[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: review process
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: Re: review process
- From: "Elizabeth Gadd" <E.A.Gadd@lboro.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:35:25 EST
- Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Brian, I have just completed an analysis of 80 journal publisher copyright transfer agreements as part of the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/index.html) Only one agreement asked authors to warrant that they had made appropriate reference to the literature on their subject. ************************************************* Elizabeth Gadd, Research Associate & Editor, Library and Information Research Department of Information Science Loughborough University Loughborough, Leics, LE11 3TU Tel: +44 (0)1509 222178 Fax: +44 (0)1509 223053 Email: E.A.Gadd@lboro.ac.uk ************************************************ > ------------------------------ > From: Brian Simboli <brs4@lehigh.edu> > To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu > Subject: review process > > Has anyone discussed the following--should it not become standard practice > for a journal to require, of an author submitting work, that they identify > what strategy they used for searching for simlilar literature in the major > bibliographic databases? (A colleague and I were talking about doing this > for a paper.) That way the reviewer can recap the searches, plus do any > additional work of their own, in order to see whether: (a.) the author has > stolen material, or (b.) the author was perhaps unintentionally aware that > someone else divulged the idea. Perhaps it can also become a standard to > publish in the article the relevant bibliographic dbase searches that were > used to ascertain that the article's subject had not been dealt with > before. That way the publisher can defend themselves by noting that due > diligence was in fact already done. Of course librarians would have to get > in the loop in many cases to design solid searches, which would help > increase recognition of how important they are (or can be) to the research > process and to the publishing of its results. Why not routinely make them > part of peer review, at least in those disciplines where the number of > publications increases exponentially with each passing decade. > > Brian Simboli > Lehigh University > (610) 758-5003 > Fax (610) 758-6524 > E-mail: brs4@lehigh.edu
- Prev by Date: Re: journal and publication costs, corrected figures
- Next by Date: Re: journal package reviews--request for help
- Prev by thread: review process
- Next by thread: Join AIP for Breakfast at ALA to Discuss Differential Pricing
- Index(es):