An Ethical Framework for Library Publishing

Table of Contents

Topic: Publishing Practice

Introduction

Publishing practice encompasses the range of practical and intellectual activities that publishers undertake in order to develop, produce, and distribute scholarly work. It is informally governed by industry and disciplinary norms, and by agreements developed over time about what best guarantees the authority, integrity, and utility of scholarship. Commercial publishers and academic presses have long recognized the need for common guidance on ethical practice, and infrastructure has grown around this need, notably the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Library publishers, too, must be fully engaged in the ongoing development of and adherence to ethical publishing practice, and as relatively new entrants to the field, should be aware of its established ethics.

Scope

Publishing practice as a domain could arguably include all of the topics covered in this framework. The border is porous between publishing practice and the other areas of focus in this document, and many of the issues raised in those areas could easily be considered publishing practice. This section will, with some exceptions, constrain itself to activities directly related to the development and production of scholarly work. Library publishing and traditional scholarly publishing share many if not most of these activities in common, and the pertinent ethics will apply. Where this is not the case, this section will attempt to delineate the unique aspects of these areas for library publishers. It is important for library publishers to establish clear documentation that outlines standards for ethical publishing practices in each of the areas detailed in this section (omitting the section on Best Practice Guidelines), in order to establish transparency, repeatability, integrity, and trust in the process and the outcomes.

Resources

This section introduces relevant resources on the topic, and provides context and guidance that will help library publishers to use them effectively.

Jump to: Authorship | Best Practice Guidelines | Confidentiality/Privacy | Contracts, Licenses, Copyright and Fair Use | Editorial Standards | Peer Review | Research Integrity

Authorship

While authorship is not itself a publishing practice, publishers do have ethical responsibilities to their authors that impact their practices. COPE lists “Authorship and Contributorship” as one of its ten core practices, and consolidates its best practice guidance in this area to the following, which should easily pertain to library publishing as well: “Clear policies (that allow for transparency around who contributed to the work and in what capacity) should be in place for requirements for authorship and contributorship as well as processes for managing potential disputes.”

Publishers are ultimately responsible for ethical practice both toward and by the authors they publish or consider publishing. Guidance around these practices is critical to protect the interests of both parties, including who should receive credit for authorship and why; what responsibilities co-authors have to each other, to the publisher, and to the integrity of the material; and how disputes and edge cases will be handled. These, and a range of other practical cases in publisher policy, are covered in the COPE node for Authorship and Contributorship. Awareness of these types of practical problems will help library publishers develop sound ethical policy in this area. Publishers can also extend their practice by directing authors to their disciplinary bodies—professional or academic societies governing the author’s discipline which will have their own ethical standards regarding, for instance, plagiarism and authorial credit.

Publishers in STEM fields should be aware of governmental and disciplinary requirements around conflicts of interest, and provide a mechanism to ensure that authors are fully transparent about their association with potentially conflicting interests. Library publishers can also incorporate tools such as ORCID for author disambiguation at the point of publication.

Library publishers often forego certain traditional services to authors in favor of lightweight workflows (Lippincott, 2017). Where this is the case, it could indicate the need for a more robust practice of expectation-setting by the publisher for its authors, to ensure that authors considering a relationship with the publisher are fully aware of the extent and limit of the publisher’s services. When library publishers explicitly value open access, their communication and advice toward authors may move beyond the strictly contractual into an elucidation of and advocacy for the authors’ rights in their work. This is one area where library publishing could develop an ethic of author relationship that goes beyond the traditional.

The Authors Alliance represents the interests of authors “who write to be read,” which describes the class of authors likely to be published by libraries.  Library publishers just entering the field have the opportunity to privilege authorial interests over restrictive copyright, contract, and future rights requirements. The resources at the Authors Alliance site constitute a survey of the kinds of issues and rights important to its represented authors, especially concerning dissemination and public access. Publishers considering ethical best practice toward authors should familiarize themselves with these issues.

See the narrative for this section for guidance on the significance and use of this node. The resources available at this URL can help provide further guidance and context in this area.

These statements provide guidance around conflict of interest practices in the sciences, and so will be helpful to publishers acting in those fields.

