802
Cotnoir, C. (2016). How publishers are using data to develop products and boost revenues: A case study-building an online subscription business. Publishing Research Quarterly, 32(4), 286-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9481-4
Curry, M. & Lillis, T. (2017). 1 Problematizing English as the privileged language of global academic publishing. In M. Curry & T. Lillis (Ed.), Global Academic Publishing: Policies, Perspectives and Pedagogies (pp. 1-20). Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783099245-006
Dadkhah, M., Lagzian, M. & Borchardt, G. (2017). Information systems in journal management: the ugly duckling of academic publishing. European Science Editing, 43(1), 7-10. https://doi.org/10.20316/ESE.2017.43.032
Davies, J. E. & Greenwood, H. (2004). Scholarly communication trends—Voices from the vortex: A summary of specialist opinion. Learned publishing, 17(2), 157-167. https://doi.org/10.1087/095315104322958544
Davis, H. M. & Vickery, J. N. (2007). Datasets, a shift in the currency of scholarly communication: Implications for library collections and acquisitions. Serials Review, 33(1), 26-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2006.11.004
Day, M. (2008). Preserving the outputs of scholarly communication for the long-term: a review of recent developments in digital preservation for electronic journal content. In W. Jones (Ed.), E-Journals Access and Management (pp. 39-64). Routledge.
Dluhošová, T. (2018). Censorship and publication control in early post-war Taiwan: Procedures and practices. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 47(2), 15-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/186810261804700202
Dobson, H. (2016). Think. Check. Submit.: the campaign helping researchers navigate the scholarly communication landscape. Insights, 29(3), 228-232. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.323
Dubini, P. & Giglia, E. (2009). Economic sustainability during transition: The case of scholarly publishing. Rethinking electronic publishing: Innovation in communication paradigms and technologies. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Electronic Publishing (pp. 239-262). Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/47275862.pdf
Dutfield, G. & Suthersanen, U. (2020). Dutfield and suthersanen on global intellectual property law. 2nd edition. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Eger, T. & Scheufen, M. (2021). Economic perspectives on the future of academic publishing: Introduction to the special issue. Managerial and Decision Economics, 42(8), 1922-1932. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3454
Esposito, J. J. (2008). Open access 2.0: Access to scholarly publications moves to a new phase. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(2), https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.203
Estelle, L. (2017). What researchers told us about their experiences and expectations of scholarly communications ecosystems. Insights, 30(1), 71-75. http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7941-9848
Evgeniou, T. (2002). Information integration and information strategies for adaptive enterprises. European Management Journal, 20(5), 486-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(02)00092-0
Ezema, I. J. & Okafor, V. N. (2015). Open access institutional repositories in Nigeria academic libraries: Advocacy and issues in scholarly communication. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 39(3-4), 45-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649055.2016.1176842
Forgues, B. & Liarte, S. (2013). Academic publishing: Past and future. M@n@gement, 16, 739-756. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.165.0739
Fox, C. W. (2021). Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 288(1961), 20211399. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.1399
Fyffe, R. (2011). Technological change and the scholarly Communications Reform Movement. Library Resources & Technical Services, 46(2), 50-61. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.46n2.50
Garte, S. J. (1995). Guidelines for training in the ethical conduct of scientific research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1, 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02628698
Getz, M. (2005). Open-access scholarly publishing in economic perspective. Journal of Library Administration, 42(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1300/J111v42n01_01
Goeke, R. J., Crowne, K. A. & Laker, D. R. (2018). The effect of education on information systems success: lessons from human resources. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 31(3), 17-33. https://doi.org/10.4018/IRMJ.2018070102
Greco, A. N. (2015). Academic libraries and the economics of scholarly publishing in the twenty-first century: portfolio theory, product differentiation, economic rent, perfect price discrimination, and the cost of prestige. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 47(1), 1-43. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.47.1.01
