Qualitative focus group interview study.
Four university medical centres in the Netherlands.
Three randomly selected groups of biomedical scientists (PhD, postdoctoral staff members and full professors).
Main outcome measures
Main themes for discussion were selected by participants.
Frequently perceived detrimental effects of contemporary publication culture were the strong focus on citation measures (like the Journal Impact Factor and the H-index), gift and ghost authorships and the order of authors, the peer review process, competition, the funding system and publication bias. These themes were generally associated with detrimental and undesirable effects on publication practices and on the validity of reported results.
Furthermore, senior scientists tended to display a more cynical perception of the publication culture than their junior colleagues. However, even among the PhD students and the postdoctoral fellows, the sentiment was quite negative. Positive perceptions of specific features of contemporary scientific and publication culture were rare.
Since 2009, Open Access (OA) Week has been celebrated worldwide in October each year. It is an opportunity for librarians to engage with the research community, and demonstrate the value that they bring to their organisations in the area of disseminating scholarly output. Although thousands of events have been held since the inception of OA Week, little research has been carried out into the impact of these events.
The article presents a review of the literature on OA Week and evaluates the effectiveness of three events held during OA Week 2015 in Ireland through the use of statistics and a survey. The three events held during OA Week 2015 in Ireland that were evaluated include: a seminar run by Repository Network Ireland (RNI), a D.E.A.R. (Drop Everything And Read) campaign using OA materials organised by Dr. Steevens’ Library and a collaborative OA seminar between Dr. Steevens’ Library and Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) libraries.
The author concludes that a collaborative approach to planning and managing OA week between librarians from academic and other sectors can have tangible benefits both in terms of promoting OA and also promoting the role of the Librarian in the OA movement.
URL : http://hdl.handle.net/10147/596552
This article discusses the relationship between digital humanities and disciplinary boundaries in the last decade, primarily in the context of the national project Synergies.
It offers first an overview of Synergies as a concrete example of the way technological change impacts the very notion of disciplines by trying to create a platform that was interdisciplinary by nature, then discusses the creation of a new Digital Humanities centre in Québec—Le Centre de recherche interuniversitaire sur les humanités numériques – and the ways it was conceived as encompassing a range of disciplinary approach.
URL : Promoting Open Access and Innovation: From Synergies to Le Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur les Humanités Numériques
Alternative location : http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/214/457
As the open access movement has fostered a shift from subscriber-funded journals to author-pays models, scholars seek funding for the dissemination of their research. In response to this need, some libraries have established open access funds at their institutions. This paper presents an evaluation of an open access fund at a comprehensive university.
Description of program/service
Wanting to learn how faculty have benefitted from an open access publishing fund, Grand Valley State University Libraries surveyed recipients of the fund. The survey asked authors why they chose an open access publishing option and whether the fund influenced this decision. Authors were also asked whether they perceived that selecting an open access option broadened exposure to their work and about their likelihood of choosing open access in the future.
This article shares the results of this small survey and explores next steps in promoting and evaluating the fund and opportunities for focusing educational efforts across campus.
URL : Evaluating an Open Access Publishing Fund at a Comprehensive University
DOI : http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1204
Researchers benefit from an increasing array of tools to enhance direct communication and the dissemination of their research findings. These include Open Access repositories, Open Access journals, or hybrid publishing. For some years, researchers have been using new ways to communicate and share their work by using academic social networks.
In an attempt to foster the development of Open Access in France, the French consortium COUPERIN (Unified Consortium of Higher Education and Research Organizations for Access to Numerical Publications) proposed that academic social networks could be used to convince researchers of becoming more involved in Open Access.
To test this hypothesis, a nationwide survey was launched in 2014 to explore whether and how these academic social networks are used to share content, but also how they compare to other Open Access classic tools. Within a month (20 May to 20 June), 1,898 researchers answered this 28-question survey. It was fully completed by 1,698 of them. This provides COUPERIN with considerable data for analysis. The respondents roughly reflect the composition of the French academic community in terms of gender and research fields, with a slight overrepresentation of young researchers/ PhD candidates.
