Our network has a group at the LinkedIn network.

See: Research Cooperative at LinkedIn

Please join and help us create wider awareness of the Research Cooperative.

Make useful connections there too, maybe!

Peter

I'll repeat my answer here:

In my own work, I am happy to include as co-authors people who gave substantial help during the research process (e.g. as fieldwork collaborators) even if their contribution to the later writing is minimal: the information they help me gather as local experts, interpreters is surely part of the process.

Others who have given useful suggestions, financial support, or moral support during the research and writing can be acknowledged at the end. It seems that few journals have an explicit policy about acknowledgments, and few journals actively encourage authors to carefully consider and acknowledge non-author contributions. This may explain why the acknowledgments section of a paper is often neglected by authors. First-time authors may not be aware of the benefits they can gain by acknowledging sources of help (including any editors employed to edit a paper).

The benefits become apparent over time, as we can positively nuture our personal research and support network by acknowledging the people who help us along the way. Help appreciated is help that will be willingly given again. Rather than trying to minimise acknowledgments, we should always try to make them as full as possible, within the limits set by the publisher, and without overstatement or padding.

Looking at this another way, we should not be greedy to be listed as an author for a paper if an acknowledgment at the end is sufficient.

Recently I learned that the Science and Technology Select Committee, House of Lords (London, UK) was accepting submissions on a report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings the Finch Group. The group was chaired by Dame Janet Finch, and the report, Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications , was published on 18 June 2012 (See Research Information Network , Internet, 18th Jan. 2013).

Today, at the last minute literally, I submitted the statement below. To summarise, I want to urge attention to the process of getting research published, and the people involved, and the value of the relationships that develop among people involved.

What happens before research is published may be of just as much importance to the scientific and social process as what happens afterwards. Scientific communication, as social product, does not emerge from a social vacuum. Without attention to the full communication ecosystem, attempts to develop open access science will fall on their feet.

Creating and developing the Research Cooperative is an attempt to give attention to the full communication ecosystem, in a practical and socially integrated manner.

My submission (below) was accepted, and w e can track the progress of the inquiry on the open access inquiry page of the Committees website: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/open-access/

***

House of Lords,
Science and Technology Committee,
London, UK

Dear Committee,

re Research Councils UK (RCUK) Open Access policy

I am a New Zealand citizen resident in Japan, and working here as a full-time researcher at a national research institution (see full address below). I am currently collaborating in research projects with Cambridge University, Oxford University, and Warwick University.

I am also creator and administrator of The Research Cooperative ( http://researchcooperative.org ), an NPO social network for researchers, editors, translators, publishers and others involved in research communication. This network currently has almost 6,000 members globally, including many in the UK.

I write as someone with practical interests in open access publishing.

First I should state my strong support for the following statement in the Executive Summary of the Finch Group report: Our view is that the UK should embrace the transition to open access, and accelerate the process in a measured way which promotes innovation but also what is most valuable in the research communications ecosystem . (my underlining)

This submission also relates to the following issue:

* Engagement with publishers, universities learned societies and other stakeholders in developing the new open access policies.

I strongly urge the Committee to take a broad view of who the "other stakeholders" are, and also of what is most valuable in the research communications ecosystem. Regarding the latter, please understand that the ecosystem includes all the people involved in the production of scientific communications, before publication and distribution, and that these people include, in addition to researchers and students, the editors, proofreaders, copyeditors, illustrators, photograpers, IT specialists, website designers, reviewers, printing companies, language service companies, academic writing teachers, and so on. When we consider the costs and value, please understand that the needed involvement of all these also has costs, and also has value in terms of the social interactions that allow scientists to learn how to write and communicate effectively. Collaboration, and mutual support, and relationships of trust are part of the value embedded in the research communications ecosytem, but are fragile and not universally available.

I will summarise my further concerns as follows:

1. In the world of academic publishing, UK-based publishers and journals have been historically important, and remain important, for many research communities outside the UK, especially in the Commonwealth countries. Such communities can also be regarded as stakeholders, since they are often also contributors. The fate of historically important research journals published in the UK is of international interest.

2. The Open Access movement has addressed various important questions concerning the costs of publishing and distribution, but has not - to my knowledge - addressed important questions concerning the costs of preparing papers for publication. I will expand in three parts below (a-c)

a) To reduce publication costs, many Open Access publishers push the process of copyediting back onto the author, rather than taking full responsibility for the final presentation standards of the research they publish.

