SPI-Hub™: a gateway to scholarly publishing information

Taneya Y. Koonce, Mallory N. Blasingame, Jerry Zhao, Annette M. Williams, Jing Su, Spencer J. DesAutels, Dario A. Giuse, John D. Clark, Zachary E. Fox, Nunzia Bettinsoli Giuse

Abstract


Background: Advances in the health sciences rely on sharing research and data through publication. As information professionals are often asked to contribute their knowledge to assist clinicians and researchers in selecting journals for publication, the authors recognized an opportunity to build a decision support tool, SPI-Hub: Scholarly Publishing Information Hub™, to capture the team’s collective publishing industry knowledge, while carefully retaining the quality of service.

Case Presentation: SPI-Hub’s decision support functionality relies on a data framework that describes journal publication policies and practices through a newly designed metadata structure, the Knowledge Management Journal Record™. Metadata fields are populated through a semi-automated process that uses custom programming to access content from multiple sources. Each record includes 25 metadata fields representing best publishing practices. Currently, the database includes more than 24,000 health sciences journal records. To correctly capture the resources needed for both completion and future maintenance of the project, the team conducted an internal study to assess time requirements for completing records through different stages of automation.

Conclusions: The journal decision support tool, SPI-Hub, provides an opportunity to assess publication practices by compiling data from a variety of sources in a single location. Automated and semi-automated approaches have effectively reduced the time needed for data collection. Through a comprehensive knowledge management framework and the incorporation of multiple quality points specific to each journal, SPI-Hub provides prospective users with both recommendations for publication and holistic assessment of the trustworthiness of journals in which to publish research and acquire trusted knowledge.

Keywords


Knowledge Management; Scholarly Communication; Open Access Publishing; Metadata; Decision Making

Full Text:

PDF HTML

References


Kircz JG. New practices for electronic publishing: how to maintain quality and guarantee integrity. Proceedings of the Second International Council for Science (ICSU)-United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) International Conference on Electronic Publishing in Science; UNESCO House, Paris; 20–23 Feb 2001. Amsterdam: International Council for Science; 20 Jun 2001. 8 p. (Available from: . [cited 7 Feb 2020].)

Smith R. Electronic publishing in science. BMJ. 2001 Mar 17;322(7287):627–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7287.627.

Suber P. Open access. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2012. (Available from: . [cited 7 Feb 2020].)

Piwowar H, Priem J, Larivière V, Alperin JP, Matthias L, Norlander B, Farley A, West J, Haustein S. The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ. 2018 Feb 13;6:e4375. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375.

Science Europe. Plan S: making full and immediate open access a reality [Internet]. Brussels, Belgium: Science Europe; 2020 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH public access policy details [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: The Institutes [rev. 25 Mar 2016; cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Research Councils UK. RCUK policy on open access and supporting guidance [Internet]. Swindon, UK: The Councils; 8 Apr 2013 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Wellcome Trust. Open access policy [Internet]. London, UK: The Trust; [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation open access policy [Internet]. Seattle, WA: The Foundation [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

National Science Foundation. Today’s data, tomorrow’s discoveries: increasing access to the results of research funded by the National Science Foundation [Internet]. Alexandria, VA: 18 Mar 2015 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Lawrence S. Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature. 2001 May 31;411(6837):521. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35079151.

McCabe MJ, Snyder CM. Identifying the effect of open access on citations using a panel of science journals. Econ Inq. 2014 Oct;52(4):1284–300. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12064.

Kolata G. The price for ‘predatory’ publishing? $50 million [Internet]. N Y Times. 2019 Apr 3:Science [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Cobey KD, Grudniewicz A, Lalu MM, Rice DB, Raffoul H, Moher D. Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey. BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 23;9(3):e026516. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026516.

Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science. 2013 Oct 4;342(6154):60–5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Cobey KD, Lalu MM, Galipeau J, Avey MT, Ahmadzai N, Alabousi M, Barbeau P, Beck A, Daniel R, Frank R, Ghannad M, Hamel C, Hersi M, Hutton B, Isupov I, McGrath TA, McInnes MDF, Page MJ, Pratt M, Pussegoda K, Shea B, Srivastava A, Stevens A, Thavorn K, van Katwyk S, Ward R, Wolfe D, Yazdi F, Yu AM, Ziai H. Stop this waste of people, animals and money. Nature. 2017 Sep 7;549(7670):23–5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/549023a.

Cobey KD, Lalu MM, Skidmore B, Ahmadzai N, Grudniewicz A, Moher D. What is a predatory journal? a scoping review. F1000Res. 2018 Jul 4;7:1001 [rev. 2018 Jan 1]. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15256.2.

Ross-White A, Godfrey CM, Sears KA, Wilson R. Predatory publications in evidence syntheses. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Jan;107(1):57–61. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.491.

Walters DJ, ed. Urgent action needed to preserve scholarly electronic journals [Internet]. New York, NY: Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Association of Research Libraries; 13 Sep 2005 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Burnhill P. Tales from the Keepers Registry: serial issues about archiving & the web. Serials Rev. 2013 Dec;39(1):3–20. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2013.10765481.

ProQuest. Ulrichsweb global serials directory [Internet]. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest; 2019 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

OCLC. WorldCat [Internet]. Dublin, OH: OCLC; 2001–2020 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

US National Library of Medicine. NLM catalog [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: National Center for Biotechnology Information, The Library [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Think. Check. Submit. [Internet]. Think. Check. Submit.; 2019 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Information for publishers [Internet]. The Directory [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

World Academy of Medical Editors (WAME). Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals [Internet]. The Academy; 18 Feb 2017 [cited 12 Aug 2019]. .