This survey does not, however, cover the in-depth opinions of researchers on Open Access and academic social networks. It therefore only presents general tendencies. Nonetheless, the survey gives many indications as to how researchers apply Open Access. In addition, it shows how they feel about the usefulness of these networks compared to repositories when efficiently disseminating their work. This survey also takes the differences between disciplines into account and characterizes behaviour and opinions according to the different disciplinary communities and their research practices.
Finally, this survey allows us to define the main characteristics of a tool which could meet French researchers’ needs for scientific communication. The components of such an ideal tool dedicated to Open Science could include efficient repositories to easily disseminate work and improve visibility, a sharing network and the scientific stamp of peer-review.
URL : https://www.liberquarterly.eu/articles/10.18352/lq.10131/
There is a growing movement to encourage reproducibility and transparency practices in the scientific community, including public access to raw data and protocols, the conduct of replication studies, systematic integration of evidence in systematic reviews, and the documentation of funding and potential conflicts of interest.
In this survey, we assessed the current status of reproducibility and transparency addressing these indicators in a random sample of 441 biomedical journal articles published in 2000–2014. Only one study provided a full protocol and none made all raw data directly available. Replication studies were rare (n = 4), and only 16 studies had their data included in a subsequent systematic review or meta-analysis. The majority of studies did not mention anything about funding or conflicts of interest.
The percentage of articles with no statement of conflict decreased substantially between 2000 and 2014 (94.4% in 2000 to 34.6% in 2014); the percentage of articles reporting statements of conflicts (0% in 2000, 15.4% in 2014) or no conflicts (5.6% in 2000, 50.0% in 2014) increased.
Articles published in journals in the clinical medicine category versus other fields were almost twice as likely to not include any information on funding and to have private funding. This study provides baseline data to compare future progress in improving these indicators in the scientific literature.
URL : Reproducible Research Practices and Transparency across the Biomedical Literature
DOI : 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002333
Cet article propose un état des lieux sur les revues littéraires numériques. Cette tâche pourrait sembler facile si l’on considère que ces expériences existent depuis très peu de temps. Les premières revues en ligne apparaissent, en effet, au début des années 1990.
Pourtant, la question est beaucoup plus complexe que ce que l’on pourrait penser, et cela, pour une série de raisons qui seront analysées dans cet article. Il n’est tout d’abord pas évident de s’entendre sur ce que l’on définit par l’expression « revue littéraire numérique ».
D’une part car on fait référence, avec le mot « numérique », à une série d’expériences et de pratiques hétérogènes et différentes qui peuvent difficilement être regroupées ensemble. D’autre part parce que ce qu’on appelle désormais la « révolution numérique » a déterminé des changements importants quant au sens des contenus, de leur production, de leur validation et de leur distribution et a par conséquent fortement affecté la signification du mot « revue » lui-même.
Il faudra ainsi prendre séparément en considération une série de phénomènes différents et essayer de rendre compte de pratiques hétérogènes qui se chevauchent et empiètent l’une sur l’autre. L’article proposera d’abord une analyse des enjeux de la numérisation des revues, à savoir le processus de transposition des revues papier au format électronique.
Il s’attaquera ensuite aux expériences des revues numériques dès leur création pour comprendre s’il y a une différence, et laquelle, entre les premières et les secondes.
Pour finir, on tentera de comprendre en quoi le numérique en tant que phénomène culturel — et en particulier les changements de diffusion et de circulation des contenus ainsi que les différentes formes de ce que l’on appelle désormais « éditorialisation » — a transformé l’idée même de revue et donné lieu à des pratiques et à des expériences complexes et hybrides dont la place dans le panorama culturel est difficile à saisir.
URL : https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1866/11379/revues-litteraires-en-ligne-vitali-rosati.pdf