Merge pull request #2 from ucla-imls-open-sci/jt14den-patch-2

Author: jt14den

episodes/scholarly-publishing-process.md

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+---
+title: "The Scholarly Publishing Process"
+teaching: 45
+exercises: 30
+---
+
+## Questions
+
+- What does it mean to publish research?
+- How do institutional, funder, and publisher policies affect authoring choices?
+- How can open science values reshape scholarly publishing?
+
+## Objectives
+
+After this episode, learners will be able to:
+
+- Explain how to get an article published in a traditional scholarly publication.
+- Locate publications that have integrated open science processes into their publishing workflow.
+- Discuss how open science values can affect the collaboration process of writing a scholarly article.
+
+## Narrative Setup
+
+An open science–minded author is told their performance review depends on publishing in a "peer-reviewed journal." They want to use GitHub to collaborate with coauthors transparently. This episode explores how the scholarly publishing process works and how open science values can be integrated.
+
+## Overview of Scholarly Publishing
+
+Researchers often face the "publish or perish" mandate. But what qualifies as "publishing"? And who decides what's acceptable?
+
+Three stakeholder groups shape this:
+1. Academic institutions (e.g., employers, tenure committees)
+2. Funders (e.g., federal agencies)
+3. Publishers (e.g., commercial or scholarly presses)
+
+> ![Placeholder for xkcd comics](path/to/image.png)
+> - [The Rise of Open Access](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/The_Rise_of_Open_Access)
+> - [arXiv](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2085:_arXiv)
+> - [Peer Review](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2025:_Peer_Review)
+
+## OPTIONAL Exercise: Jargon Busting
+
+Adapted from Library Carpentry: Have learners identify and explain publishing-related jargon in groups, then share out.
+
+## Case Studies
+
+### Case Study 1: Conflicting Policies
+Dr. Jay publishes in a hybrid journal that delays repository access beyond their funder's requirements. They must renegotiate or change journals.
+
+### Case Study 2: Aligned Incentives
+Dr. Ripken publishes in a fully open platform supported by institutional partnerships and funder mandates.
+
+### Case Study 3: No Open Science Incentives
+Dr. Brown chooses a closed journal based on personal networks and convenience, without considering long-term openness or access.
+
+> ![Placeholder for diagram: traditional vs open publishing](path/to/image.png)
+
+## Discussion Exercise
+- What could Dr. Jay have done differently at the project planning stage?
+- If Dr. Ripken’s journal fees were too high, what would be their next step?
+- Should Dr. Brown’s team explore more open options?
+
+## Choosing a Publication Venue
+- Use [Think. Check. Submit.](https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/) to assess journal credibility
+- Check funder and institutional policies
+- Evaluate a journal’s open science stance beyond JIFs
+
+## Publishing Workflows
+
+**Traditional Workflow**  
+*Researchers → Peer Review → Edits → Publication → Library Access*
+
+**Open Science Workflow**  
+*Researchers → Preprints → Community Feedback → Submission → Open Peer Review → Open Access Publication*
+
+> ![Placeholder for publication workflow diagrams](path/to/image.png)
+
+## Exercise: Quiz – Traditional vs. Open Science Publishing
+(T/F statements provided in source doc)
+
+## Exercise: Journal Evaluation
+Groups evaluate journals for openness using:
+- Code4Lib Journal
+- Practical Academic Librarianship
+- International Journal on Digital Libraries
+
+## Key Points
+- Understand the institutional, funder, and publisher influences on publishing choices
+- Assess publication venues critically for openness and accessibility
+- Open science values can be embedded in authoring, publishing, and reviewing choices