Groenewegen, D. (2015). A comment on open access: The whipping boy for problems in scholarly publishing. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37. 19. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03719
Guédon, J. C., Kramer, B., Laakso, M., Schmidt, B., Šimukovič, E., Hansen, J., ... & Patterson, M. (2019). Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication: Report of the Expert Group to the European Commission. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Reza/Downloads/future%20of%20scholarly%20publishing%20and%20scholarly%20communication-KI0518070ENN.pdf
Hagenhoff, S., Ortelbach, B. & Seidenfaden, L. (2009). A Classification Scheme for Innovative Types in Scholarly Communication. In Handbook of Research on Digital Libraries: Design, Development, and Impact (pp. 216-226). IGI Global. https://doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-879-6.ch021
Haider, J. & Åström, F. (2017). Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon's "Sting" in science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(2), 450-467. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23669
Halliday, L. (2001). Scholarly communication, scholarly publication and the status of emerging formats. Information Research, 6(4), 6-4. Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/6-4/paper111.html
Hamrahi, A., Pournaghi, R. & Matlabi, D. (2022). Qualitative analysis of the scholarly publication system dimensions in the scholarly publication databases. Iranian Journal of Information processing and Management, 38(2), 95-121. https://doi.org/10.35050/JIPM010.2022.030 [in Persian]
Hamrahi, A., Pournaghi, R. & Matlabi, D. (2023). Prioritization of indicators of the scholarly publication system in Iran. Library and Information Sciences, 24(4), 49-72. https://doi.org/10.30481/lis.2022.366187.2019 [in Persian]
Hagner, M. (2018). Open access, data capitalism and academic publishing. Swiss Medical Weekly, 148(0708), w14600. https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2018.14600
Harley, D. (2013). Scholarly communication: Cultural contexts, evolving models. Science, 342(6154), 80-82. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1243622
Hartgerink, C. H. & Van Zelst, M. (2018). "As-You-Go" Instead of "After-the-Fact": A network approach to scholarly communication and evaluation. Publications, 6(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/6020021
Heath, F. M. & Duffy, J. (2005). Collections of record and scholarly communications: The responsibilities of the research library in a rapidly evolving digital world. Journal of library administration, 42(2), 5-21. https://doi:10.1300/J111v42n02_02
Hedlund, T. & Rabow, I. (2009). Scholarly publishing and open access in the Nordic countries. Learned publishing, 22(3), 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1087/2009303
Herb, U. (2017). 017). Recommendations, statements, declarations and activities of science policy actors on shaping the scholarly communication system. In P. Weingart & N. C. Taubert (Eds.), The Future of Scholarly Publishing: Open Access and the Economics of Digitisation (pp. 135-164). Capetown / South Africa: African Minds. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1035734
Heyl, A., Joubert, M. & Guenther, L. (2020). Churnalism and Hype in Science Communication: Comparing University Press Releases and Journalistic Articles in South Africa. Communicatio: South African Journal of Communication Theory and Research, 46(2), 126-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/02500167.2020.1789184
Hidayat, D. S., Sensuse, D. I., Elisabeth, D. & Hasani, L. M. (2022). Conceptual model of knowledge management system for scholarly publication cycle in academic institution. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-08-2021-0163
Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T. & Page, M. J., Welch, V. A. (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd Edition. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604
Higgs, A. (2018). The new dimension in scholarly communications: How a global scholarly community collaboration created the world's largest linked research knowledge system. Information Services & Use, 38(1-2), 85-89. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-180002
Högberg, A. (2013). Academic publishing in Sweden threatened by withdrawal of support. Current Swedish Archaeology, 21(1), 168-170. https://doi.org/10.37718/CSA.2013.14
Horstmann, W., Reimer, P. & Schirrwagen, J. (2006). Serving innovation in scholarly communication with the open platform "digital peer publishing". In B. Martens & M. Dobreva (Eds.), ELPUB2006. Digital Spectrum: Integrating Technology and Culture - Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Electronic Publishing (pp. 359-366).
