|
In issue 24 of Editors’ Update, we discussed some of the ways in which technological advances have changed and improved scientific research, publishing and dissemination. And we asked you which set of tools or functionalities is likely to be the most beneficial to the future of your journal?
A. Tools for managing and streamlining the editing process, including facilitating communication with authors, co-editors and reviewers, such as EES;
B. Functionality related to dissemination and visibility, such as YouTube abstracts and Proceedia, which allow for new ways to access more complete information;
C. Social networking tools, to help in building relationships between scientists and allowing for collaborative projects across geographical and disciplinary boundaries.
With 31 responses, the clear favorite was A, with 89% of respondents finding the most beneficial path for the future of their journal lying with editorial tools such as EES.
One respondent felt “it is sometimes easy to forget just what a massive step forward [EES] was – particularly for editors – but for reviewers and authors also… I sometimes wonder how I managed…” Some respondents took the opportunity to raise issues that still need addressing in EES, and we have passed these on to the development team. Those with additional comments can always convey these to the EES team by sending an email to support@elsevier.com.
Many editors dismissed options B and C outright, as either irrelevant or as not yet having proved their value. But some felt these technologies would prove important to their journal as time goes on.
Eleven percent of respondents felt dissemination and visibility technologies (Option B) were the most important to their journal. “Option ’A’ was a vital step and still needs refinement but substantial gains in efficiency have already been made. The biggest bang for the buck will come from ‘B’” reasoned one respondent. Another felt “maybe… video abstracts will attract a young audience and will increase the visibility of science results.”
Social networking (Option C) did not receive any unique support, although a few editors cautioned against discounting the importance of C entirely: “when properly organized, a research network can help significantly to maintain research quality, thus working finally for the benefit of the journals.” Although another felt that these technologies just provided another forum “where the talkative talk, not where the workers work.”
|
