Filtering wireless (Wi-Fi) internet access in public places

This paper discusses selected results from the AHRC-funded ‘Managing Access to the Internet in Public Librarie s' (MAIPLE) project and explores Wi-Fi Internet access in UK public libraries. It investigates how this compares to commercial provision of public Wi-Fi. It discusses security issues, filtering of Wi-Fi access and acceptable use policies. A mixed methods approach was used involving a review of the literature, a questionnaire survey of UK public library authorities and five case studies of selected authorities. A majority of UK public library authorities offer Wi-Fi access to the public at one or more of their libraries and they generally have an authentication system in place for their users. The majority of survey respondents that provide Wi-Fi use filtering software. There are similarities and differences in the ways that public libraries and commercial outlets provide and manage access to their wireless networks. Differences mainly relate to security and privacy: these differences reflect to an extent the underlying purposes of providing public Wi-Fi access as well as legal obligations. In some ways, public library Wi-Fi access is better managed than commercially provided public services. Evidence from the case studies suggests reluctant acceptance of filtering on the part of public library authorities, based on a perceived need to balance providing access to information with providing a safe and trusted public space for all

Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 1: Motivations)

This paper is the first of two Learned Publishing articles in which we report the results of a series of interviews with senior publishers and editors exploring open access megajournals (OAMJs). Megajournals (of which PLoS One is the best known example) represent a relatively new approach to scholarly communication and can be characterized as large, broad-scope, open access journals that take an innovative approach to peer review, basing acceptance decisions solely on the technical or scientific soundness of the article. This model is often said to support the broader goals of the open science movement. Based on in-depth interviews with 31 publishers and editors representing 16 different organizations (10 of which publish a megajournal), this paper reports how the term ‘megajournal’ is understood and publishers’ rationale and motivations for launching (or not launching) an OAMJ. We find that while there is general agreement on the common characteristics of megajournals, there is not yet a consensus on their relative importance. We also find seven motivating factors that were said to drive the launch of an OAMJ and link each of these factors to potential societal and business benefits. These results suggest that the often polarized debate surrounding OAMJs is a consequence of the extent to which observers perceive publishers to be motivated by these societal or business benefits

Open-access mega-journals

Purpose: Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focusing on scientific ‘soundness’ and eschewing judgment of novelty or importance. This paper examines the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach: This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and email discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings: While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value: This article represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised

“Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals

Purpose: The aim of this research is to better understand the theory and practice of peer review in open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). Mega-journals typically operate a “soundness only” review policy aiming to evaluate only the rigour of an article, not the novelty or significance of the research or its relevance to a particular community, with these elements being left for “the community to decide” post-publication. Design/methodology/approach: The paper reports the results of interviews with 31 senior publishers and editors representing 16 different organisations, including 10 that publish an OAMJ. Thematic Analysis was carried out on the data and an analytical model developed to explicate their significance. Findings: Findings suggest that in reality criteria beyond technical or scientific soundness can and do influence editorial decisions. Deviations from the original OAMJ model are both publisher-supported (in the form of requirements for an article to be ‘worthy’ of publication) and practice-driven (in the form of some reviewers and editors applying traditional peer review criteria to mega-journal submissions). Also publishers believe post-publication evaluation of novelty, significance, and relevance remains problematic. Originality/value: The study is based on unprecedented access to senior publishers and editors, allowing insight into their strategic and operational priorities. The paper is the first to report in-depth qualitative data relating specifically to soundness-only peer review for OAMJs, shedding new light on the mega-journal phenomenon, and helping inform discussion on its future role in scholarly communication. The paper proposes a new model for understanding the mega-journal approach to quality assurance, and how it is different from traditional peer review

Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 2: Operational realities)

This paper is the second of two Learned Publishing articles in which we report the results of a series of interviews, with senior publishers and editors exploring open access megajournals (OAMJs). Megajournals (of which PLoS One is the best known example) represent a relatively new approach to scholarly communication and can be characterized as large, broad-scope, open access journals, which take an innovative approach to peer review, basing acceptance decisions solely on the technical or scientific soundness of the article. Based on interviews with 31 publishers and editors, this paper reports the perceived cultural, operational, and technical challenges associated with launching, growing, and maintaining a megajournal. We find that overcoming these challenges while delivering the societal benefits associated with OAMJs is seen to require significant investment in people and systems, as well as an ongoing commitment to the model

Transitioning from a Conventional to a ‘Mega’ Journal: A Bibliometric Case Study of the Journal Medicine

Open-Access Mega-Journals (OAMJs) are a relatively new and increasingly important publishing phenomenon. The journal Medicine is in the unique position of having transitioned in 2014 from being a ‘traditional’ highly-selective journal to the OAMJ model. This study compares the bibliometric profile of the journal Medicine before and after its transition to the OAMJ model. Three standard modes of bibliometric analysis are employed, based on data from Web of Science: journal output volume, author characteristics, and citation analysis. The journal’s article output is seen to have grown hugely since its conversion to an OAMJ, a rise driven in large part by authors from China. Articles published since 2015 have fewer citations, and are cited by lower impact journals than articles published before the OAMJ transition. The adoption of the OAMJ model has completely changed the bibliometric profile of the journal, raising questions about the impact of OAMJ peer-review practices. In many respects, the post-2014 version of Medicine is best viewed as a new journal rather than a continuation of the original title

Head and neck target delineation using a novel PET automatic segmentation algorithm