Disambiguation of authors in an increasingly crowded information space is important, both so that authors can easily receive credit for their publications in promotion and tenure considerations, and when tracking citations of an individual author’s works. Commercial publishers are increasingly using ORCID for disambiguation of authors, and library publishers should consider adopting it or another author identification system at the point of publication. ORCID supports an author-friendly ethic, because the author controls how much information, if any, can be seen in their ORCID profile.

Best Practice Guidelines / Codes of Conduct

Publishers often enact their ethics by establishing or adopting codes of conduct (sometimes interchangeably called best practice guidelines or core practices), which define the boundaries of ethical practice for a publisher or a coalition of publishers. The resources below represent best practice/code of conduct statements/frameworks, adopted widely, that apply in most cases to the practices of library publishers.

In 2006, the Coalition on Publication Ethics distilled their Code of conduct, governing the ethical practice of a membership of over 350 publishers, into Best practice guidelines, meant to be a gold standard of aspirational ethics for publishing and an extension of the Code. Together, they comprised a fundamental agreed-upon baseline for ethics in publishing. These documents, while still widely available, were superseded in 2017 by the new Core practices, which directly and succinctly detail the standards to which publishers should adhere in order to “preserve and promote the integrity of the scholarly record.”

The ten nodes of the Core practices themselves constitute a general framework—perhaps the general framework—for ethical academic publishing practice, and apply to many of the elements covered in this section, including Authorship, Copyright, and Peer Review. Library publishers should familiarize themselves with each of the expectations laid out in this framework, especially as they seek to establish and legitimize nascent publishing operations.

  • American Library Association Committee on Professional Ethics. (2008). Professional ethics: Code of ethics. Washington, D.C.: American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/tools/ethics

The American Library Association adopts a Code of Ethics which, though not directed at publishing, nevertheless establishes “a framework for dealing with situations involving ethical conflicts” in libraries (ALACOPE, 2008, Best Practice Resources). Given that library publishing activities are situated in the library, this framework can serve as a canopy under which the ethics of publishing should reside. Where and if they conflict, libraries will need to make reasoned choices about how the values of the library profession inform the practice of library publishing.

The COPE Core Practices comprise the fundamental ethical document informing publishing. See the narrative for this section for guidance on the significance and use of this resource. The extensive resources available at this URL can help provide further guidance and context for ethical practices in publishing.

  • Directory of Open Access Journals. (n.d.). Information for publishers, Sec. 2: Publishing best practice and basic standards for inclusion. Retrieved from https://doaj.org/publishers

The DOAJ’s Information for publishers, and especially the section on ‘Publishing best practice and basic standards for inclusion,’ represent an accessible distillation of practical steps that a library journal publisher can take to ensure a high standard of ethical responsibility. These standards for inclusion can serve as a checklist of actions that will, if followed, ensure that library publishers are meeting many of the ethical requirements in the other codes listed here. In turn, meeting these standards ensures that open access journals published by the library can be listed in the DOAJ, which implies legitimacy of publishing practice in this space.

OASPA’s Membership criteria forms the heart of its Code of conduct. Because membership in OASPA is intended to represent the integrity of the publisher, and signal to potential audiences that the publisher is trustworthy and not likely to engage in disingenuous or predatory practice, library publishers can benefit from adoption of these criteria regardless of their position towards membership in OASPA or towards open access publishing in general. COPE, the Directory of Open Access Journals and the World Association of Medical Editors each consulted on the creation of the Criteria, “in an effort to identify principles of transparency and best practice.”

Confidentiality/Privacy

Aspects of privacy in the dissemination of scholarship and the tracking of access data are addressed elsewhere in this framework (see Privacy and Analytics), but publishing practice has implications for privacy in editorial processes and the preparation of materials. Publishers have responsibilities for the privacy concerns of an array of participants in the processes leading up to publication. Workflow choices, such as blind peer review, will require privacy protections for reviewers and authors. Editors and other decision makers require policies that set boundaries for their privacy, balanced against the necessity of their availability to authors and readers. Library publishers should establish clear policies and mechanisms to protect the privacy of key stakeholders in the publishing and peer review processes, including but not limited to research participants, authors, and peer reviewers.

As the section on Privacy and Analytics highlights, privacy is a fundamental pillar of traditional library ethics, usually centered around patron privacy and defense of patron data against unwarranted search and seizure. This value has implications for library publishers, who will also retain personal data about their stakeholders, with connections to the intellectual activities of those parties. The American Library Association distinguishes between privacy, the right to pursue inquiry without oversight, and confidentiality, which involves trusting a second party to gather and keep personally identifiable information without revealing it to a third party. Library publishers will need to consider how to implement the values of the profession in the publishing space.