Houghton, J. W. (2001). Crisis and transition: the economics of scholarly communication. Learned Publishing, 14(3), 167-176. https://doi.org/10.1087/095315101750240412
Huff, A. S. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication. Sage.
Hunter, P. (2018). A DEAL for open access: The negotiations between the German DEAL project and publishers have global implications for academic publishing beyond just Germany. EMBO Reports, 19(6), e46317. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201846317
Islam, M. A. & Akter, R. (2013). Institutional repositories and open access initiatives in Bangladesh: A new paradigm of scholarly communication. Liber Quarterly, 23(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.8245
Jantz, R. C. & Wilson, M. C. (2008). Institutional repositories: Faculty deposits, marketing, and the reform of scholarly communication. The journal of academic librarianship, 34(3), 186-195. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/102978
Johannisson, J. (2015). Open Access scholarly publishing on the competitive market: university management as obstacle and enabler. Culture Unbound, 7(4), 610-617. https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.1573610
Jubb, M. (2011). Heading for the open road: costs and benefits of transitions in scholarly communications. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 21(1), 102-124. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.8010
Kaiser, J. (2006). Particle physicists want to expand open access. Science, (5791). 1215.
Kennedy, C. R. (2015). Bibliometric study of scholarly writing and publishing patterns concerning copyright and digital images. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 34(1), 60-70. https://doi.org/10.1086/680565
Kenner, A. (2014). Designing digital infrastructure: Four considerations for scholarly publishing projects. Cultural Anthropology, 29(2), 264-287. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca29.2.05
Kindelan, P. (2009). A fresh look at Spanish scientific publishing in the framework of international standards. European Educational Research Journal, 8(1), 89-103. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2009.8.1.89
Kingsley, D. A. & Kennan, M. A. (2015). Open access: The whipping boy for problems in scholarly publishing. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(14), 329-350. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.03720
Kling, R., Spector, L. & McKim, G. (2002). Locally controlled scholarly publishing via the internet: The Guild model. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(1), 228-238. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.1450390125
Koler-Povh, T., Mikoš, M. & Turk, G. (2014). Institutional repository as an important part of scholarly communication. Library Hi Tech, 32(3), 423-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-10-2013-0146
Kousha, K. (2009, July). Characteristics of open access scholarly publishing: a multidisciplinary study. In Aslib Proceedings (Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 394-406). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910973794
Kriegeskorte, N., Walther, A. & Deca, D. (2012). An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 6, 94. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00094
Krishnan, V. (2013). Etiquette in scientific publishing. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 144(4), 577-582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.05.008
Kulczycki, E., Rozkosz, E. A., Engels, T. C., Guns, R., Hołowiecki, M. & Pölönen, J. (2019). How to identify peer-reviewed publications: Open-identity labels in scholarly book publishing. Plos One, 14(3), e0214423. https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0214423
Kumara, B., Sampath Kumar, B. T., & Kumbar, M. (2019). Print v/s electronic sources of information: Preferred sources for reading among faculty members and students. Knowledge Organisation in Academic Libraries (I-KOAL 2019): Building Smart Libraries: Challenges and Discovery Tools, 44-47.
Lakhotia, S. & Chaddah, P. (2019). Ethics of research. In Kambadur Muralidhar, Amit Ghosh, Ashok Kumar Singhvi (Eds.) Ethics in Science Education, Research and Governance, (pp. 35-43). New Delhi, Indian National Science Academy. Retrieved from https://www.insaindia.res.in/pdf/Ethics_Book.pdf
Larivière, V., Haustein, S. & Mongeon, P. (2015). Big publishers, bigger profits: how the scholarly community lost the control of its journals. Media trope, V (2), 102-110. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/304667847.pdf
Lawlor, B. (2003). Abstracting and Information Services. Serials Review, 29(3), 200-209.