This may be done explicitly, in the instructions for authors, or it may done covertly, by simply accepting poorly-edited manuscripts for journals that the publisher has little interest in. I have attended a meeting where a representative of a major English-language publisher admitted that for journals with limited specialist audiences, the publisher takes a relaxed attitude to the standard of English, while hoping to maintain the standard of content. This is a difficult compromise to make. Poor content and poor presentation are closely correlated. For reviewers, badly prepared papers are difficult to read closely, and review standards may fall when journals ask reviewers to be lenient about the presentation.

b) Within the UK itself, and across different countries, there exist wealth gaps that limit how much institutions and individuals can spend on editing, illustration, and translation. Such costs are already mainly pushed onto individual researchers or their employers. These pre-submission costs should be given consideration as well the costs for submission, review, copyediting, distribution, and archiving. When discussion turns to the question of transparency in publishing costs, this should also include the existing costs (in time and money) to prepare papers for publication.

c) In various countries, including the UK, when graduate students have to prepare a 'thesis' in English as a second language (ESL writing), there is a tendency for supervisors and institutions to recommend preparing a 'thesis by papers'; in other words, the student may be given the option of putting most effort into the publication of short papers (that require less writing, in quantitative terms) rather than preparing a longer but unpublished thesis.

Many graduate students are thus under pressure to publish early, before they have had much opportunity to develop their thinking and writing skills through the process of writing a longer thesis. The students (and their departments) must determine how much to spend in order to publish each paper. As a result, students in wealthy departments may have chances to publish in high impact journals that charge high author fees and offer open access for readers, while students in less wealthy departments may have to pay fees themselves, and thus be limited to journals that continue to accept papers at no cost (traditional subscription journals).

For foreign students in the UK, who must necessarily spend more for editing costs (on average), the early pressure to publish creates a further economic barrier to academic success.

A journal may be 'Open Access' for readers, but the road to that journal may be far from open. 'Gold-Standard' open access journals are too rare to have much impact on this problem. If a Gold-Standard journal is also maintaining a high standard of presentation (as it should), then economic barriers (at the preparation stage) may still exist for many researchers and graduate students.

I am sorry that I cannot offer any easy solutions to these problems. My aim is merely to recommend these problems for consideration by the Committee.

Sincerely,

--
Dr Peter J. Matthews
Field Sciences Laboratory &
Department of Social Research
National Museum of Ethnology, Senri Expo Park, Suita City, Osaka 565-8511, Japan.

Tel. +81-6-6878-8344 (office).
Tel. +81-6-6876-2151 (exchange, J. only)

[Cross posting from: http://researchcooperative.org/group/adminsupport/page/administrative-roles]

Occasionally the Research Cooperative receives non-specific offers of volunteer help for administration.

In this page, we show a range of administrative roles for which we need help. The are many roles, and we need many people to help us.

If any of these are of interest to you, please contact: Dr Peter Matthews, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, Japan (email pjm at idc.minpaku.ac.jp).

Thank you.

1. New member greetings

2. Groups (focus groups for countries, languages, occupations, topics, volunteers, etc.)

3. Forums (for offers and requests)

4. General or Regional roles

5. General management (correspondence, coordination, etc.)

6. PR and Promotional activities (invitations, fliers, etc.)

7. Sponsors and Funding

8. Secretary for Board of Advisors (Board is not yet active)

9. Research and Development (R&D) (for our network)

10. Short Communications of the Research Cooperative (finding and managing writers)

11. Topical Notes (finding and managing writers)

12. Other (make your own suggestion!)

Why would anyone want to volunteer to help someone else?

The reasons vary, but perhaps the most likely reasons are:

1. A general altruistic wish to help others.

2. A wish to support our own research field, with a very specific volunteering offer (e.g. to read or edit papers on XYZ topic, for XYZ journal).

3. A wish to get experience in order to become professional - as an editor or translator for example.

4. A wish to build working relationships that may lead to opportunities for paid work later (e.g. by offering to edit the first paper for free, for a new potential customer).

There are many ways to explain an offer of volunteer help, and equally many ways to ask for help.

A major goal of our network is encourage volunteering as basic core activity of research communities, so that researchers can build practical, useful networks with other researchers and with language specialists.

For further discussion of volunteering in research communication, please join our group for Volunteers ! You don't have to be a volunteer to join.

