网范文：“How and Why To Free All Refereed Research" 探讨人员公布了他们的发现过程，为了促进探讨,作者可以自由地访问，在线阅览他们自己的机构档案，创建符合开放档案计划的元数据。这篇范文讲述了这一问题。这些分布式机构档案可互操作的,因此可以收获到全球虚拟档案。不过应该提高探讨效率和作用以及提供强大的监视和测量的新措施。他们的发现将产生作用。不仅仅是狭义的引用作用因素，英语论文题目，而且在最广泛的意义上，探讨人员希望他们的工作产生作用。
他们想要贡献给人类知识，如果没有注意到毫无贡献,也就没有结果。探讨人员如何最大化他们的探讨结果，通过公开出版,所以,任何潜在的感兴趣的探讨在世界任何地方,现在和未来的任何时候,可以访问和使用它们。下面的范文进行详述。
ABSTRACT
Researchers publish their findings in order to make an impact on research, not in order to sell their words. Access-tolls are barriers to research impact. Authors can now free their refereed research s from all access tolls immediately by self-archiving them on-line in their own institution's Eprint Archives. Free eprints.org software creates Archives compliant with the Open Archives Initiative metadata-tagging Protocol OAI 1.0. These distributed institutional Archives are interoperable and can hence be harvested into global "virtual" archives, citation-linked and freely navigable by all. Self-archiving should enhance research productivity and impact as well as providing powerful new ways of monitoring and measuring it.Why do scientists (and scholars) do research and their findings? In a word, it is so that their findings will have an impact not just in the narrow sense of the "citation impact factor" (the number of subsequent research s that cite their findings [Garfield 1955]), but impact in the broadest sense: Researchers want their work to make a difference, to build upon the work of others, and to be built upon in turn by others. They want to make a contribution to human knowledge; and it is no contribution if it is not noticed and has no consequences.
How do researchers maximize the impact of their research findings? By making them public through publishing them, so that any potentially interested fellow-researcher anywhere in the world, now and at any future time, can access and use them. The findings are published in peer-reviewed journals, which thereby perform a double service for research and researchers. They not only (i) make the findings accessible to the world (on- in the Gutenberg era, both on- and on-line in the PostGutenberg era), but they (ii) certify their quality-level too. They do this by implementing peer review [Harnad 1998/2017].
Peer review is the evaluation and validation of the work of experts by qualified fellow-experts (referees) as a precondition for acceptance and publication, so that the research community at large can know which work is likely to be worth the time and effort of reading and trying to build upon. Peer review is not a red-light/green-light, accept/reject system: It is a dynamic interaction between the author and referees, mediated by and answerable to a qualified expert (the Editor). It sometimes involves several rounds of revision and re-refereeing before a final draft can be certified as having met the quality standards of a particular journal. There is a hierarchy of journal-quality in most fields, with the higher quality journals tending to have the higher rejection rates and higher impact factors [Yamazaki 1995], grading all the way down to a vanity press at the bottom. Peer review accordingly also performs the function of filtering and triage, sign-posting the resultant literature for navigation. It has been suggested that most s are eventually accepted somewhere in their field's hierarchy [Lock 1985], but this may differ from field to field [Hargens 1988]).
In the on- era, journals provided the double service of quality-control and certification [QC/C] (ii) plus dissemination (i) for refereed research s. Providing that service cost money, which then had to be recovered (along with a fair profit) from subscription (S) fees (mostly from institutions), and lately, in the on-line era, also from institutional site-license (L) and/or pay-per-view (P) fees. Let us call these three fee-based access tolls, jointly, S/L/P.
It is important to note an immediate conflict of interest between access-tolls and research here: Researchers conduct and research for impact, as we have noted. But S/L/P fee-based access-barriers are necessarily also impact-barriers. Institutions and individuals that cannot or do not pay the S/L/P tolls cannot access the research: All this blocked access adds up to lost potential impact for the researcher. Is there any way to resolve this conflict of interest? There is, but to find it, we first have to clearly understand where the conflict resides.
Authors of refereed research s are not representative of authors in general (not even of themselves, when wearing other hats); in fact, they are highly anomalous. Unlike the authors of books, who write their texts for royalty income, or the authors of magazine articles, who write them for fee income, the authors of refereed journal articles write solely for impact: Their texts are, and always have been give-aways, whereas most of the rest of the published literature is non-give-away [Harnad, Varian & Parks 2017]. The rewards for researchers (research-funding, salary, promotion, tenure, prizes) come from the impact of their research, not from the S/L/P toll income (which does not accrue to them in any case, but to their publishers). This is why access-barriers create a conflict of interest for this nonstandard minority, the give-away authors, but not for the majority, the non-give-away authors, on whose much more representative interests publishing in general is (rightly) modeled.()
网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文作品权归所有；未经官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯作品权现象，保留一切法学追诉权。()
更多范文欢迎访问我们主页 当然有需求可以和我们 联系交流。-X()
，英语论文 |
