Let’s Put Data to Use: Digital Scholarship for the Next Generation

Statut

“The ways in which research data is used and handled continue to capture public attention and are the focus of increasing interest. Electronic publishing is intrinsic to digital data management, and relevant to the fields of data mining, digital publishing and social networks, with their implications for scholarly communication, information services, e-learning, e-business and the cultural heritage sector.

This book presents the proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Electronic Publishing (ELPUB), held in Thessaloniki, Greece, in June 2014. The conference brings together researchers and practitioners to discuss the many aspects of electronic publishing, and the theme this year is ‘Let’s put data to use: digital scholarship for the next generation’. As well as examining the role of cultural heritage and service organisations in the creation, accessibility, duration and long-term preservation of data, it provides a discussion forum for the appraisal, citation and licensing of research data and the new developments in reviewing, publishing and editorial technology.

The book is divided into sections covering the following topics: open access and open data; knowing the users better; researchers and their needs; specialized content for researchers; publishing and access; and practical aspects of electronic publishing.

Providing an overview of all that is current in the electronic publishing world, this book will be of interest to practitioners, researchers and students in information science, as well as users of electronic publishing.”

URL : Let’s Put Data to Use: Digital Scholarship for the Next Generation

Alternative URL : http://www.ebooks.iospress.nl/book/lets-put-data-to-use-digital-scholarship-for-the-next-generation

The Determinants of Open Access Publishing: Survey Evidence from Countries in the Mediterranean Open Access Network (MedOANet)

Statut

“We discuss the results of a survey conducted between April 2013 and May 2014 in six Mediterranean countries and covering 2,528 researchers from Spain (1,291), Portugal (142), France (380), Italy (596), Turkey (131) and Greece (130). We compare the results to our German survey with 1,913 respondents. We show that there are significant differences between the scientific disciplines with respect to researcher’s awareness of and experience with both open access (OA) journals and self-archiving. Accordingly, the publishing culture (e.g. reputation, publishing language) but also other issues like age and certain policies (MedOANet) may explain why researchers make more frequent use of OA publishing in some countries and disciplines.”

URL : http://ssrn.com/abstract=2457550

Evaluating big deal journal bundles

Statut

“Large commercial publishers sell bundled online subscriptions to their entire list of academic journals at prices significantly lower than the sum of their á la carte prices. Bundle prices differ drastically between institutions, but they are not publicly posted. The data that we have collected enable us to compare the bundle prices charged by commercial publishers with those of nonprofit societies and to examine the types of price discrimination practiced by commercial and nonprofit journal publishers. This information is of interest to economists who study monopolist pricing, librarians interested in making efficient use of library budgets, and scholars who are interested in the availability of the work that they publish.”

URL : http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Journals/PNAS-2014-Bergstrom-1403006111.pdf

Quality of author guidelines of journals in the biomedical and physical sciences

Statut

“To assess quantitatively the completeness and clarity of author guidelines of international English-language journals in the biomedical and physical sciences, we randomly sampled 80 journals for which author guidelines were available online in English. The guidelines were reviewed for completeness and clarity in addressing ‘aims and scope,’ ‘submission and post-submission processes,’ ‘formatting instructions,’ ‘ethical requirements,’ and ‘authorship,’ and were subjectively assessed as being complete (score, 1) or incomplete (0), and clear (1) or unclear (0). Scores were represented as mean percentages. No journal scored 100% for completeness and clarity. ‘Formatting instructions’ was the most complete and clear category, and ‘authorship,’ the least complete and clear category. Biomedical science journals were more complete and clear in all categories, except ‘authorship,’ compared to physical science journals. While author guidelines of many English-language journals of biomedical and physical sciences adequately address some essential aspects, they currently do not provide all necessary information as clearly as possible. ”

URL : http://www.editage.com/insights/quality-of-author-guidelines-of-journals-in-the-biomedical-and-physical-sciences

The dark side of Open Access in Google and Google Scholar: the case of Latin-American repositories

Statut

Since repositories are a key tool in making scholarly knowledge open access, determining their presence and impact on the Web is essential, particularly in Google (search engine par excellence) and Google Scholar (a tool increasingly used by researchers to search for academic information). The few studies conducted so far have been limited to very specific geographic areas (USA), which makes it necessary to find out what is happening in other regions that are not part of mainstream academia, and where repositories play a decisive role in the visibility of scholarly production. The main objective of this study is to ascertain the presence and visibility of Latin American repositories in Google and Google Scholar through the application of page count and visibility indicators. For a sample of 137 repositories, the results indicate that the indexing ratio is low in Google, and virtually nonexistent in Google Scholar; they also indicate a complete lack of correspondence between the repository records and the data produced by these two search tools. These results are mainly attributable to limitations arising from the use of description schemas that are incompatible with Google Scholar (repository design) and the reliability of web indicators (search engines). We conclude that neither Google nor Google Scholar accurately represent the actual size of open access content published by Latin American repositories; this may indicate a non-indexed, hidden side to open access, which could be limiting the dissemination and consumption of open access scholarly literature.

URL : http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1406.4331

Seeking Impact and Visibility: Scholarly Communication in Southern Africa

Statut

“African scholarly research is relatively invisible for three primary reasons:

  1. While research production on the continent is growing in absolute terms, it is falling in comparative terms (especially as other Southern countries such as China ramp up research production), reducing its relative visibility.
  2. Traditional metrics of visibility (especially the ISI/WoS Impact Factor) which measure only formal scholar-to-scholar outputs (journal articles and books) fail to make legible a vast amount of African scholarly production, thus underestimating the amount of research activity on the continent.
  3. Many African universities do not take a strategic approach to scholarly communication, nor utilise appropriate information and communications technologies (ICTs) and Web 2.0 technologies to broaden the reach of their scholars’ work or curate it for future generations, thus inadvertently minimising the impact and visibility of African research.”

“To optimise scholarly communication at Southern African universities, there are four stakeholders that can play a dynamic role in improving universities’ dissemination activity: national governments, university administrations, university academics and research funding agencies. Each of these groups contributes to research and communication practices at the institution, thereby impacting the potential visibility of Southern African scholars’ research outputs. In this chapter, we provide recommendations
tailored to each of these stakeholders with a focus on enhancing research production, open dissemination and regional collaborative opportunities.”

URL : Seeking Impact and Visibility

Alternative URL : http://www.africanminds.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/9781920677510-content2.pdf

EPISCIENCES – an overlay publication platform

Statut

This paper delineates the main characteristics of the Episciences platform, an environment for overlay peer-reviewing that complements existing publication repositories, designed by the Centre pour la Communication Scientifique directe (CCSD ) service unit. We describe the main characteristics of the platform and present the first experiment of launching two journals in the computer science domain onto it. Finally, we address a series of open questions related to the actual changes in editorial models (open submission, open peer- review, augmented publication) that such a platform is likely to raise, as well as some hints as to the underlying business model.

URL : http://hal.inria.fr/hal-01002815