Different journals for different audiences. Reflections on the ROARS experience

Abstract

The study deepens "Different reviews for different publics. A reflection on the ROARS experience", reconstructing the problem and the main evidence developed in the text. The digital medium has profoundly changed the ways in which scientific information is produced, validated, shared, fruited, commented and disseminated. The experiences described in this contribution represent two of the (multiple) possible forms through which to communicate scientific information, and have as a guiding theme the idea that the discussion within the scientific communities should be public and transparent. Roars is the acronym of Return On Academic ReSearch and ironically alludes to an index used to assess the profitability of an enterprise, namely ROI – Return On Investment. From the very beginning of the drafting was to adopt a strict control of data and facts (fact checking), proposing, as an alternative to opinion-makers considerations, a contextualized reading and in most cases comparative of facts, phenomena, numbers and data. As required by the main databases indexing magazines, RT has a code of ethics inspired by the COPE guidelines (Committee on Publication Ethics).

Keywords

assessment of policies; economy of sharing; human capital; scientific editoria; University; Italy

JEL codes

I23; D61; D16