The Developing Effects of Peer Review Growth

Causes, Consequences, and Future Potential

By Lizi Dawes, CEO, PA EDitorial, Sponsor of the ALPSP Impact Award and the ALPSP Award for Innovation in Publishing 2024.

My journey to this point has been one of unexpected twists and turns, defying the linear career paths often expected in the peer review world. Being raised in a family where the office and home blended together, I quickly developed a passion for technology and a keen understanding of the need for processes that had to be fluid in response to shifting demands and trends. These skills have served me well, especially since entering academic publishing and peer review management, where I have seen many changes since I began over thirteen years ago.

Now, I find myself honoured to be invited to write this piece for ALPSP, whose Impact Awards are successfully in their second year: a testament to the power of initiatives, projects, and collaborations that can bring change within the scholarly publishing realm.

When asked to discuss peer review, I could write about many things, such as reflections and insights from my experiences in the industry. I could especially tell you why I feel so passionate about the subject; the list is long, but my main reasons include:

• Breadth of perspectives – it has a major role in providing diverse perspectives and expertise while delivering valuable feedback.
• Robust and reliable research – it’s a collective process leading to the development of more robust and reliable research.
• Collaboration and community – it fosters a collaborative environment within the academic community.
• Knowledge and ideas exchange – it offers an exchange of ideas, knowledge sharing, and exploring new research directions.
• Mitigating bias and promoting diversity – it’s crucial in mitigating and addressing biases and promoting diversity.
• Recognition for researchers – it increases recognition and expert status for researchers with published peer-reviewed work.
• Professional advancement opportunities – it provides opportunities for funding, collaboration, and professional advancement.
• Ethical and integrity protection – it exists for a fundamental reason – an ‘Old Guard’ for ethics and integrity.

Yet, while nearly all these thoughts on the subject are equally weighted, one in particular stands above the rest.

• The impact of peer review growth – Ultimately, it’s a subject of two halves – challenges and solutions – something I relish the potential of.

Some may see growth as a problem, but invariably, it isn’t. What growth can bring – good and bad – and how we deal with those two things can substantially impact our profession.

As with every system, peer review has its shortcomings. When something grows, so do these shortcomings unless we grapple with them at their root level. This is an exciting prospect as it means we can actively engage in how our profession develops in the short- and long-term future.

The Systemic Roots of Peer Review

At the core of these challenges is possibly the ‘publish or perish’ culture, which is often considered the source of an unsustainable torrent of research papers, straining the capacity of the peer review system to keep pace.

Additionally, those with peer review responsibilities are a relatively small subset of scholars, yet there is an abundance of outlets for publication, each demanding its own cadre of reviewers.

There are also less obvious challenges that not only impact growth but also provide us with opportunities to make positive and encouraging changes. Some of these challenges include:

• The effect of the pandemic: COVID-19 undoubtedly acted as a catalyst for amplifying some of the core issues faced by peer review.
• The decrease in tenured academics: there has been a reduction in the proportion of tenured faculty members, who traditionally shouldered a significant share of peer review duties as part of their academic service.
• Slower turnaround times: due to a lack of available and/or willing reviewers, delays in the peer review process can often stall scholars’ careers and hinder the timely dissemination of research findings.
• Reliance on volunteers: a small fraction of academics carry most of the workload, with only around 20% contributing to 94% of peer review work. [1]
• Lack of transparency: sometimes, the lack of transparency can also cause challenges, such as the anonymity of the peer reviewers, making it difficult to assess the objectivity and qualifications of the individuals providing the feedback.
• The challenges of generative AI: it’s also important not to forget the emerging challenges of AI. While some researchers see the potential for AI to enhance the process, others are wary of the ethical implications and the potential for misuse. Around 35% of researchers feel that generative AI tools will negatively impact the peer review process. [2]

Knowing the obvious and the hidden challenges of any system puts those within it at an advantage. One of the things I love about peer review is that we are always, as a profession, exploring how we can better serve the system, improve the processes, and ensure, collaboratively, that we are upholding the values that it stands for.

Potential Solutions: A Multifaceted Approach

Addressing the challenges facing peer review necessitates a multifaceted approach that tackles the underlying systemic issues while exploring innovative solutions to alleviate the immediate pressures on the system.