Purpose To evaluate the feasibility and impact of using a novel advanced PET auto-segmentation method in Head and Neck (H&N) radiotherapy treatment (RT) planning. Methods ATLAAS, Automatic decision Tree-based Learning Algorithm for Advanced Segmentation, previously developed and validated on pre-clinical data, was applied to 18F-FDG-PET/CT scans of 20 H&N patients undergoing Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy. Primary Gross Tumour Volumes (GTVs) manually delineated on CT/MRI scans (GTVpCT/MRI), together with ATLAAS-generated contours (GTVpATLAAS) were used to derive the RT planning GTV (GTVpfinal). ATLAAS outlines were compared to CT/MRI and final GTVs qualitatively and quantitatively using a conformity metric. Results The ATLAAS contours were found to be reliable and useful. The volume of GTVpATLAAS was smaller than GTVpCT/MRI in 70% of the cases, with an average conformity index of 0.70. The information provided by ATLAAS was used to grow the GTVpCT/MRI in 10 cases (up to 10.6 mL) and to shrink the GTVpCT/MRI in 7 cases (up to 12.3 mL). ATLAAS provided complementary information to CT/MRI and GTVpATLAAS contributed to up to 33% of the final GTV volume across the patient cohort. Conclusions ATLAAS can deliver operator independent PET segmentation to augment clinical outlining using CT and MRI and could have utility in future clinical studies

Comparison of different calculation techniques for absorbed dose assessment in patient specific peptide receptor radionuclide therapy

Aim: The present work concerns the comparison of the performances of three systems for dosimetry in RPT that use different techniques for absorbed dose calculation (organ-level dosimetry, voxel-level dose kernel convolution and Monte Carlo simulations). The aim was to assess the importance of the choice of the most adequate calculation modality, providing recommendations about the choice of the computation tool. Methods: The performances were evaluated both on phantoms and patients in a multi-level approach. Different phantoms filled with a 177Lu-radioactive solution were used: a homogeneous cylindrical phantom, a phantom with organ-shaped inserts and two cylindrical phantoms with inserts different for shape and volume. A total of 70 patients with NETs treated by PRRT with 177Lu-DOTATOC were retrospectively analysed. Results: The comparisons were performed mainly between the mean values of the absorbed dose in the regions of interest. A general better agreement was obtained between Dose kernel convolution and Monte Carlo simulations results rather than between either of these two and organ-level dosimetry, both for phantoms and patients. Phantoms measurements also showed the discrepancies mainly depend on the geometry of the inserts (e.g. shape and volume). For patients, differences were more pronounced than phantoms and higher inter/intra patient variability was observed. Conclusion: This study suggests that voxel-level techniques for dosimetry calculation are potentially more accurate and personalized than organ-level methods. In particular, a voxel-convolution method provides good results in a short time of calculation, while Monte Carlo based computation should be conducted with very fast calculation systems for a possible use in clinics, despite its intrinsic higher accuracy. Attention to the calculation modality is recommended in case of clinical regions of interest with irregular shape and far from spherical geometry, in which Monte Carlo seems to be more accurate than voxel-convolution methods

Academic communities: the role of journals and open-access mega-journals in scholarly communication

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into publication practices from the perspective of academics working within four disciplinary communities: biosciences, astronomy/physics, education and history. The paper explores the ways in which these multiple overlapping communities intersect with the journal landscape and the implications for the adoption and use of new players in the scholarly communication system, particularly open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs (e.g. PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports) are large, broad scope, open-access journals that base editorial decisions solely on the technical/scientific soundness of the article. Design/methodology/approach Focus groups with active researchers in these fields were held in five UK Higher Education Institutions across Great Britain, and were complemented by interviews with pro-vice-chancellors for research at each institution. Findings A strong finding to emerge from the data is the notion of researchers belonging to multiple overlapping communities, with some inherent tensions in meeting the requirements for these different audiences. Researcher perceptions of evaluation mechanisms were found to play a major role in attitudes towards OAMJs, and interviews with the pro-vice-chancellors for research indicate that there is a difference between researchers’ perceptions and the values embedded in institutional frameworks. Originality/value This is the first purely qualitative study relating to researcher perspectives on OAMJs. The findings of the paper will be of interest to publishers, policy-makers, research managers and academics

Motivations, understandings, and experiences of open-access mega-journal authors: Results of a large-scale survey

Open‐access mega‐journals (OAMJs) are characterized by their large scale, wide scope, open‐access (OA) business model, and “soundness‐only” peer review. The last of these controversially discounts the novelty, significance, and relevance of submitted articles and assesses only their “soundness.” This article reports the results of an international survey of authors (n = 11,883), comparing the responses of OAMJ authors with those of other OA and subscription journals, and drawing comparisons between different OAMJs. Strikingly, OAMJ authors showed a low understanding of soundness‐only peer review: two‐thirds believed OAMJs took into account novelty, significance, and relevance, although there were marked geographical variations. Author satisfaction with OAMJs, however, was high, with more than 80% of OAMJ authors saying they would publish again in the same journal, although there were variations by title, and levels were slightly lower than subscription journals (over 90%). Their reasons for choosing to publish in OAMJs included a wide variety of factors, not significantly different from reasons given by authors of other journals, with the most important including the quality of the journal and quality of peer review. About half of OAMJ articles had been submitted elsewhere before submission to the OAMJ with some evidence of a “cascade” of articles between journals from the same publisher