In an increasingly networked environment, where more and more kinds of data can be shared more easily than in the past, stakeholders are beginning to appreciate the importance of data privacy, especially as high-profile lapses in data security proliferate. European legislation is less forgiving than North America regarding carelessness with personally identifiable data (see the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, covered in more detail in the section on Privacy and Analytics), even as governmental assumptions about and requirements toward open sharing of data are making scholarly research data more available in the publication process. COPE primarily frames its privacy concerns in this area, explicitly addressing questions of consent and confidentiality, and lists resources around the challenges and ethics of data sharing in its Data and Reproducibility node. Library publishers may face a steep curve in ensuring that the data that accompanies scholarly publication is processed in a way that protects the confidentiality of authors and subjects alike.

These documents detail the library profession’s understanding of privacy and confidentiality in the context of its own professional ethic. They may help library publishers synthesize the ethics of privacy from both the library and the publishing spheres.

See the narrative for this section for guidance on the significance and use of this node. The resources available at this URL can help provide further guidance and context in this area.

Contracts, Licenses, Copyright and Fair Use

COPEs salient language on contracts is contained in its Intellectual Property node, and reads, “All policies on intellectual property, including copyright and publishing licenses, should be clearly described. In addition, any costs associated with publishing should be obvious to authors and readers.” This is echoed in the American Association of University Professors’ longstanding statement on copyright, “It is…useful for the respective rights of individual faculty mem­bers and the institution—concerning ownership, control, use, and compensation—to be nego­tiated in advance and reduced to a written agreement” (AAUP, 1999). This is in the context of complications of intellectual property rights between a University and an individual faculty member, which has particular bearing on library publishers, who are essentially arms of the University and subject to some of the same complications. In the library publishing domain, that written agreement is a contract, the document that governs the arrangement between the author and the publisher.

The purpose of a publishing contract or agreement is to clearly articulate the rights and responsibilities of both the publisher and party to be published. Examples might include agreements between the author and the publisher, between the publisher and a third party regarding a journal, or between a publisher and a third-party service provider. In determining the details of a contract, library publishers should consider: the costs and services the library offers or expects; expectations around copyright and licensing terms; responsibility for securing, recording and managing permissions for inclusion of third-party materials; transfers of medium, or transfers of platform; and provisions for reversion of rights or other post-publication claims.

Academic libraries have long had concerns about commercial publisher practices relating to authors’ retention of rights. Library publishing has arisen in part to address the unfair and unsustainable patterns of author rights restrictions imposed by these publishers. The journal publishing example proceeds along these lines: faculty engage in research; write articles about that research; submit those articles to a publisher; and in so doing, often relinquish control of their rights, leaving the question of who has access to their work and on what terms solely in the hands of these publishers. This situation necessitates that libraries buy back, often at substantial cost, the research outcomes produced by scholars at their own institutions. With slight differences, this pertains in the case of monographs as well. The transfer of exclusive copyright to the publisher also enables a host of ethically questionable publishing practices: works originally published in a journal may be redistributed in new collections without the author’s knowledge; authors have little say in the republication of backlist monograph titles or the distribution of low-cost versions of titles released only in hardcover.

It is important to acknowledge that the established commercial publishing profession (with some exceptions) advocates for strong copyright protections, as exemplified in the Association of American Publishers statement on modernizing copyright. But in truth the basic permissions scenario in copyright is relatively simple: the rightsholder authorizes publication. The author either retains rights and licenses those necessary to authorize publication to the publisher, or transfers those same rights to the publisher (in writing). Nothing in this arrangement prohibits either revenue, publication, or open reuse. Open access publication is possible under either scenario, and library publishers who seek to support author ownership should consider exactly which rights they (the publishers) absolutely need. When working with authors, it is important to be clear about the options that are available to them to retain their own copyright. At the same time, it is critical to explain the non-exclusive rights libraries need in order to have permission to publish.

Creative Commons licenses are widely used to implement open access publishing, because they enjoy a robust legal infrastructure and confer broad reuse rights to the public, meeting the full requirements of the Budapest Open Access Initiative. They represent one implementation of the open license, but aren’t obligatory to affect open access—a license reserving copyright to the author but giving the publisher the necessary permissions to publish can be negotiated outside the Creative Commons framework as well. Library publishers interested in open access models should determine their license policy in advance in order to provide the greatest transparency to authors.