Lawlor, B. (2017). An overview of the NFAIS 2017 Annual Conference: The big pivot: re-engineering scholarly communication. Information Services & Use, 37(3), 283-306. https://doi:10.3233/ISU-170854
Lawson, S. & Gray, J. & Mauri, M., (2016). Opening the black box of scholarly communication funding: a public data infrastructure for financial flows in academic publishing. Open Library of Humanities, 2(1), e10. https://doi.org/10.16995/olh.72
Leão, D. (2015). Academic publishing in Portugal: threats and major opportunities. Insights, 28(1), 37-41. http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.179
Lee, G. (2000). Dynamic incompatibility, bundling and innovation in systems markets. The Korean Economic Association, 16, 165-177. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Reza/Downloads/KER-200006-16-1-10.PDF
Liu, Y., & Buckingham, L. (2022). Language choice and academic publishing: A social-ecological perspective on languages other than English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2080834
Lor, P. J. (2007). Bridging the North—South Divide in Scholarly Communication in Africa—a library and information systems perspective. IFLA Journal, 33(4), 303-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035207086056
Maier, G. & Wildberger, A. (1993). Wide area computer networks and scholarly communication in regional science. Papers in Regional Science, 72(4), 425-445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5597.1993.tb01886.x
Manchón, R. (Ed.). (2009). Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research. Multilingual Matters.
Maron, N. L. & Smith, K. K. (2009). Current models of digital scholarly communication: Results of an investigation conducted by Ithaka strategic services for the association of research libraries. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.105
Maxwell, B. & Schwimmer, M. (2016). Professional ethics education for future teachers: A narrative review of the scholarly writings. Journal of Moral Education, 45(3), 354-371. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2016.1204271
McGreal, R., Chen, N. S. & McNamara, T. (2011). A comparison of an open access university press with traditional presses: Two years later. Information Services & Use, 31(3-4), 211-214. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2012-0650
Stamison, C. M., McKee, A. E. & Bahnmaier, S. (2014). Creation, transformation, dissemination and preservation: Advocating for scholarly communication. The Serials Librarian, 66(1-4), 189-195. https://doi:10.1080/0361526X.2014.877298
McPherson, T. (2010). Scaling vectors: Thoughts on the future of scholarly communication. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0013.208
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & PRISMA Group (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. International journal of surgery (London, England), 8(5), 336-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
Moore, S. A. (2020). Individuation through infrastructure: Get full text research, data extraction and the academic publishing oligopoly. Journal of Documentation, 77(1), 129-141. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2020-0090
Morrison, H. (2013). Economics of scholarly communication in transition. First Monday, 18(6). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i6.4370
Mower, A. (2018). Sources of Evidence to Inform Scholarly Communication Librarianship. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 13(3), 69-73. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29468
Mueller-Langer, F. & Scheufen, M. (2013). Academic publishing and open access. In Ruth Towse and Christian Handke (eds.), Handbook on the Digital Creative Economy, chapter 32, (pp.365-377). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781004876.00045
Mukherjee, B. (2010). Scholarly communication in library and information services: The impacts of open access journals and e-journals on a changing scenario. Elsevier.
Nane, G. F., Robinson-Garcia, N., van Schalkwyk, F. & Torres-Salinas, D. (2023). COVID-19 and the scientific publishing system: Growth, open access and scientific fields. Scientometrics, 128(1), 345-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04536-x
Nentwich, M. (2005). Cyberscience: Modelling ICT-induced changes of the scholarly communication system. Information, Community & Society, 8(4), 542-560. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180500418451
Obeid, R. & Hill, D. B. (2017). An intervention designed to reduce plagiarism in a research methods classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 44(2), 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628317692620
Obuh, A. O. & Bozimo, D. O. (2012). Awareness and use of open access scholarly publications by LIS lecturers in Southern Nigeria. International Journal of Library Science, 1(4), 54-60. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.library.20120104.02
Ocholla, D. N. (2011). An overview of issues, challenges and opportunities of scholarly publishing in information studies in Africa. African Journal of Library, Archives & Information Science, 21(1).