Inclusive Reviewer Recruitment

Journals could adopt more inclusive strategies for recruiting peer reviewers, tapping into a wider pool of experts, including non-tenured scholars, PhD researchers, industry professionals, and underrepresented minorities. This approach can help address geographical biases and ensure a more diverse and representative review process.

Additionally, creating a centralised database of reviewers accessible to all journals could streamline the process of identifying and engaging qualified reviewers, reducing the administrative burden on individual journals.

Incentivising Peer Review Through Recognition

While financial compensation may remain a contentious issue, there is a growing consensus on the need for greater recognition and incentives for peer review contributions. Universities and research institutions could explicitly acknowledge and reward outstanding peer review efforts as part of tenure and promotion evaluations, fostering a culture that values this critical academic service.

Furthermore, integrating peer review activities into platforms like ORCID and Publons could enhance the visibility and recognition of individual scholars’ review contributions, potentially motivating greater participation.

Embracing Open Peer Review

The growing movement towards open peer review could foster a more transparent and collaborative approach. Initiatives like publishing review letters and allowing for voluntary identification of reviewers can help build trust and accountability within the system.

Prioritising Time-Sensitive Research

To address the issue of slow turnaround times, journals could prioritise the review of time-sensitive research, ensuring that critical findings are disseminated promptly.

Leveraging Technological Innovations

It is also crucial to recognise the potential of technological advancements, such as improvements to online manuscript and review submission systems, to streamline the peer review process and enhance the overall experience for authors and reviewers. This is a particular passion of mine, along with embracing the positive powers of AI while being mindful of its pitfalls.

The Way Forward: Collaboration and Adaptation

Addressing the peer review crisis demands a collaborative and holistic effort from all stakeholders within the academic ecosystem, including researchers, institutions, publishers, funding bodies and peer review management services such as PA EDitorial.

By fostering open dialogue, embracing innovative solutions, and adapting to the evolving challenges and growth of scholarly communication, the academic community can collectively navigate this challenge and safeguard the integrity of the peer review process – a cornerstone of scientific progress and knowledge dissemination.

Nurturing a Culture of Learning and Support

At the heart of what we do at PA EDitorial is our approach to deepening our commitment to nurturing a culture of learning and support within our organisation.

This approach isn’t just aimed at our team of freelancers, who we believe all have their very own super skills. We also strive to build teams that can help the academic research community. My role in this is contributing to and building up the community by supporting peer review in every way I can, from attending events where I can learn more and develop my knowledge and skills to working closely with journals – finding solutions to their problems and options for their challenges.

We all have a part to play in ensuring that the peer review process is upheld and ready to adapt to the changes that time inevitably brings.

What remains constant is my excitement and curiosity about the future of peer review and its influence on global research, along with my admiration for how all research disciplines affect every member of society.

Together, we must evolve and innovate within academia to preserve research integrity and guarantee the effective sharing of knowledge. Our work is crucial and ultimately benefits everyone.

[1] https://www.durham.ac.uk/research/current/thought-leadership/the-peer-review-system-is-broken-we-asked-academics-how-to-fix-it/

[2] https://ioppublishing.org/state-of-peer-review-2024-results/

About the author

Lizi Dawes is CEO of PA Editorial. Find out more.

Publishing Systems Can Enable Collaboration and Build Community

By Tony Alves, SVP of Product Management, HighWire Press - Silver sponsor of the ALPSP Annual Conference and Awards 2024.

For almost 35 years, from my early days as an editorial assistant to today as SVP of product at HighWire Press, I’ve been observing how publishing systems can foster collaboration and build a more connected and trustworthy scholarly community. The publishing process is a highly automated ecosystem where advanced workflow systems coordinate communication among authors, editors, and reviewers. These platforms foster collaboration, streamline workflows, and accelerate the time from manuscript submission to publication. On 5 June at the SSP Annual Meeting, I had the privilege of moderating an Industry Breakout Session titled “Publishing Systems Can Enable Collaboration and Build Community,” I was joined by Chris Shillum from ORCID, Dukhbhanjan Sujlana from Convey, Yvonne Campfens from OA Switchboard, Hylke Koers from STM Solutions, Jessica Thibodeau from Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), and Oleg Ruchayskiy from Prophy Science. Together, we explored how integrated technologies are transforming the scholarly publishing ecosystem and creating a virtuous circle that benefits all stakeholders.