The use of copyright-protected materials that are not original works by the author may  require obtaining reuse permissions. The contract should clearly identify who obtains permission and who pays for permissions if costs are involved. It is common practice in the publishing profession to limit legal risk by seeking written permission for all non-original inclusions in newly published work. However, if the use is for the purposes of commentary, or if the argument can be made that the use of the work is transformative, then library publishers have an opportunity to rely on the provisions of fair use in the copyright code. Brandon Butler at the University of Virginia simplifies advice on fair use to “Use fairly; not too much; have reasons” (Butler, 2016). There are numerous resources for determining fair use: Stanford has a short and simple guide, and courts have indicated a deference to domain-specific best practices when making a fair use judgement (the Association of Research Libraries has its own Code in this area).

It should be noted that copyright and its implications constitute both a legal domain (these guidelines do not represent legal advice and the author(s) are not lawyers), and is worthy of an ethical framework of its own. The problems and decisions necessary in navigating ethical contract and copyright practice are various, thorny, and rest on an array of values and assumptions. Library publishers should determine which values and assumptions they themselves hold before enacting a policy approach to copyright and fair use.

In case law decisions, courts have indicated a deference to domain-specific best practices when making a fair use judgement. The collected codes at this site can help contextualize fair use decisions for publishers seeking to exercise this right.

See the narrative for this section for guidance on the significance and use of this node. The resources available at this URL can help provide further guidance and context in this area.

The Creative Commons licenses are widely represented in open access publishing practice; familiarity with the licenses is recommended.

A Mellon-funded collaboration between Emory University and the University of Michigan, the Model Publishing Contract for Digital Scholarship seeks to ease the development time required to establish contracts for new types of long-form digital scholarship.

Stanford Libraries’ resource site on copyright and fair use is succinct where necessary but with enough supplementary material to provide further context for many aspects of the law.

Editorial Standards

The emergence of the contemporary library publishing movement puts libraries squarely in a mature field, with a consistent, rigorous editorial practice already well-developed and universally valued. An organization earns its reputation through implementation of editorial standards; such standards enable publishers to identify spurious or false work, or work that is not ready for publication, and provide a pathway toward developing promising work into something worth publishing. Libraries seeking to operate as legitimate publishers can best demonstrate that intention with high-quality editorial work. This is especially important for libraries new to the publishing field as library values, which promote broad collection development and an aversion to censorship, could be misapplied in the editorial realm as a form of noncritical practice. Where libraries decide to undertake editorial work, standards serve as a roadmap for learning and implementing practice. Where libraries decide not to provide traditional editorial services directly, a familiarity with editorial standards will help them to evaluate third party alternatives, or at the very least to make informed choices about the quality of materials they do publish.

  • Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.). (2017). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

In addition to mechanical guidelines for consistent form, the Chicago Manual of Style “strives to codify the best practices of an institution and an industry” (p. xv). As a baseline, it covers in detail the elements of manuscript preparation, editing and proofreading, and can inform a consistent ethical approach to editorial practice. Even for publications that don’t use Chicago for citation style, it has invaluable advice about publishing standards and practices. Familiarity with the Manual (or a similar publication manual such as the MLA Handbook or the Publication Manual of the APA), can help library publishing programs make informed decisions and communicate knowledgeably about which services they will offer to authors, and which they may choose to forego.

Trade group Editors Association of Canada provides more of an overview of principles than a comprehensive omnibus in their Professional Editorial Standards, but their document gives a good survey of the areas to be cognizant of when planning or implementing editorial services.

Peer Review

Peer review arguably represents the core practice of ethical scholarly communication, requiring that experts in the field evaluate a submitted work as a step in its publication, and library publishers must support processes that enable this practice. This is more complicated than it seems at first glance: the Association of American University Presses Handbook on peer review acknowledges that “the peer review process is highly complex, involves many individuals, and must be responsive to the norms of the appropriate fields” (AAUP Acquisitions Editorial Committee, 2016, Peer Review Resources).