Ogburn, J. L. (2011). Defining and achieving success in the movement to change scholarly communication. Library Resources & Technical Services, 52(2), 44-53. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.52n2.44
Okore, A. M. (2011). Demographic and socio- economic attributes as determinants of information and communication technology use for scholarly communication in Nigerian Universities. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 611. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/611
Oladokun, O. (2015). Scholarly communication in a digital environment: Populating the institutional repository of the University of Botswana. Libri, 65(1), 48-56. https://doi:10.1515/libri-2014-0117
Orlandi, L. B., Ricciardi, F., Rossignoli, C. & De Marco, M. (2019). Scholarly work in the Internet age: Co-evolving technologies, institutions and workflows. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4(1), 55-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.11.001
Pantalony, R. E. (2016). Museum scholarly communications and copyright law: A call for balanced and nuanced exceptions premised on museum mission and mandate. Museum International, 68(3-4), 110-117. https://doi.org/10.1111/muse.12136
Park, J. H. & Shim, J. (2011). Exploring how library publishing services facilitate scholarly communication. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43(1), 76-89. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.43.1.76
Parkosewich, J. A. (2013). An infrastructure to advance the scholarly work of staff nurses. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 86(1), 63-77.
Peekhaus, W. & Proferes, N. (2016). An examination of north American library and information studies faculty perceptions of and experience with open-access scholarly publishing. Library & Information Science Research, 38(1), 18-29. https://doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2016.01.003
Picco, P., Aguirre-Ligüera, N., Maldini, J., Simón, L., Petroccelli, P., Fontans, E., ... & Gladys Ceretta, M. (2014). Scholarly communication in Uruguay: Study of publications of active researchers from the National System of Researchers (2009-2010). Transinformação, 26, 155-165.
Poniszewska-Maranda, A. (2008, October). Access control models in heterogeneous information systems: From conception to exploitation. In 2008 international multiconference on computer science and information technology (pp. 821-826). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IMCSIT.2008.4747337
Ponte, D. & Simon, J. (2011). Scholarly communication 2.0: Exploring researchers' opinions on Web 2.0 for scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and dissemination. Serials Review, 37(3), 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2011.10765376
Potts, J., Hartley, J., Montgomery, L., Neylon, C. & Rennie, E. (2017). A journal is a club: A new economic model for scholarly publishing. Prometheus, 35(1), 75-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2017.1386949
Potvin, S. & Sare, L. (2016). Public goods and public interests: scholarly communication and government documents in research libraries. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 16(2), 417-441. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2016.0016
Prosser, D. C. (2008). Current (European) developments in scholarly communication. Liber Quarterly, 18(3/4), 399-412. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.7939
Qiu, J., Tian, Z., Du, C., Zuo, Q., Su, S. & Fang, B. (2020). A survey on access control in the age of internet of things. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 7(6), 4682-4696. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2020.2969326
Qu, S. & Wiwanitkit, V. (2015). Response to "The ethics of scholarly publishing: Exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations". Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 103(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.1.012
Quinn, M. M. (2015). Open access in scholarly publishing: Embracing principles and avoiding pitfalls. The Serials Librarian, 69(1), 58-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2015.1036197
Rahimi, B. (2015). Censorship and the Islamic Republic: Two modes of regulatory measures for media in Iran. The Middle East Journal, 69(3), 358-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.3751/69.3.12
Rathemacher, A. J. (2012). ACRL new England scholarly communication special interest group workshop: Open access and scholarly societies: A panel discussion about the opportunities and challenges. Serials Review, 38(2), 152-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2012.10765445
Reagor, S. & Brown, W. S. (1978). The application of advanced technology to scholarly communication in the humanities. Computers and the Humanities, 12, 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02400084