I started by introducing the concept of the scholarly community as an interconnected system. At its core, publishing is a collaborative endeavor that involves researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers, as well as the public, which both funds and benefits from our work. The glue that holds this ecosystem together is the technology that enables efficient workflows and access to the tools we need to support scholarship. Systems like the one we’ve been building at HighWire, called DigiCorePro, streamline everything from manuscript submission to publication, fostering collaboration among all players while ensuring that scholarly research moves quickly and smoothly through the publishing process.

A key focus of the session was the role of persistent identifiers (PIDs) in fostering transparency and trust in scholarly communication. Chris Shillum from ORCID was the first to address this topic. ORCID IDs are essential for linking researchers to their work, making it easier for institutions, funders, and publishers to accurately attribute contributions and track outcomes. Chris highlighted how ORCID’s integration across platforms reduces administrative burdens for researchers, allowing them to focus on their work rather than paperwork. ORCID’s role in peer review enables reviewers to link their reviews to their ORCID profiles, promoting transparency and incentivizing participation in peer review, which is crucial as we work to address the reviewer crisis.

Another area where transparency and efficiency intersect is financial disclosure, which is where Dukhbhanjan (DK) Sujlana and Convey come in. DK introduced Convey, a web-based platform that allows researchers and other individuals to manage financial disclosures in one place. This system simplifies the disclosure process by eliminating redundant data entry, ensuring that individuals can share their information with multiple organizations seamlessly. encouraging adoption of Convey by academic institutions, societies, and publishers can help in maintaining trust in the research process.

Yvonne Campfens from the OA Switchboard discussed how the community-led initiative is simplifying the exchange of open access (OA) publication information. The OA Switchboard acts as a centralized hub for metadata exchange, reducing complexity and administrative burdens for publishers, funders, and institutions. By allowing all relevant parties to be notified when an OA article is published, the OA Switchboard streamlines compliance with funding requirements and OA agreements. What stood was the emphasis on simplicity and collaboration—two principles that are essential as we work to make open access more efficient and scalable.

Hylke Koers from STM Solutions introduced the STM Integrity Hub, an initiative that aims to protect research integrity through the use of data intelligence and advanced technology. The Integrity Hub connects publishers to external databases like PubPeer and Retraction Watch to screen manuscripts for signs of research misconduct, including papermill activity and duplicate submissions. Hylke’s presentation highlighted the importance of collaboration in maintaining the integrity of scholarly publishing. By providing a centralized platform where publishers can access a wide range of data and tools, the Integrity Hub helps to ensure that research is trustworthy and that misconduct is caught before publication.

Jessica Thibodeau of CCC, showcased the Scholarly Communications Suite. This suite of tools helps streamline the management of open access agreements and Article Processing Charges (APCs), leveraging persistent identifiers like Ringgold IDs to ensure accuracy and compliance. Most compelling was how CCC’s tools enhance data interoperability while improving workflow efficiency for publishers and researchers. Disambiguating author affiliations and track research outputs is vital for ensuring that scholarly work is accurately represented and recognized.

Lastly, Oleg Ruchayskiy from Prophy Science tackled one of the most pressing issues in our industry: the peer review crisis. Oleg demonstrated how Prophy uses big data and AI to match reviewers with manuscripts, creating digital “fingerprints” for researchers based on their publication history. This system makes it easier to find qualified reviewers quickly and ensures that conflicts of interest are detected before they become a problem. Oleg also shared exciting upcoming features, including fraud detection and reviewer availability tracking, which can increase trust and improve efficiency.

Throughout the session, one thing became clear: collaboration is at the heart of scholarly publishing. Whether it’s ORCID ensuring that researchers are properly credited for their work, Convey simplifying financial disclosures, the OA Switchboard streamlining metadata exchange, or the STM Integrity Hub safeguarding research integrity, these technologies all share a common goal—building a stronger, more trustworthy scholarly community. As publishers, we have the responsibility to integrate these tools into our workflows to enhance transparency, efficiency, and integrity.

I concluded the session by emphasizing how publishing systems like DigiCorePro are crucial in addressing key challenges, such as diversifying reviewer pools, improving content integrity, and reducing time-to-publication. Publishing systems integrate innovative tools into seamless workflows, fostering collaboration and community-building across the scholarly ecosystem. The SSP 2024 Industry Breakout Session highlighted that the future of scholarly publishing relies on leveraging technology and collaboration to create a more efficient, transparent, and resilient ecosystem that meets the evolving needs of researchers, institutions, funders, and the public.

