Submission Preparation ChecklistAs part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
- The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
- The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, or RTF document file format.
- Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
- The text is double-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustration, figure, and table titles are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end. All illustrations, figures, and tables should be uploaded as supplementary files.
- The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.
Technical ReportsSRC looks for technical reports that have a wide implication for scholarly communication, outlining a technical approach conceptually to a workable technical solution related to online journal publication. The article should provide the foundations, limitations, and recommendations of research, with a call for public comment and scrutiny.
CommentaryCommentaries are not original research but are an informed analysis of a critical issue, encompassing a broad set of initiatives in scholarly and research communication.
In setting up SRC the editorial team realized that there was a great deal of activity involved behind the scenes in inventing and developing digital publishing technology. SRC wanted to encourage the documentation of that process and thus created a section called Technical Reports. Following the example of our colleagues in the health professions we are inaugurating yet another useful category to document scholarly and research communication practice. The category will be called "Field Notes" and its intent is to allow those involved in scholarly publishing to share experience and knowledge that they think would be helpful to others. The category will be peer reviewed to ensure that others think the content useful. It is not our intent to set definitive boundaries but Field Notes could encompass the following:
• accounts of journal foundings
• financial management
• encouraging timely peer reviews
• strategic planning with relationship to secondary aggregators
• legal issues
• the development of performance measures
• adapting to multiple formats
• relationships with commercial publishers.
In overview, SRC is interested in publishes practical accounts of challenges faced by individuals performing the work of scholarly publishing (as opposed to studying scholarly and research communication) when such an account conveys a broadly applicable lesson of interest to our readers. These articles are meant to serve as a resource for individuals facing pragmatic issues in the work of producing scholarly and research communication materials.
Some helpful guidelines. Those wishing to submit to Field Notes should indicate this in their submission and should feel free to submit articles as short as 1,000 words but probably no longer than 5,000 words. In addition, authors should consider the following, which has been adapted from the British Medical Journal.
• Please explain to readers in a few opening sentences why they should read the article and what they will learn.
• Provide some context for the article both what the activity was trying to address and where other related accounts can be found. We don't want an extensive literature review but we do want you to establish that someone on the world may have reported on a parallel experience. The reader should have some sense of what prompted the article. (Include references)
• In the actual account of the activity, please avoid personal narrative.
• Consider focusing on recommendations as you draw the article to a close.
• Another useful approach might be to describe the problem experienced, what tools and techniques were tried - which ones were successful and which ones weren't, costs/benefits, risk/reward, and then a section reflecting on the problem and lessons learned.
Copyright NoticeSRC embraces online publishing and open access to back issues under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Licence. This license allows users to download an article and share it with others as long as authorship and original publication is acknowledged and a link is made (in electronic media) to the original article. The article can be quoted but not changed and presented differently.
The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.