Auteurs/Authors : Gérald Kembellec, Thomas Bottini
Cette communication propose une réflexion pluridisciplinaire (SIC, ingénierie documentaire et théorie du document numérique, informatique, « humanités numériques », histoire des pratiques savantes) sur les usages du fragment dans les pratiques documentaires scientifiques en ligne.
En prolongement de ces éléments théoriques sont proposés un modèle théorique de la segmentation des contenus en unités de sens (péricope) et des directions d’implémentation.
This report explores the extent to which Open Access (OA) specialist scholarly books can be seen by the communities that might make use of them. It also identifies the key challenges that will need to be tackled in order to ensure that OA books are fully integrated into digital landscapes of scholarship; as well as the steps that need to be taken to achieve this goal.
The report focuses on Open Access books made available by publishers and platforms that are part of the OPERAS network, which is focused on the development of European research infrastructure for the development of open scholarly communication.
Specialist scholarly books are the core research output of the Humanities and Social Sciences. Ensuring that they are integrated into digital landscapes of scholarship will play a decisive role in the future of these disciplines, and their impact on the world. Identifying gaps in existing infrastructure and creating a roadmap to address them is vital groundwork.
This report forms part of the OPERAS-D project, which focuses on the development of a European e-infrastructure for open access publications in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Knowledge Unlatched Research is a core partner in the OPERAS-D project.
KU Research is an independent research and analysis group focusing on strategy and analytics that support the ecosystem of scholarly monographs.
Most scientists focus too much on publishing original articles. In doing so, scientists are restricting their writing skills to this form of highly specialised publication, which is poorly readable by scientists from other disciplines.
In the context of rising interdisciplinary research and data abundance, there is a need for more publications that recycle existing research and communicate to a wider audience. Therefore, I present here five types of publications that do not require additional experiments , namely reviews, methods, data papers, meta-analyses and videos.
Benefits include more citations, larger visibility, wider dissemination, easier job finding, grant success and better recycling of research.
Authors : Jacintha Ellers, Thomas W. Crowther, Jeffrey A. Harvey
Open access publishing (OAP) makes research output freely available, and several national governments have now made OAP mandatory for all publicly funded research. Gold OAP is a common form of OAP where the author pays an article processing charge (APC) to make the article freely available to readers.
However, gold OAP is a cause for concern because it drives a redistribution of valuable research money to support open access papers in ‘mega-journals’ with more permissive acceptance criteria. We present a data-driven evaluation of the financial ramifications of gold OAP and provide evidence that gold OAP in mega-journals is biased toward Western industrialized countries.
From 2011 to 2015, the period of our data collection, countries with developing economies had a disproportionately greater share of articles published in the lower-tier mega-journals and thus paid article APCs that cross-subsidize publications in the top-tier journals of the same publisher.
Conversely, scientists from Western developed countries had a disproportionately greater share of articles published in those same top-tier journals. The global inequity of the cross-subsidizing APC model was demonstrated across five different mega-journals, showing that the issue is a common problem.
We need to develop stringent and fair criteria that address the global financial implications of OAP, as publication fees should reflect the real cost of publishing and be transparent for authors.
Dans un monde connecté, la question à soulever est moins celle de l’accès à l’information que celle des parcours et des choix menant à telle ou telle information. À ce titre, les médiations numériques des savoirs n’ont jamais été aussi nombreuses.
Mots-valises pour certains, médiation et numérique peuvent prendre un sens précis à condition de les considérer comme les clés d’une démarche au service du partage et de développement des savoirs et des savoir-faire. Mais comment traduire cet objectif en dispositifs concrets? Comment développer une stratégie de médiation dans le cadre d’une politique publique?
Nous verrons pourquoi et comment le centre de gravité de l’activité d’une bibliothèque peut se déplacer de la constitution de collections vers des activités de curation et de médiations numériques des contenus. Ce livre est l’aboutissement de plus de dix ans de pratiques et de réflexions menées par les auteurs à travers leur pratique professionnelle, leurs blogues et l’animation de formations continues pour les bibliothécaires.
À la fois réflexion sur les enjeux et manuel pratique, il s’adresse à tous ceux, professionnels de l’information, étudiants ou curieux qui souhaitent mieux comprendre et contribuer à la circulation des idées à l’ère numérique.
In which journal a scientist publishes is considered one of the most crucial factors determining their career. The underlying common assumption is that only the best scientists manage to publish in a highly selective tier of the most prestigious journals.
However, data from several lines of evidence suggest that the methodological quality of scientific experiments does not increase with increasing rank of the journal. On the contrary, an accumulating body of evidence suggests the inverse: methodological quality and, consequently, reliability of published research works in several fields may be decreasing with increasing journal rank.
The data supporting these conclusions circumvent confounding factors such as increased readership and scrutiny for these journals, focusing instead on quantifiable indicators of methodological soundness in the published literature, relying on, in part, semi-automated data extraction from often thousands of publications at a time.
With the accumulating evidence over the last decade grew the realization that the very existence of scholarly journals, due to their inherent hierarchy, constitutes one of the major threats to publicly funded science: hiring, promoting and funding scientists who publish unreliable science eventually erodes public trust in science.
Authors : Ward Ooms, Claudia Werker, Christian Hopp
We look into the question whether heterogeneity stemming from research orientation, gender, or disciplinary and cultural differences with their PhD supervisors helps or hampers academics’ careers.
Based on a sample of 248 academics at two leading European universities of technology, we combine multinomial logit models and sequential logit models to understand career advancement. Our results show that heterogeneity stemming from research orientation is helpful. Academics who bridge between the quest for fundamental understanding and socio-economic relevance attain career success.
Yet heterogeneity stemming from gender hinders careers: female academics face problems securing
tenured positions and full professorships. Mentor–mentee heterogeneity only helps in early career transitions, but hampers advancement later on.
Our insights offer suggestions to policymakers, university managers, and academics, because they help to identify promising academics, the right support for sitting staff members, measures correcting for gender imbalances, and can inform strategic choices regarding research orientation and PhD supervisors.