About the author

Tony Alves, SVP of Product Management, HighWire Press

Email: tony.alves@highwirepress.com

www.highwirepress.com

MDPI's Commitment to Open Access: Welcoming the Diamond OA Model

By Dr Carla Aloè, Head of Societies and Acquisition, MDPI.

Silver sponsor of the ALPSP Annual Conference and Awards 2024.

Since its establishment in 1996, MDPI has been a pioneer in the open access movement, embracing the mission of fostering open scientific exchange in all forms, across all disciplines. 

Up to this point, the MDPI journals have mainly been published under the gold open access (OA) model, with authors (or their institutions) typically paying an Article Processing Charge (APC) to cover publication costs. MDPI provides a generous waiver scheme for all the journals and follows a reinvestment strategy that supports journals with limited funding, such as those in the arts and humanities. 

Society journals 

The gold OA model has also been implemented for the journals published by MDPI on behalf of various societies and institutions. Since the first society journal, International Journal of Geo-Information (IJGI), was launched in 2012, MDPI has been entrusted with publishing journals for 19 societies. Throughout these years, we have recognized that each society is unique, with distinct goals, priorities, and visions. 

We provide our societies with the best possible services through active listening and adapting to their specific needs.

For societies lacking financial support, receiving a share of the APC revenue once the journal becomes financially sustainable is a highly attractive option. We have assisted societies in generating revenue from their journals for the first time, whether these journals were open access and run entirely by volunteers before joining MDPI or had exhausted third-party funding for open access. 

On the other hand, we recognized that societies with more stable incomes might have different priorities, such as allowing authors to publish in the journal without the burden of needing to secure publication funds.

To broaden our offerings and address market needs, at the beginning of 2023, MDPI began actively exploring the possibility of publishing journals under the diamond OA model, which has no charges for authors or readers.  

SIUJ and the diamond model 

When we first met with the representatives of the Société Internationale d’Urologie (SIU), their journal SIUJ was self-published and had grown to the point where they needed an established publisher to support them. Their aim was to create a truly international journal while ensuring there were no costs for the authors or their institutions, leading them to fully subsidize all fees.

As all our journals up to that point were published under a gold OA model with APCs, accommodating SIUJ required substantial internal adjustments. In particular, our submission system needed to adapt to the new model, which required changes ranging from manuscript submission to online publication and invoicing. Thanks to excellent collaboration between the MDPI in-house developers and the society, finance, transfer, and other internal teams, the systems were diligently established to welcome SIUJ and more diamond journals.

JOMA, a new diamond journal  

In recent years, we have also launched several new journals on behalf of societies and associations. The Journal of the Oman Medical Association (JOMA) is our latest addition. As suggested by the title, the journal is published on behalf of the Oman Medical Association (OMA), and the first issue will be released at the end of this year. 

As stated by the Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Rashid Al Abri, in the editorial, “Funded exclusively by the OMA itself, this journal will be published, preserved, archived, and distributed without charging any fee from either its contributors or its readers. This innovative publication model, referred to as diamond open access, opens up exciting new perspectives in medical research, offering an approach that is intrinsically author-centered.”[1]  

Authors will not need to seek funding to publish their research, allowing them to focus solely on the quality and impact of their work. This also enables them to reallocate their funds to other projects and initiatives.

Commitment to openness 

With over 25 years of experience in open access publishing, MDPI has always adapted to changes in the industry. With more and more societies and institutions seeking to publish using the diamond OA model, we have updated our systems and applied our expertise to ensure we can meet their needs.

The diamond model ensures equitable access for both readers and authors, eliminating financial, geographical, and institutional barriers. It is now an integral part of our offer, and we will continue to offer this option to all the societies and institutions interested in partnering with us.

About the author 

Dr Carla Aloè, Head of Societies and Acquisition, MDPI

Carla joined MDPI in 2020 as an Associate Publisher and Scientific Officer. In 2022, she was promoted to Publisher and took over the lead of the Society Partnerships and Acquisition Team. In January 2023, Carla was appointed as the head of the newly established Society and Acquisition Department. Before joining MDPI, she worked as a Commissioning Editorial Team Lead at Frontiers. Carla holds a PhD in Early Modern Literature from the University of Birmingham, UK.

---

[1] Al Abri, R. Setting Sail into a New Era of Medical Research in Oman. J. Oman Med. Assoc. 2024, 1, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/joma1010001

Spotlight on: Open Journal Systems (OJS)

The judges have selected a shortlist of three for the ALPSP Impact Award 2024. This year's awards are sponsored by PA EDitorial.