Exactly how a publisher supports peer review is itself a matter of judgement; ARL affirms the process but not the procedure: “The system of scholarly publication must continue to include processes for evaluating the quality of scholarly work and every publication should provide the reader with information about evaluation the work has undergone.” (ARL, 2000). Single-blind, double-blind, and open peer review are common. It has been nearly a decade since Kathleen Fitzpatrick debuted her spirited defense of post-publication peer-to-peer review, Planned Obsolescence, in which she argues for a “community-oriented, gift-economy-driven system” (Fitzpatrick, 2011) that favors the processes of scholarly work over the outcomes. The mechanisms developed since then to support this kind of peer review, such as Fitzpatrick’s own Media Commons (http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/), PubPeer (https://pubpeer.com), or F1000 Research (https://f1000research.com/about), begin to demonstrate the potential of Fitzpatrick’s proposal to address some of the limitations of traditional peer review.

Peer review as it is traditionally conducted features an anonymity that can enable a certain amount of abuse, from bias to simple unkindness. This is compounded by the economic incentives provided by the gold APC-funded model of open access publishing. One result of this perverse economy is the phenomenon of predatory publishers—pseudo for-profit publishing outfits that fake the peer review process—and the (false) perception among scholars that open access publications do not undergo peer review (Ferris & Winkler, 2017). Correcting this perception was in large part the impetus for the DOAJ’s recent requirement that all journals re-apply for inclusion under its new standards, and the establishment of its Seal of Approval for Open Access Journals (Olijhoek, Mitchell, & Bjørnshauge, 2015).

COPE’s node on Peer review processes enjoins publishers to provide training to editors and reviewers on the peer review process, as an ethical imperative. This may be beyond the capacity or capability of many library publishers, and will require an awareness of outside resources that can serve as proxy training for stakeholders in the peer review process. However library publishers treat this, it remains a fundamental obligation in scholarly publishing to address the practice of peer review thoughtfully and with rigor; even more so in the light of the constant and continuing controversies surrounding the practice.

The AAUP Handbook provides a baseline understanding of the types and processes of peer review in the scholarly communication endeavor.

See the narrative for this section for guidance on the significance and use of this node. The resources available at this URL can help provide further guidance and context in this area.

Research Integrity

Library publishers should be aware of relevant research integrity standards and work both to enforce them and to educate partners about their importance. Library publishers must also adhere to the rules, regulations, and guidelines for specific academic disciplines and follow appropriate codes of conduct. As highlighted in the COPE Core practice node on Ethical Oversight, editors must have a policy that assures research was approved by the discipline’s or institution’s appropriate body, and that sets up procedures for suspected misconduct that include knowledge of the discipline’s regulatory bodies. The Council of Science Editors, in its comprehensive White paper on publication ethics, covers in detail “Identification of research misconduct and guidelines for action,” and this section includes excellent practical steps to take when research integrity is in question, including how to identify it and what to do afterwards.

See the narrative for this section for guidance on the significance and use of these resources. The many further resources available at the COPE node in particular can help provide further guidance and context in this area.

New Resources Needed

This section highlights gaps in the landscape of ethical publishing resources, and suggests areas where development of new resources could have a significant impact.

Library publishers provide a range of activities and services that overlap with the commercial publishing space to greater or lesser degree, and no single definition of library publishing will suffice to describe the entire class of library publishers. There is space, however, for some work to further define—beyond the first steps in this framework—the ethical considerations that are unique to the combination of the two domains, libraries and publishing. This might include an expanded consideration of issues like privacy, selection, and censorship, informed by the values in, for instance, the American Library Association Library Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics. In some sense, this framework constitutes an attempt at this definition. Nevertheless, a concise distillation of established publishing ethics statements in the light of these resources could be useful in furthering the library publisher’s understanding of their unique ethical responsibilities.

Library publishers also hold the singular position of being both the dissemination and preservation node in the scholarly communication process. It may be that library publishers have ethical responsibilities toward access that commercial and academic publishers do not. Should libraries, for instance, have an ethical imperative to collect what they publish? Or to publish only what they would collect? To what extent do libraries have an additional (and non-commercial) responsibility to enhance the availability of their publications through bibliographic description, extended metadata, original cataloging, or inclusion in discovery networks? These constitute traditional library practice, but it is possible that they should also constitute publishing practice where libraries are publishers.

Recommendations

The recommendations in this section draw on the resources above to provide guidance to library publishers looking for concrete, actionable steps they can take in this area. They are by no means the only place to start, and they may not be feasible or appropriate in all situations, but they may provide a good a starting point for many libraries.

