Photo 23 Apr 64 notes The “tier one" LIS journals ranked by Journal Openness Factor as developed by Micah Vandegrift and (tumblarian) Chealsye Bowley in their article “Heal Thyself: A Scholarly Communication Analysis of LIS Journals.”
Eight of the ten most prestigious library and information science journals are not open access. That’s embarrassing.
From the article:

Based on this, in closing, we submit these final questions to the LIS research community: are these the journals we want on a top tier list, and what measure of openness will we define as acceptable for our prestigious journals? Further, how long will we tolerate measurements like impact factor and h-index guiding our criteria for advancement, while accounting for very little that matters to how we principle ourselves and our work? Finally, has the time come and gone for LIS to lead the shifts in scholarly communication? It is our hope that this article prompts furious and fair debate, but mostly that it produces real, substantive evolution within our profession, how we research, how we assign value to scholarship, and how we share the products of our intellectual work.

Heal Thyself: A Scholarly Communication Analysis of LIS Journals | In the Library with the Lead Pipe

The “tier one" LIS journals ranked by Journal Openness Factor as developed by Micah Vandegrift and (tumblarian) Chealsye Bowley┬áin their article “Heal Thyself: A Scholarly Communication Analysis of LIS Journals.”

Eight of the ten most prestigious library and information science journals are not open access. That’s embarrassing.

From the article:

Based on this, in closing, we submit these final questions to the LIS research community: are these the journals we want on a top tier list, and what measure of openness will we define as acceptable for our prestigious journals? Further, how long will we tolerate measurements like impact factor and h-index guiding our criteria for advancement, while accounting for very little that matters to how we principle ourselves and our work? Finally, has the time come and gone for LIS to lead the shifts in scholarly communication? It is our hope that this article prompts furious and fair debate, but mostly that it produces real, substantive evolution within our profession, how we research, how we assign value to scholarship, and how we share the products of our intellectual work.

Heal Thyself: A Scholarly Communication Analysis of LIS Journals | In the Library with the Lead Pipe

  1. heylibrarygirl reblogged this from thedigitallibrarian
  2. lgretired reblogged this from niwandajones
  3. writedrunk reblogged this from niwandajones
  4. niwandajones reblogged this from thehannahmachine
  5. abigaillphillips reblogged this from thehannahmachine
  6. thehannahmachine reblogged this from thelifeguardlibrarian
  7. laurenmaryinthelibrary reblogged this from thelifeguardlibrarian
  8. quasifesto reblogged this from chrischelberg
  9. chrischelberg reblogged this from thelifeguardlibrarian and added:
    This is a good point. If we don’t practice what we preach, why should anyone follow us? Conversely, if we can’t even get...
  10. missrumphiusproject reblogged this from text-block
  11. text-block reblogged this from thepinakes
  12. catscardigansbooks reblogged this from thelifeguardlibrarian
  13. thedigitallibrarian reblogged this from thepinakes
  14. ciderbrarian reblogged this from afrofuturistlibrarian2904
  15. mwisgerhof reblogged this from thelifeguardlibrarian
  16. colbycheese11 reblogged this from thelifeguardlibrarian
  17. librarian-wanderer reblogged this from thelifeguardlibrarian and added:
    Yes, that’s embarrassing if we’re supposed to be carrying the banner for academic openness.
  18. writergirljmb reblogged this from thelifeguardlibrarian
  19. thrashbash reblogged this from thelifeguardlibrarian and added:
    Such love today for In the Library with the Lead Pipe. [You can click that link and read anything published there,...

Design crafted by Prashanth Kamalakanthan. Powered by Tumblr.