The finalists will be showcased in a lightning session at the ALPSP Conference on 11 September. The winners will be announced at the ALPSP Conference Awards Dinner on 12 September in Manchester.

In this series, we hear from each of the finalists.

Tell us about your organization

The Public Knowledge Project is a faculty-led research and development initiative at Simon Fraser University and Stanford University. Founded in 1998 with the intent of opening access to knowledge, PKP facilitates public and researcher access to its free and open source software, as well as supporting it with open education resources and conducting scholarly communication research. Its team of developers, researchers, and community support personnel are funded through research grants, library membership, and by providing hosting services for its software.  

What is the project/product that you submitted for the Awards?

Open Journal Systems (OJS) is an open source journal management and publishing platform developed by the Public Knowledge Project that has grown over the last twenty years into the world’s most widely used platform with over 44,000 journals deploying it around the world, with the software available in roughly 30 languages (provided by the user community), with many of the journals bilingual, while publishing research in 60 languages. In terms of impact, OJS has enabled global participation in the digital publication of peer-reviewed research and has given rise to the Diamond Open Access model (with no fees for authors or readers). 

Tell us a little about how it works and the team behind it

As an open source platform, users freely download and install OJS locally on their web servers, where it can generate any number of journals, each of which offers a setup wizard for organizing and filling out the journal, workflow, and website, with a choice of languages and other features. OJS can then serve to receive submissions, manage their peer review through multiple rounds as needed, and then see through their copyediting and production. Issues can be assembled and published on OJS where they are then indexed in Google Scholar and other services, as well as being preserved in the PKP Preservation Network. The team behind OJS is globally distributed and divided among developers, community support personnel, and researchers, with the institutional support of Simon Fraser University. The larger community of OJS users provides software translations, participates in software sprints, and develops open source plugins for special features that are shared by all.

In what ways do you think it demonstrates innovation?

OJS demonstrates innovation by providing the academic community with an open source infrastructure that combines editorial management with a publishing platform, enabling community translations of the software, using a plugin architecture that enables community users to develop additional features for the benefit of all, as well as a template structure that makes for easier innovation in journal design and layout. Financing the continuous development of this software over the last two decades has meant a creative combination of research grants with library OJS-user memberships, while providing some hosting support to a very small proportion of those employing the software.  

What are your plans for the future?

In terms of what lies ahead for OJS, we’re refreshing the default journal design to give the journals a more effective and stylish reading environment for scholarly publishing; exploring ways of automating the markup of authors’ submission for the ready production of JATS XML, HTML and PDF versions for purposes of reviewing, editing, and publishing; improving the editorial workflow for more efficient handling of submissions; collaborating with Stanford University Press to bring Diamond Open Access to university presses as a viable alternative for scholarly societies and other journals; and introducing a Publication Facts Label for use with every article as a means of addressing research integrity and educating the public about scholarly publishing standards.

About the author

John Willinsky is professor at Simon Fraser University and Khosla Family Professor Emeritus, Stanford University, as well as founder of the Public Knowledge Project.

More information

Public Knowledge Project. 

Open Journal Systems. 

PKP community software sprints. 

PKP Preservation Network. 

Publication Facts Label. 

Spotlight on: JSTOR Access in Prison

The judges have selected a shortlist of three for the ALPSP Impact Award 2024. This year's awards are sponsored by PA EDitorial.

The finalists will be showcased in a lightning session at the ALPSP Conference on 11 September. The winners will be announced at the ALPSP Conference Awards Dinner on 12 September in Manchester.

In this series, we hear from each of the finalists.

Tell us about your organization

At ITHAKA – the successful non-profit behind JSTOR, Constellate, Ithaka S+R, and Portico  –we believe that everyone deserves access to higher education, no matter their resources or circumstances. Our mission is to expand access to knowledge and higher education around the world by working to make it more affordable, to improve outcomes for students and researchers, and to preserve knowledge for future generations.

What is the project/product that you submitted for the Awards? 

JSTOR Access in Prison is a transformational initiative designed to extend access to education and knowledge to the millions of people incarcerated in prisons, jails, and detention centers around the world. With initial support from groups like the Mellon Foundation and Ascendium Philanthropy, we have built a program that helps people expand their horizons, and their post-release opportunities, by giving them access to the same high-quality scholarly resources available to their peers on traditional college campuses. 