Volunteers can use any of our forums and groups to offer help to others.

Researchers or publishers can use any of our forums and groups to ask for help.

I've been building this network, um, called, um the Research Coopetative for years and, well, like, I haven't dared yet to go live with online video.

But the technology just keeps on getting better. I discovered U-Stream today. Here's the link.

Out URL: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/the-research-cooperative

But really, does anyone want to see my fuzzy silhouhette under a bright flourescent light with a backdrop of books and a messy desk?

I once saw a woman broadcasting solo from a path in the forest above Moon Lake in the mountains of Taiwan. I should go somewhere special like that with my computer. Like her. Or with someone special? Having two people on screen and doing an interview is inherently more interesting than one person doing a monologue, with no preparation.

I have a busy life - really - and no time to write a script and set up a perfect movie shoot. Wish I could set something up though.

So - that's it. If anyone would like to be a test audience for The Research Cooperative on U-Stream, please send me a note, and maybe we can arrange a time. Check the time zones here .

It won't be pretty, but it can be live, online, and in video.

I am willing to answer questions. Send me a list, and that can be my score...

Thanks, Peter

As writers, we researchers are lucky if we can find sympathetic and understanding colleagues to read and comment on our work in draft form. Sometimes, a coauthor may contribute less to the nuts and bolts of writing than a friendly reader (though the coauthor may have contributed in other ways that are also important).

Even when we pay for an editor to look at our work, it can be a matter of luck if costs and expectations match perfectly.

Finding an editor or editing company that can consistently provide such a match it not something we can expect to happen instantly. The best idea is to have more than one paper go through an editor, and to try different editors, and see if the costs and results are satsfactory.

Giving a draft to an editor is not the end of a writers work, it is really just the second stage in a process that may take several more steps. It is best to plan for a generous amount of time between completion of the first draft, and eventual submission to a publisher.

Some editing companies may offer quick or light editing at lower prices than slow and heavy editing. If the latter is really needed, for the intended use of the written work, than choosing quick and light may end up being more expensive and slower in the end, as the slow and heavy editing will still be necessary.

Writers need to make an effort to communicate openly and clearly with a possible editor or editing company before making a contract. Don't assume that others know exactly what you want or need, or what you can afford to pay.

If you cannot find any person or company to work with here in the Research Cooperative, consider again the people in your own circle of friends and colleagues. Can you ask for help closer to home? Can you offer something in return? Has your institution or department ever discussed how writing efforts can be supported from within the institution or department itself?

The Research Cooperative has been created to encourage a sense of the value of cooperation in academic research and publishing. This includes cooperation outside the confines of our own network, and outside the academic world. Even when commerical editors and translators are involved, it is best to approach them in a cooperative or collaborative way, not to see them as mere beasts of burden.

Most editors and translators who offer to work for academic writers are themselves academically trained to some extent - and often to a great extent. If we look around, and communicate with care and attention, people with a huge variety of interests and skills can be found.

So, to conclude: please expect real costs - in terms of your own time or money - if you wish to engage seriously with an editor, and see good results for your writing.

It is possible to have minimal costs, financially, if you can form or join a network of trusted friends or colleagues, to share work in progress and offer mutual support. But building and maintaining such a network is naturally a long-term and gradual process. It won't happen if you never try or make a start.

It is also possible to have reasonable costs and reasonable expectations, based on experience - and experience is a key word.

For example, if you have never worked with professional editors, learn how to make most effective use of the interaction, in order to get good value for the cost. And by good value, I do not mean just value for the particular work being published. I also mean good value for your experience.

Investing in a good editor can be similar to investing in a training course for a special skill - in this case, the skill of writing. If you can learn from your editors, that raises the value for money immensely.

Finally - weigh the cost needed to get your work published by your target publisher against the costs of:

- doing the actual research and writing, and

- not getting the work published in the place where you want it to go.

Investing (say) a month's salary in the publishing process, for a good piece of research, may eventually help you move into a better paying position in the same institution or another institution. The cost may be high in the short term, but if you have confidence in the research you have done, and a long-term interest in the subject, then it may not be a high cost in the long-term.

Researchers often face very uncertain employment conditions and prospects, but building up a record of original and well-written publications will certainly help in any quest for employment.

The quality is more important than the quantity - not just from the employer's point of view, but also so that we can be happy in ourselves, and confident about our own abilities.