  • Familiarize yourself with publishing practice in author relationships; consider whether and where you might advance a preferential ethic toward authors.
  • Evaluate whether your practices align with COPE’s ten Core Practices, and have explicit and reasoned justifications for where they diverge.
  • Establish clear policy regarding protections of stakeholder privacy and confidentiality, not neglecting data privacy.
  • Determine in advance your approach to copyright and access, and communicate clearly to contractual parties. When publishing open access, license only those rights you need. Consider relying on fair use when defensible.
  • Strongly consider adopting a consistent standard, or ensure that your editors do, to govern editorial practice for your publications.
  • Establish an approach to peer review that fits the context of the scholarship you publish, and be transparent about it to your authors and readers.

Further Reading

This section lists additional resources on this topic that may be of interest to library publishers.

General

Association of Research Libraries. (2000). Principles for emerging systems of scholarly publishing. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/tempe-principles-10may10.pdf

Bonn, M., & Furlough, M. (Eds.). (2015). Getting the Word Out: Academic Libraries as scholarly publishers. Chicago IL: American Library Association.

Gilman, I. (2013). Library scholarly communication programs; legal and ethical considerations. Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing.

Lippincott, S. K. (2017). Library as Publisher: New Models of Scholarly Communication for a New Era. Ann Arbor: MI: Michigan Publishing. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9944345

Skinner, K., Lippincott, S., Speer, J., & Walters, T. (2014). Library-as-publisher: capacity building for the library publishing subfield. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 17(2). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0017.207

Suber, P. (2012). Open Access. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/Open_Access_(the_book)

Taylor, L. N., Keith, B. W., Dinsmore, C., & Morris-Babb, M. (2017). SPEC Kit 357: Libraries, presses, and publishing. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://publications.arl.org/Libraries-Presses-Publishing-SPEC-Kit-357/

Confidentiality / Privacy

American Library Association. (n.d.). Library bill of rights.  Washington, D.C.: American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill

Coalition on Publication Ethics. (2016). COPE Forum 12 February 2016: Data sharing. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/cope-forum-12-february-2016-data-sharing

International Federation of Library Associations. (2015). IFLA statement on privacy in the library environment. Retrieved from https://www.ifla.org/publications/node/10056

Intersoft Consulting. (n.d.). General Data Protection Regulation. Retrieved from https://gdpr-info.eu/

Contracts, Licenses, Copyright and Fair Use

Association of American Publishers. (n.d.). Modernizing Copyright. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Publishers. Retrieved from http://publishers.org/priorities-positions/modernizing-copyright

American Association of University Professors. (1999). Statement on copyright. Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Professors. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-copyright   

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2012). Code of best practices in fair use for academic and research libraries. Washington, D.C.: Association of College and Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/focus-areas/copyright-ip/fair-use/code-of-best-practices

Authors Guild. (2016.) Fair contract initiative. New York, NY: The Authors Guild. Retrieved from https://www.authorsguild.org/where-we-stand/fair-contracts/

Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org

Butler, B. (2016, Feb. 24). Brandon Butler on fair use. Retrieved from https://news.library.virginia.edu/2016/02/24/brandon-butler-on-fair-use/

Morrison, H., & Desautels, L. (2016). Open access, copyright and licensing: basics for open access publishers. Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports, 6(1), 1-2. doi: 10.13107/jocr.2250-0685.360

Peer Review

Ferris, L. E., & Winker, M. A. (2017). Ethical issues in publishing in predatory journals. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 279–284. http://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.030

Fitzpatrick, K. (2011). Planned obsolescence: Publishing, technology, and the future of the academy. New York, NY: NYU Press.

Lever Press Editorial Board. (n.d.). Peer review commitments & guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.leverpress.org/peerreview/

Olijhoek, T., Mitchell, D., & Bjørnshauge, L. (2015). Criteria for open access and publishing. ScienceOpen Research, 16 November 2015. DOI: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AMHUHV.v1

Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178-182. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178

Research Integrity

Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2011). Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. In T. Mayer & N. Steneck (Eds.). Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Singapore: Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standards_authors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf

Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2011). Responsible research publication: international standards for editors. A position statement developed at the 2nd  World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. In T. Mayer & N. Steneck (Eds.). Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Singapore: Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standard_editors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf

 

Table of Contents