Tell us a little about how it works and the team behind it

Thousands of correctional facilities offer at least nominal access to educational programs, but the concrete walls we build to keep people in also keep information out. Access to media is restricted, and media review policies designed to prevent access to harmful or risky material also prevent access to innocuous information or legitimate academic research. Technology limitations further restrict access: Fewer than ten US prison systems allow internet access on government-issued laptops or desktops. 

Effectively, prisons are information deserts. Students in these environments have not had a genuine opportunity to develop research skills or to pursue new ideas and information that might enrich their lives and inspire change. Without access to outside knowledge, their world contracts to the walls of their institution. Without access to knowledge, access to education cannot improve lives. 

JSTOR Access in Prison is changing that with an innovative program that gives people in correctional facilities access to the same scholarly research material available to their peers in traditional college settings. JSTOR is committed to democratizing access to knowledge and helping colleges and universities serve the needs of all of their students, regardless of their circumstances. 

To accommodate the unique concerns of departments of corrections, we offer tiered access options, specialized training materials, and assistance with secure technology and digital devices. Students in the most restrictive settings have access to an “offline” version that provides full search results and the full text of 1,500 of the most-used articles on JSTOR; others have mediated access or full access to the same JSTOR used by their peers on traditional campuses. 

Today, JSTOR is available in more than 1,100 US prisons and nearly 200 prisons in other countries, serving almost a million people. Direct access to scholarly resources helps these students master research skills and encourages academic curiosity. It also reduces administrative burdens on higher education in prison programs, allowing those programs to serve more students. In Australia, one program expanded its enrollment from 40 students to 200 thanks to these economies of scale. 

In what ways do you think it demonstrates innovation?

The carceral system is currently one where many who leave end up returning. This reality falls short of our collective desire for incarcerated people who serve time to effectively and productively reintegrate into society. Doing so is not possible without personal growth and some level of hope and aspiration. Through the JSTOR Access in Prison initiative, we are working to enable growth and change through knowledge for what is largely an unseen and underserved population. 

While students in prisons are like those on college campuses, their learning settings could not be more different. We have been intentional about understanding the unique needs of these environments – the concerns of departments of corrections, the financial and technical limitations of the potential users, and the intellectual curiosity of people who are often getting their first realistic chance at higher education. With that understanding, we have worked to deliver a program that is responsive to everyone’s concerns and provides broad access to high-quality scholarship that supports learning and empowers learners.

We also lead with our mission by working to expand access to this population as broadly and affordably as possible. Our financial model is focused on ethical, sustainable pricing; we actively avoid the pernicious and often predatory practices that have dominated this space. Existing vendors charge exorbitant fees to departments of corrections and content providers to establish access and then charge high usage fees directly to the end users, who can ill afford to pay and have no access to free market alternatives. In contrast, we are taking a more traditional and ethical approach: We do not charge any incarcerated person to use JSTOR or to acquire the technology needed to use it. Neither do we add fees to colleges or universities; if their students in traditional settings have access to JSTOR, so can their students in carceral settings. 

The early results of this mission-oriented work have been impressive. In the US, programs have noted increased educational participation and reduced behavioral problems. One woman, sentenced as a juvenile decades ago, has gained her freedom, is working toward a public health degree, and was a finalist for a 2024 Watson Fellowship. Many others have written to tell us how access to JSTOR helped them advance their education and achieve their goals. 

Ninety-five percent of people in prisons will eventually be released; access to knowledge and education while in prison increases their chances for a better life out of prison. By bringing academic resources to a setting that is renowned for limiting access to ideas, JSTOR Access in Prison is laying the foundation for new ideas to flourish, and hopefully each person will leave prison with an expanded understanding of the world around them. 

What are your plans for the future?

The successes of these students and this initiative demonstrate that access to academic research in carceral settings is necessary, valuable, and practical. Now, we intend to expand JSTOR Access in Prison to more correctional facilities and to provide more educational material tailored to their unique needs. We will continue monitoring the program and collecting evidence on long-term impacts with the help of academic partners. 

We are also working with departments of correction and philanthropic organizations to ensure that academic library resources remain available over the long term. Access to scholarly resources is a cornerstone of successful higher education programs, of course, but our goal is to enshrine access for any person who wants it, regardless of whether they are enrolled in any college or university program. Our mission is to expand access to knowledge and education, and we will continue advocating for access to these life-changing resources for any incarcerated person who wants to learn, grow, and explore the world of knowledge and ideas that is humanity’s common inheritance. 

