From: Jo Hutchinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:48:02 +0000

*Apologies for cross-posting.*



*Learned Publishing: Volume 37, issue 2, April 2024*



Login to access the latest version:

https://alpsp.org/member-access



I’m pleased to announce that the April issue of Learned Publishing is now
available to read, featuring a diverse array of research articles, case
studies, industry updates and opinion pieces on some of the key issues in
scholarly publishing.



The issue kicks off the latest findings from the second iteration of the
‘Harbingers of Change’ research project, with authors David Nicholas et al.
(CIBER Research, UK) delving into the use of social media platforms by *early
career researchers* during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their findings underscore
the increasing significance of social media in *scholarly communications*
and highlight generational differences in platform usage among researchers.



*Editorial practices* must continually evolve to address the needs of the
scholarly community, and in their research, Maria Plakhotnik (HSE
University, Russian Federation) analyses how editors use editorials to lead
their journals in the field of human resource management, highlighting the
need to clarify the role and purpose of editorials in journal development.
Further, in their opinion article, Aron Laxdal and Tommy Haugen (University
of Agder, Norway) propose a change in the *peer review* system to credit
reviewers for their contribution to the literature.



The appropriate use of *publishing metrics* is a topic of ongoing debate,
and in their research, Hajira Dambha-Miller et al. (BJGP Open, Royal
College of General Practitioners, UK) explore the relationship between
traditional bibliometrics and Altmetric scores in the primary care
literature, highlighting the increasing importance of alternative metrics
in scholarly evaluation. Another important tool to track researcher output
is *ORCID*, and in their case study, Heinz Pampel et al.
(Humboldt-Universitätzu Berlin, Germany) describe the ORCID DE project; an
initiative to promote author identification in Germany.



For those working in *book publishing*, Li Jiagui and Johnny FI Lam (Macao
Polytechnic University, China) evaluate Macao's academic book publishing
industry, providing valuable insights into appropriate strategic management.



Methods to scale-up *Open Access* publishing are currently being considered
and implemented by many publishers, and in their case study, Ciaran
Hoogendoorn and Gaynor Redvers-Mutton (Biochemical Society, UK) describe
the Biochemical Society’s transformative Read & Publish (R&P) agreements,
focusing on results from 2019 to 2022. Their experiences have shown that
R&P agreements have been effective in boosting OA uptake in certain
regions, particularly where there is adequate funding, high research output
and collective engagement from institutions.



English-language publications are dominant in *international publishing*,
and in their case study, Xiangdong Li (Xi’an International Studies
University, China) discusses the challenges faced by non-Anglophone
journals and the emerging trends of language policies they may use to
preserve their identity while taking advantage of the English language.



*Research integrity* continues to be an important topic for Learned
Publishing, and in their case study, John Willinsky and Daniel Pimentel
(Simon Fraser University, Canada) describe the development and
implementation of a ‘publication facts label’ (PFL) to provide readers with
information about the integrity and trustworthiness of research articles.
The PFL aims to improve transparency by presenting key information about a
research article in a standardized format that can be easily accessed and
understood by readers. In addition, as highlighted in an Industry Update
from Robin Dunford et al. (John Wiley & Sons, UK), efforts to assess
research integrity in scholarly publications often focus on the front
matter and the article body, but as they point out, the bibliography can
also hold clues to publishing fraud. The authors describe the use of
automated analysis of bibliographies to detect potential research integrity
issues in scholarly publications. In a further opinion article, Fahmi H
Kakamad et al. (University of Sulaimani, Iraq) discusses the need updated
evaluation tools to combat predatory publishing effectively, focusing on
the limitations of Beall's list and the emergence of alternatives.



*ALPSP members: please login <https://alpsp.org/Learned-Publishing> to the
website to access.*



SSP members: please login
<https://customer.sspnet.org/Shared_Content/Sign_In_Alt.aspx> to the member
center to access.



To avoid missing any future issues, please sign up to receive an email
alert or RSS feed every time a new issue goes online.

https://alpsp.org/Learned-Publishing





Best wishes,

Jo



Jo Hutchinson

Marketing Specialist

Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers

E: *[log in to unmask]* <[log in to unmask]> T: +44 (0)7725 325993

W: *www.alpsp.org* <http://www.alpsp.org/> Follow us on: *Facebook*
<https://www.facebook.com/ALPSP.Community>, *LinkedIn*
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/4231454>*, **X
<https://twitter.com/alpsp>*