Basken P. Why Beall’s List died–and what it left unresolved about open access [Internet]. Chron Higher Educ. 12 Sep 2017 [updated 13 Sep 2017; cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Beall J. What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2017 Jun 15;27(2):273–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.029.

Malički M, Aalbersberg IJ, Bouter L, Ter Riet G. Journals’ instructions to authors: a cross-sectional study across scientific disciplines. PLoS One. 2019 Sep 5;14(9):e0222157. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222157.

Manca A, Moher D, Cugusi L, Dvir Z, Deriu F. How predatory journals leak into PubMed. CMAJ. 2018 Sep 4;190(35):E1042–E1045. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.180154.

Cabells. Cabells scholarly analytics [Internet]. Beaumont, TX: Cabells International [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Cofactor journal selector [Internet]. London, UK: Cofactor; 2019 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Edanz Group. Edanz journal selector [Internet]. Fukuoka, Japan: Edanz Group Japan; 2019 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Elsevier. Journal finder [Internet]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2019 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

IEEE. Publication recommender [Internet]. New York, NY: IEEE; 2018 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Research Square. JournalGuide [Internet]. Durham, NC: Research Square; 2014 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Clarivate. Manuscript matcher [Internet]. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate; 2019 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Clarivate Analytics. Master journal list beta [Internet]. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate Analytics; 2019 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

University of Washington. DataLab publish & flourish [Internet]. Seattle, WA: The DataLab [updated 5 Sep 2017; cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Schuemie MJ, Kors JA. JANE: suggesting journals, finding experts. Bioinformatics. 2008 Mar 1;24(5):727–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btn006.

SpringerNature. Journal suggester [Internet]. New York, NY: SpringerNature; 2018 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

DesAutels SJ, Zutter MM, Williams AW, Giuse DA, Fox ZE, Youngblood M, Stead WW, Giuse NB. Integrating evidence to inform lab test selection into a knowledge management framework. Paper presented at: American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) Clinical Informatics Conference; Scottsdale, AZ; May 2018.

DesAutels SJ, Fox ZE, Giuse DA, Williams AM, Kou QH, Weitkamp A, Patel NR, Giuse NB. Using best practices to extract, organize, and reuse embedded decision support content knowledge rules from mature clinical systems. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2017 Feb 10;2016:504–13. (Available from: . [cited 6 Feb 2020].)

Giuse, Nunzia B. (Center for Knowledge Management, Strategy & Innovation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN). Conversation with: Taneya Koonce and Annette Williams (Center for Knowledge Management, Strategy & Innovation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN). 7 Mar 2019.

Koonce TY, Blasingame MN, Williams AM, Zhao J, Fox ZE, Frakes ET, DesAutels SJ, Clark JD, Giuse DA, Giuse NB. Transparency in publishing: how to best inform the journal selection process. Presented at: MLA ’19, the 119th Medical Library Association Annual Meeting; Chicago, IL; 6 May 2019.

Lu Z, Wilbur WJ, McEntyre JR, Iskhakov A, Szilagyi L. Finding query suggestions for PubMed. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009 Nov 14;2009:396–400. (Available from: . [cited 6 Feb 2020].)

BMC. Find the right journal [Internet]. London, UK: BioMed Central [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006 Jan 4;295(1):90–3. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90.

Roldan-Valadez E, Salazar-Ruiz SY, Ibarra-Contreras R, Rios C. Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago journal rank, source-normalised impact per paper, H-index, and alternative metrics. Ir J Med Sci. 2019 Aug;188(3):939–51. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1936-5.

ORCID. Our mission [Internet]. ORCID [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

National Center for Biotechnology Information. My NCBI help: my bibliography [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: The Center [updated May 2019; cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Zotero. Documentation [Internet]. Vienna, VA: Corporation for Digital Scholarship [updated 28 Aug 2018; cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Gasparyan AY, Nurmashev B, Yessirkepov M, Endovitskiy DA, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Researcher and author profiles: opportunities, advantages, and limitations. J Korean Med Sci. 2017 Nov;32(11):1749–56. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.11.1749.

National Institutes of Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Requirement for ORCID iDs for individuals supported by research training, fellowship, research education, and career development awards beginning in FY 2020 [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: The Institutes, Office of Extramural Research; 10 Jul 2019 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. Notice no.: NOT-OD-19-109. .

National Center for Biotechnology Information. My NCBI help: SciENcv [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: The Center; 12 Aug 2013 [updated 26 Jun 2019; cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

National Library of Medicine. List of all journals cited in PubMed [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: The Library [updated 3 May 2018; cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Norddeutscher Rundfunk (NDR), Westdeutscher Rundfunk (WDR), Süddeutsche Zeitung. More than 5000 German scientists have published papers in pseudo-scientific journals. Hamburg, Germany: Norddeutscher Rundfunk; 19 Jul 2018 [cited 17 Oct 2019]. .

Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, Turner L, Barbour V, Burch R, Clark J, Galipeau J, Roberts J, Shea BJ. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? a cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 2017 Mar 16;15(1):28. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9.

Beaubien S, Eckard M. Addressing faculty publishing concerns with open access journal quality indicators. J Librariansh Sch Commun. 2014 Apr 10;2(2):eP1133. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1133.

Shen C, Björk BC. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015 Oct 1;13:230. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2.

Woolston C. Unravelling the mysteries of preprints and peer review. Nature. 18 Jun 2019. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01947-4. Correction: Nature. 24 Jun 2019.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.815

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2020 Taneya Y. Koonce, Mallory N. Blasingame, Jerry Zhao, Annette M. Williams, Jing Su, Spencer J. DesAutels, Dario A. Giuse, John D. Clark, Zachary E. Fox, Nunzia Bettinsoli Giuse

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.