Women attending Portland Community College while incarcerated at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility in Salem, Oregon. Photo Credit: Morgan Godvin.

Women attending Portland Community College while incarcerated at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility in Salem, Oregon, observed by journalist Charlotte West (right). Photo Credit: Morgan Godvin.

College class in women’s prison in Coffee Creek Correctional Facility in Salem, Oregon. Notice the secure laptop computer, plastic three-ring binder, and prison ID on a lanyard. Photo Credit: Morgan Godvin.

About the author

Stacy Lyn Burnett, MBA, has led the effort to bring JSTOR Access in Prison to scale. She first discovered JSTOR as a student of Bard Prison Initiative in a New York state prison.

More information

https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/jstor-access-in-prison/

https://daily.jstor.org/the-impact-jstor-in-prison-has-made-on-me/

Spotlight on: The Forest of Biologists

The judges have selected a shortlist of three for the ALPSP Impact Award 2024. This year's awards are sponsored by PA EDitorial.

The finalists will be showcased in a lightning session at the ALPSP Conference on 11 September. The winners will be announced at the ALPSP Conference Awards Dinner on 12 September in Manchester.

In this series, we hear from each of the finalists.

Tell us about your organization

The Company of Biologists is a not-for-profit publishing organisation dedicated to supporting and inspiring the biological community. The Company publishes five specialist peer-reviewed journals: Development, Journal of Cell Science, Journal of Experimental Biology, Disease Models & Mechanisms and Biology Open. It offers further support to the biological community by facilitating scientific meetings, hosting three community sites, providing travel grants for researchers and supporting research societies.

What is the project/product that you submitted for the Awards?

The Forest of Biologists is a project that we are very passionate about and we are thrilled it has been shortlisted for the ALPSP Impact Award 2024. It aligns with the concerns of biologists worldwide about climate change and biodiversity loss, with a clear focus on biodiversity.

Tell us a little about how it works and the team behind it

We plant a tree for each article published in our journals and help to protect areas of ancient woodland on behalf of our peer reviewers (in partnership with the Woodland Trust). The idea was that with each publication we make one tiny contribution to improving biodiversity – and by adding up each of these tiny impacts, we can achieve something substantial in the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss. We also built a game-inspired website through which our communities could view virtual representations of their trees (and learn more about the real-life trees) and track our progress.

The seed for this idea was planted by Steven Kelly, Professor of Plant Sciences at the University of Oxford and Editor-in-Chief of Biology Open at the time. In the process of development that followed, we included internal and external stakeholders, including Directors and a group of early-career researchers who all gave valuable feedback throughout, making sure that the final product aligned with the needs of our audience. In-house, many staff have been enthusiastic contributors and as the Publisher, I have championed the project (and visited each woodland site to check on our trees). 

In what ways do you think it demonstrates innovation?

Like many other publishers we care deeply about the environment, and sustainability is a key consideration in many things we do. We feel we have made a significant commitment to biopositive publishing by embedding our actions into our core publishing activities and ensuring that our trees are responsibly planted with longevity in mind. In addition to the environmental impact of planting and protecting trees, we hope to make a significant contribution to counteracting biodiversity loss by creating new woodland habitats and helping to protect the unique biodiversity in ancient woodlands. We’re delighted that our initiative also has an educational element, emphasising the importance of trees and woodlands in the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss with the young people involved. We hope The Forest of Biologists provides an encouraging example of biopositive publishing that others may choose to emulate as we consider the effects of our activities on the environment. 

What are your plans for the future?

We have seen an overwhelmingly positive response to the initiative, from authors, readers, reviewers and librarians, which makes us even more excited to consider our next steps. We have already started discussions with the Woodland Trust on options for the future and, for now, we will almost certainly continue to focus on trees and woodland. But after that, we might well consider expanding into other areas or ecosystems.

About the author

Claire Moulton is the Publisher at The Company of Biologists, where she is responsible for the company’s journal and digital content strategy. 

Previously, Claire worked for Elsevier, where she was responsible for the Current Opinion and Trends journals. She has a background in molecular and developmental biology. 

More information

The Forest of Biologists.

The Company of Biologists.

