51,500 research outputs found
GUIDE TO AUTHORS
No full textAuthors should submit electronic copy of the manuscript to:[email protected] [email protected].ª¤?Correspondence on the manuscript should thereafter be to:ª¤?The Editor«¤??in«¤??Chief, Journal of Natural Sciences, Engineering and Technology, ª¤?Federal University of Agriculture, P.M.B 2240, Abeokuta, Postcode 110001. Ogun State,ª¤? Nigeria.ª¤?Papers published in the Journal should be based on original research or continuation of previous studies that are reproducible. Papers to be published in the Review Section should be authoritative, topical and very current.ª¤?Manuscripts should be typed on A4 (216 x 279mm) paper, double spaced with wide margins (2.54cm) and line numbered where possible.ª¤?Text: Should appear in the following order: Title, Authors«¤?? names, Address of Authors, e- mail address and Telephone number, Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, Acknowledgements, References. Tables, Figures Legends and Figures should be embedded in the relevant section of the text.ª¤? Main section headings should be bold, centered and upper case letters. Do not underline the title or section headings. Subsections may be included and only the first letter of the subsection should be capitalized. Avoid excessive fragmentation of the paper.ª¤?Use SI units of measurement, and italicize all Latin words and scientific names. Use numerals before standard units of measurements, e.g., 3 g, 9 days; 36 hrs; otherwise use words for numbers one to nine and numerals for larger numbers. For commonly used terms and abbreviations, consult the latest edition of Council of Biological Editors. Non Standard abbreviations should be avoided, and where used, they should be explained at their first mentioning.ª¤?Title: Should be brief and reflect the main theme of the paper.ª¤?By «¤?? Line: Authors«¤?? names should appear below the title and below which the institutional address and e-mail should be typed.ª¤?Abstract: An abstract in English should include key words, arranged alphabetically using only the first letter of the key words.ª¤?ª¤? Abstracts should beª¤? limited to < 200 words, and should contain salient features of the study, briefly indicating method of study, results, and the main conclusion. Single solid lines should separate the by «¤?? line material from the Abstract, and the Abstract from the main text. A short running title should be included. 6 keywords should be typed in.ª¤?Introduction: Provide a survey of literature and clearly justify the need for the study.ª¤?Materials and Methods: This should be informative enough to enable readers to interpret the results obtained. Particular attention should be paid to the design, analysis and statistics.ª¤
ISC/OSI Journal Authors Survey Report
No full textOn behalf of the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and the Open Society Institute (OSI) a survey of journal authors has been carried out by Key Perspectives Ltd. The terms of reference were to poll a cohort of authors who had published on an open access basis and another cohort of authors who had published their work in conventional journals without making the article available on open access. The survey’s aims were to investigate the authors’ awareness of new open access possibilities, the ease of identification of and submission to open access outlets, their experiences of publishing their work in this way, their concerns about any implications open access publishing may have upon their careers, and the reasons why (or not) they chose to publish through an open access outlet
Open Publishing Guide for Authors
No full textThe UniSQ Open Publishing Guide is for those who want to publish an open text with the UniSQ Library. It steps authors through the process they will undertake when working with the UniSQ Open Educational Practices Team, and sets out guidelines and expectations for the undertaking
Publishing and sharing sensitive data
No full textSensitive data has often been excluded from discussions about data publication and sharing. It was believed that sharing sensitive data is not ethical or that it is too difficult to do safely. This opinion has changed with greater understanding and use of methods to ‘de-sensitise’ (i.e., confidentialise) data; that is, modify the data to remove information so that participants or subjects are no longer identifiable, and the capacity to grant ‘conditional access’ to data. Requirements of publishers and funding bodies for researchers to publish and share their data have also seen sensitive data sharing increase.
This guide outlines best practice for the publication and sharing of sensitive research data in the Australian context. The Guide follows the sequence of steps that are necessary for publishing and sharing sensitive data, as outlined in the ‘Publishing and Sharing Sensitive Data Decision Tree’. It provides the detail and context to the steps in this Decision Tree. References for further reading are provided for those that are interested.
By following the sections below, and steps within, you will be able to make clear, lawful, and ethical decisions about sharing your data safely. It can be done in most cases!
How the Guide interacts with your institutional policies
This Guide is not intended to override institutional policies on data management or publication. Most researchers operate within the policies of their institution and/or funding arrangement and must, therefore, ensure their decisions about data publication align with these policies. This is particularly relevant for Intellectual Property, and sometimes, your classification of sensitive data (e.g., NSW Government Department of Environment & Heritage, Sensitive Data Species Policy) or selection of data repository. The Guide indicates the steps at which you should check your institutional policies
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
No full text Latin words and scientific names. Use numerals before standard units of meas- Authors should submit electronic copy of the urements, e.g., 3g, 9 days; 36 hrs; other- manuscript to: wise use words for numbers one to nine [email protected] and and numerals for larger numbers. For [email protected]. commonly used terms and abbreviations, 2 copies of the manuscript should thereafter consult a very good dictionary. Non Stan- be sent to: dard abbreviations should be avoided, and where used, they should be explained at The Editor–In–Chief, Journal of Humani- their first mention. ties, Social Sciences and Creative Arts, Federal University of Agriculture, P.M.B Footnotes should be avoided in favour of 2240, Abeokuta, Postcode 110001. Ogun endnotes (and these only where absolutely State, Nigeria
RoMEO Studies 2: How academics wish to protect their open-access research paper
No full textThis paper is the second in a series of studies (see Gadd, E., C. Oppenheim, and S. Probets. RoMEO Studies 1: The impact of copyright ownership on author-self-archiving. Journal of Documentation. 59(3) 243-277) emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving). It considers the protection for research papers afforded by UK copyright law, and by e-journal licences. It compares this with the protection required by academic authors for open-access research papers as discovered by the RoMEO academic author survey. The survey used the Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) as a framework for collecting views from 542 academics as to the permissions, restrictions, and conditions they wanted to assert over their works. Responses from self-archivers and non-archivers are compared. Concludes that most academic authors are primarily interested in preserving their moral rights, and that the protection offered research papers by copyright law is way in excess of that required by most academics. It also raises concerns about the level of protection enforced by e-journal licence agreement
Scholarly communication and open access : research communities and their publishing patterns [New Trends in Scholarly Communication : how do Authors of different research communities consider OA?]
No full textAt the time of the Budapest Declaration, self-archiving supporters looked like a revolutionary, "anti-commercial publishers" movement. Today, after some years debate (and technological innovation in research and scientific e-publishing), antagonist positions are able to compromise and consider the tradeoffs.
What is really changing in the Authors' attitude towards institutional or disciplinary repositories, and peer reviewed open access journals?
Many recent papers have investigated these topics. From these sources we can note that Biomedical Authors behave differently from Physicists, Astronomers and Mathematicians, who have been using open archives for such a long time. Therefore we intend to analyze these different trends in the diverse communities.
Several aspects also deserve a careful attention: the role of new OA journals in evaluation processes (i.e. their impact and citations), implementation and maintenance costs of institutional repositories, the evolution of bibliometric indicators.
We intend also to discuss the role of libraries in service innovation and e-publishing promotion. The main areas where a key role may be played are: institutional repository management and users' training, the promotion of OA journals and information about evaluation methods (both qualitative and quantitative).
We think that the transition towards new communication models may be a great opportunity that libraries have to be ready to support
- …
