In addition to publication and knowledge dissemination, the selection and peer review of scientific articles are among the central contributions of journals to scholarly communication. Feedback from researchers about inconsistencies in the review process and the resignation of entire editorial teams following a dispute about journal business models point to problems that often concern the interaction between academic editors and commercial publishers. In order to provide empirical evidence regarding expectations and perceptions towards the peer review process, this study reports the results of two experimental factorial surveys embedded in a two-country study across 25 German and Swiss research institutions. It uses answers submitted by more than 3,200 scholars across 15 scientific fields on the topic of review and decision practices to further the debate about the future of scholarly publishing, given existing role conflicts, extractive entrepreneurial strategies, and potential decrease in scientific quality.

Finding a suitable open access journal to publish academic work is a complex task: Researchers have to navigate a constantly growing number of journals, institutional agreements with publishers, funders’ conditions and the risk of predatory publishers. To help with these challenges, we introduce a web-based journal recommendation system called B!SON. A systematic requirements analysis was conducted in the form of a survey. The developed tool suggests open access journals based on title, abstract and references provided by the user. The recommendations are built on open data, publisher-independent and work across domains and languages. Transparency is provided by its open source nature, an open application programming interface (API) and by specifying which matches the shown recommendations are based on. The recommendation quality has been evaluated using two different evaluation techniques, including several new recommendation methods. We were able to improve the results from our previous paper with a pre-trained transformer model. The beta version of the tool received positive feedback from the community and in several test sessions. We developed a recommendation system for open access journals to help researchers find a suitable journal. The open tool has been extensively tested, and we found possible improvements for our current recommendation technique. Development by two German academic libraries ensures the longevity and sustainability of the system.

Finding a suitable open access journal to publish scientific work is a complex task: Researchers have to navigate a constantly growing number of journals, institutional agreements with publishers, funders' conditions and the risk of Predatory Publishers. To help with these challenges, we introduce a web-based journal recommendation system called B!SON. It is developed based on a systematic requirements analysis, built on open data, gives publisher-independent recommendations and works across domains. It suggests open access journals based on title, abstract and references provided by the user. The recommendation quality has been evaluated using a large test set of 10,000 articles. Development by two German scientific libraries ensures the longevity of the project.

Resilience is a topic of growing interest in the literature focused on organizations. There is an extensive research on resilience but it is embedded in a variety of disconnected literatures that have developed in different research fields, involving varying levels of analysis and different subconstructs. This has resulted in a general confusion surrounding the concept of resilience and its relationship to similar constructs. In this paper, we synthesize this fragmented literature to better understand organization-related resilience and set the stage for future work in this area. First, based on a bibliographic coupling analysis of 1,667 articles, we identify 10 historical clusters that have shaped this domain and highlight how these clusters have developed over time. Second, drawing on recommendations for how research can develop high-quality concept definitions, we analyze subconstructs, conceptual definitions, and measures applied in this domain. Third, we distinguish resilience from related constructs. Overall, our synthesis revealed that resilience is an important and distinct concept in organization-related research. In spite of this, the field has suffered from the presence of a jingle-jangle fallacy, which means that existing conceptualizations of resilience assign different meanings to this label, while at the same time various subconstructs exist. Thus, fourth, we develop a framework integrating the broad literature of organization-related resilience into three distinct themes of research that offer different insights into how entities across levels deal with adversity. In an attempt to provide guidance for research that builds upon this review, we conclude with an agenda for future investigations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The area of conflict between willingness (conclusion of transformation contracts with large publishing groups in order to achieve rapid OA transformation across the board) and ability (limited budgets of academic libraries) requires reliable forecasts of the development of publication output and the level of article processing fees. The paper presents different pricing strategies of publishers and discusses the implications for statistical analysis. The article is rounded off by the author's appeal to rethink the expectations of libraries with regard to OA transformation in order to ensure sustainable financing of Open Access publishing.

Zusammenfassung Das Spannungsfeld aus Wollen (Abschluss von Transformationsverträgen mit großen Verlagsgruppen, um eine schnelle OA-Transformation in der Breite zu erreichen) und Können (begrenzte Budgets der wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken) erfordert belastbare Prognosen zur Entwicklung des Publikationsoutputs und der Höhe der Artikelbearbeitungsgebühren. Der Beitrag stellt verschiedene Preissetzungsstrategien von Verlagen vor und diskutiert die Implikationen für statistische Analysen. Abgerundet wird der Beitrag durch den Appell des Autors, die Erwartungen der Bibliotheken an die OA-Transformation neu zu denken, um eine nachhaltige Finanzierung des Open-Access-Publizierens sicherstellen zu können.

Die Studie analysiert die formellen Kommunikationsstrukturen des Feldes Wissenschaftsforschung, das u.a. auch als Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung, Science and Technology Studies (STS), Science, Technology and Society oder Science (Policy) Studies bezeichnet wird. Ziel der Untersuchung war, uber wissenschaftliche Zeitschriften, herausragende Buchpublikationen und zentrale Akteure einander erganzenden Zugange zum Feld aufzuzeigen, um die innere Struktur und den Aktionsradius der Wissenschaftsforschung sowie ihre zeitliche Entwicklung zu beschreiben und letztendlich Aufschluss uber Wachstums-, Differenzierungs- und Integrationsprozesse des Forschungsgebietes zu gewinnen.