Spotlight on: Research Organization Registry (ROR)

The judges have selected a shortlist of four for the 2024 ALPSP Award for Innovation in Publishing. This year's awards are sponsored by PA EDitorial.

The finalists will be showcased in a lightning session at the ALPSP Conference on 11 September. The winners will be announced at the ALPSP Conference Awards Dinner on 12 September in Manchester.

In this series, we hear from each of the finalists.

Tell us about your organization

Fun fact: ROR itself is not an organization! It is an initiative jointly operated by California Digital Library, Crossref, and DataCite – three organizations with deep ties to the publishing, research, infrastructure, and library communities that represent ROR’s key stakeholder constituencies. The three operating organizations share the responsibilities of resourcing and governing ROR per a multi-year Memorandum of Agreement first executed in 2020. As an initiative that first emerged through a series of meetings and collaborations beginning in 2016, ROR is committed to incorporating and addressing the input and needs of its global user base. Our operations and activities aim to be transparent and participatory. We hold open community meetings every other month to discuss plans and share progress, actively solicit feedback on product development decisions, and post about our processes publicly on GitHub and other channels so that everyone can see and contribute to what we are working on.

What is the project/product that you submitted for the Awards?

We submitted our proposal for the ROR registry, which encompasses the dataset itself (unique persistent identifiers and associated metadata for research and funding organizations), an accompanying suite of tools for querying, integrating, and matching ROR data, and a comprehensive and responsive process for curating registry data and releasing regular updates. 

Tell us a little about how it works and the team behind it

ROR addresses a complex problem with a simple solution. Before ROR, there was no free, open, and reliable way to identify and connect the institutions that employ and fund researchers to the works those researchers produce. Some identification solutions did (and still) exist, but these were proprietary services that only certain users could afford, not fully open for global usage by humans and machines and interoperability across systems, or not tailored to specific research and publishing use cases. The niche that ROR fills is to provide a single, well-scoped, open dataset that can be used in any system to normalize and exchange information about institutions and make it easy and more efficient to identify and track research activities at the institutional level. Data is publicly available for anyone to query and integrate, and we release new registry updates every month so integrators can grab the latest additions and changes. We actively add new records and modify existing ones to ensure registry data is comprehensive and up to date, and to provide as much metadata as possible to support discovery and disambiguation. There is no cost to submit updates to the registry, and no cost to use the data. Integrators build organization lookups and other implementations to normalize institutional names in their systems, and they can provide ROR IDs to metadata sources like Crossref, DataCite, and ORCID, which enables more precise reporting and tracking of research outputs in the downstream systems that rely on these metadata sources. 

As for the people behind ROR: we are a small and nimble team based across ROR’s three operating organizations, which means that in addition to supporting day-to-day work on ROR, we support and are connected to the activities and wider communities that our organizations are engaged with. There is more to ROR than the team, however: we are also fortunate to have an active and engaged network of supporters and advisors who provide important guidance and input on our development work, metadata curation processes, and strategic directions. 

In what ways do you think it demonstrates innovation?

ROR is not the first or only organization identifier, but it is unique and innovative because it is the only one that is completely free and open, specifically designed for research workflows and research infrastructure, uniquely suited to address a range of use cases, recommended in national persistent identifier strategies, and developed as a community-driven initiative. It’s a single, streamlined, and powerful service that can help make everyone’s metadata cleaner and more connected. 

What are your plans for the future?

This is an exciting time for ROR’s growth as we are seeing greater adoption in systems and services around the world to address a range of use cases. We continue to actively maintain registry data for quality and completeness as more and more users depend on it, and we are investing in scaling our workflows and infrastructure to support increased demand - the API, for instance, regularly sees 20 million requests every month. With rising adoption as well as growing interest overall in greater metadata connectivity through persistent identifiers, we are seeing an increased role for ROR to play in helping to manage, clean up, and connect massive volumes of legacy data, so we’re fine-tuning our API to leverage machine-learning technologies in support of large-scale matching and reconciliation. With the forthcoming deprecation of Crossref’s Open Funder Registry, we’re also completing our work to map Funder IDs to ROR and continuing to engage with funders and other stakeholders to support them through this transition. 

Example record from search UI:

Example ROR-powered typeahead lookup for affiliation and funding information:

About the author

ROR Director Maria Gould has led the initiative since 2018. She is also Director of Product at DataCite.  

More information

Research Organization Registry (ROR).