Rieger, O. Y. (2008). Opening up institutional repositories: Social construction of innovation in scholarly communication. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.301
Rodriguez, J. E. (2015). Scholarly communications competencies: open access training for librarians. New Library World, 116(7/8), 397-405. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-12-2014-0140
Ross, B., Pechenkina, E., Aeschliman, C. & Chase, A. M. (2017). Print versus digital texts: understanding the experimental research and challenging the dichotomies. Research in Learning Technology, 25. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1976
Rubio-Manrique, S. & Cuní, G. (2019). Dynamic control systems: Advantages and challenges. Proceedings, 17th International Conference on Accelerator and Large Experimental Physics Control Systems, ICALEPCS2019 (pp. 46-51). https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-ICALEPCS2019-MOBPP05
Rubira-García, R., Baldiris-Navarro, S. M., Venet-Gutiérrez, J. & Magro-Vela, S. (2020). Theoretical aspects of scholarly publishing about the internet in spanish communication journals. Publications, 8(3), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8030042
Salton, G. (1966 Editorial). Information dissemination and publication control. Communications of the ACM, 9(4), 254. https://doi.org/10.1145/365278.365292
Sawant, S. (2012). Transformation of the scholarly communication cycle. Library Hi Tech News, 29(10), 21-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007121
Saxena, A., Thawani, V., Chakrabarty, M. & Gharpure, K. (2013). Scientific evaluation of the scholarly publications. Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics, 4(2), 125-129. https://doi.org/10.1108/07419051211294482
Schmidt, B. & Görögh, E. (2017). New Toolkits on the Block: Peer Review Alternatives in Scholarly Communication. In L. Chan, F. Loizides (Eds.), Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices. Proceedings of the 21th International Conference on Electronic Publishing (pp.62-74). https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-769-6-62
Seidenfaden, L., Ortelbach, B. & Schumann, M. A (207). Peer-to-peer application system for the scholarly communication. In Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS, (pp. 490-503). Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=ecis2007
Sharma, G. (2014). Transforming open access scholarly publishing and scientific delivery: challenges and opportunities in Asian regions. Research Journal of Information Technology, 6(4), 413-426. https://doi.org/10.3923/rjit.2014.413.426
Shearer, K. & Birdsall, W. F. (2005). A researcher's research agenda for scholarly communication in Canada. New Review of Information Networking, 11(1), 99-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614570500269520
Šilhánek, J. (2011). Revolution in scientific publishing? getting on with open access. Chemické Listy, 105(1). Retrieved from http://www.chemicke-listy.cz/ojs3/index.php/chemicke-listy/article/view/1202
Smit, E. & Gruttemeier, H. (2011). Are scholarly publications ready for the data era? Suggestions for best practice guidelines and common standards for the integration of data and publications. New Review of Information Networking, 16(1), 54-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2011.574488
Souto, P. N. (2007). E-publishing development and changes in the scholarly communication system. Ciência da Informação, 36, 158-166. https://doi.org/10.18225/ci.inf.v36i1.1194
Steele, C. (2014). Scholarly communication, scholarly publishing and university libraries. Plus Ça Change? Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 45(4), 241-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2014.950042
Stewart, J., Procter, R., Williams, R. & Poschen, M. (2013). The role of academic publishers in shaping the development of Web 2.0 services for scholarly communication. New Media & Society, 15(3), 413-432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812465141
Sutherland, W. R. (1977). Impact of technology on scientific publishing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC-20, (2), 56-58. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.1977.6592323
Swan, A. (2006). Overview of scholarly communication. In Neil Jacobs (Ed.) Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects (pp. 3-12). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-203-8.50001-7
Tang, R. (2012). The issues and challenges facing academic writers from ESL/EFL contexts: An overview. In Academic writing in a second or foreign language: Issues and challenges facing ESL/EFL academic writers in higher education contexts, 1-18. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/drghane/Downloads/dokumen.pub_academic-writing-in-a-second-or-foreign-language-issues-and-challenges-facing-esl-efl-academic-writers-in-higher-education-contexts-9781472541543-9781441112163.pdf
Tecson-Mendoza, E. M. (2015). Scientific and academic journals in the Philippines: Status and challenges. Science Editing, 2(2), 73-78. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.47
Thi, T. T. P., Pham, H. H., Nguyen, H. L. & Nguyen, L. C. (2021). International academic publishing in Vietnam: policy efficiency and room for development. Science Editing, 8(2), 162-165. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.249
Tošić, A. & Vičič, J. (2021). Use of Benford's law on academic publishing networks. Journal of Informetrics, 15(3), 101163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101163
Tošić, A. & Vičič, J. (2021). Use of Benford's law on academic publishing networks. Journal of Informetrics, 15(3), 101163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101163
Trotter, H., Kell, C., Willmers, M., Gray, E. & King, T. (2014). Seeking impact and visibility: Scholarly communication in Southern Africa (p. 262). African Minds. Retrieved from http://www.africanminds.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/9781920677510-content2.pdf
Uysal, H. H. (2014). English language spread in academia: Macro-level state policies and micro-level practices of scholarly publishing in Turkey. Language Problems and Language Planning, 38(3), 265-291. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.38.3.03uys
Van Noorden, R. (2013). The true cost of science publishing. Nature, 495(7442), 426-429. https://doi.org/10.1038/495426a
Veretennikova, N., Pasichnyk, V., Kunanets, N. & Gats, B. (2015, September). E-Science: New paradigms, system integration and scientific research organization. In 2015 Xth International Scientific and Technical Conference" Computer Sciences and Information Technologies"(CSIT) (pp. 76-81). IEEE.
Waithaka, M., Chilimo, W. & Onyancha, O. B. (2022). Factors influencing the adoption and use of open access scholarly publishing in selected public universities in Kenya. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 88(1), 1-14. Retrieved from https://journals.co.za/doi/epdf/10.7553/88-1-2049
Waithaka, M. W. & Onyancha, O. B. (2021). Use of open access channels for scholarly publishing in Kenyan universities. Publishing Research Quarterly, 37(2), 293-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09795-9
Wei, W. (2013). Scholarly communication in science and engineering research in higher education. Routledge.
Widén, G. (2010). New modes of scholarly communication: Implications of Web 2.0 in the context of research dissemination. In Barbara Dewey (ed.) Transforming Research Libraries for the Global Knowledge Society (pp. 133-146). Chandos Information Professional Series. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-594-7.50010-7
Wiederhold, G. (1993, June). Intelligent integration of information. In Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data (pp. 434-437).
Willinsky, J. (2017). Modelling a cooperative approach to open access scholarly publishing: A Demonstration in the Canadian Context. Canadian Journal of Communication, 42(5), 923-934.
Woodward, H. (2010). Dissemination models in scholarly communication. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 16(S1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2010.514763
Wright, J., Avouris, A., Frost, M. & Hoffmann, S. (2022). Supporting academic freedom as a human right: challenges and solutions in academic publishing. The International Journal of Human Rights, 26(10), 1741-1760. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2022.2088520
Wu, M.M. (2005). Why Print and Electronic Resources Are Essential to the Academic Law Library. Law Library Journal, 97, 233-256. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/783/
Xia, J. (2017). Scholarly communication at the crossroads in China. Chandos Publishing.
Xia, J. (2006). Scholarly communication in East and Southeast Asia: traditions and challenges. IFLA Journal, 32(2), 104-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035206066407
Yamson, G. C., Appiah, A. B. & Tsegah, M. (2018). Electronic vs. print resources: a survey of perception, usage and preferences among central university undergraduate students. European Scientific Journal, 14(7), 291-304. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2018.v14n7p291
Zhao, L. (2014). Riding the wave of open access: Providing library research support for scholarly publishing literacy. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 45(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2014.882873
Zhu, X. & Cho, M. (2021). Ownership vs access: Consumers' digital ownership perceptions and preferences. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 73(6), 904-920. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-11-2020-0373
Zietman, A. L. (2017). The ethics of scientific publishing: Black, white, and "fifty shades of gray". International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 99(2), 275-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.06.009
', './data/ijism/coversheet/cover_en.jpg'))