Mots-clefs: Scientific Publishing Afficher/masquer les discussions | Raccourcis clavier

  • Hans Dillaerts le 26 September 2013 à 18 h 26 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , Scientific Publishing   

    The Importance of Free and Open Source Software and Open Standards in Modern Scientific Publishing :

    « In this paper we outline the reasons why we believe a reliance on the use of proprietary computer software and proprietary file formats in scientific publication have negative implications for the conduct and reporting of science. There is increasing awareness and interest in the scientific community about the benefits offered by free and open source software. We discuss the present state of scientific publishing and the merits of advocating for a wider adoption of open standards in science, particularly where it concerns the publishing process. »

    URL : http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/1/2/49

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 27 March 2013 à 21 h 24 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: Scientific Publishing,   

    Main basse sur la science publique : Le «coût de génie» de l’édition scientifique privée :

    « Imaginez un monde où les chercheurs des établissements publics de recherche et des universités seraient rétribués individuellement en fonction de leur contribution au chiffre d’affaire d’un oligopole de grands groupes privés, et où les moyens humains et financiers affectés à leurs recherches en dépendraient. Projet d’un think-tank ultra-libéral, voire science-fiction pensez-vous ?… ou alors cas particulier de quelques fraudes liées à l’industrie du médicament ? Non, non, regardez bien autour de vous, c’est déjà le cas, dans l’ensemble du monde scientifique (sciences de la nature, médicales, agronomiques…), et ce à l’insu de la grande majorité des gens, et de trop de chercheurs ! Mais une prise de conscience est en train de s’opérer et une bataille s’engage sur tous les continents. »

    URL : http://www.inra.cgt.fr/actions/revendications/Main_basse_sur_la_Science.pdf

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 23 November 2012 à 18 h 14 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , , , Scientific Publishing   

    Scientific Publishing in West Africa: A Comparison of Benin with Senegal and Ghana :

    « We compared scientific indicators related to Benin, Senegal and Ghana. We collected data from Web of Science and used indicators like the yearly productivity, the language of publication, the type of publication, the citable documents, the publication fields, and the main international partners as well as the percentage of papers in collaboration. Results showed that Benin productivity is the lowest one; Ghana and Senegal competed over the period; depending on the type of documents under consideration, the positions of the three countries vary. Citable documents had an increasing trend for all the countries. There is less cooperation between African countries and Benin, Senegal and Ghana; colonial ties count much in their international partnership. Cooperation among the three countries is negligible. »

    URL : http://2012.sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol2/Megnigbeto_Scientific_589.pdf

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 13 June 2012 à 18 h 02 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , , , , , Scientific Publishing   

    A comparison of subscription and open access journals in construction management and related fields :

    « The Internet has profoundly changed the technical infrastructure for the publishing of scientific peer reviewed journals. The traditional business model of selling the content to subscribers is increasingly being challenged by Open Access journals, which are either run at low cost by voluntary academics or which sell dissemination services to authors. In addition authors in many fields are taking advantage of the legal possibilities of uploading free manuscript versions to institutional or subject-based repositories, in order to increase readership and impact. Construction Management is lagging behind many other fields in utilising the potential of the web for efficient dissemination results, in particular to academics outside the leading universities in industrialised countries. This study looks closer at the current publishing situation in construction management and related fields and compares empirical data about 16 OA journals and 16 traditional subscription journals. Of the articles published in 2011 in the subscription journals only 9 % could be found as OA copies. The overall OA availability (including article in OA journals) was 14 % for Construction Management and Economics and 29 for construction IT scholarship. »

    URL : http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB/article/view/27

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 16 March 2012 à 14 h 22 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: Scientific Publishing   

    Trends in scientific publications in physical education: a multifaceted field? :

    « The paper investigates diversity in terms of interest and goals in international research in Physical Education (PE). This investigation is based on publications in PE indexed in three major international databases, namely Medline, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). To identify these publications in Medline, we searched for “physical education and training”. As for the WoS and Scopus, we searched for “physical education” in the title, abstract or key-word. We also searched for “physical education” in the affiliation address only in the Scopus database, which we describe as Scopus-Afill. Using these strategies, we found 2,257 documents in Medline, 6,107 in WoS, 8,807 in Scopus and 5,838 in Scopus – Affil. for the 1991-2005 period. Our findings offer evidence that PE research is mostly associated with biological and medical sciences. However, our results show that the field is multifaceted when it comes to the nature of PE contributions to knowledge. »

    URL : http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/11/01/Jcom1101%282012%29A03

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 18 December 2011 à 18 h 56 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: neuroscience, , , , Scientific Publishing   

    Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal :

    « The current system of publishing in the biological sciences is notable for its redundancy, inconsistency, sluggishness, and opacity. These problems persist, and grow worse, because the peer review system remains focused on deciding whether or not to publish a paper in a particular journal rather than providing (1) a high-quality evaluation of scientific merit and (2) the information necessary to organize and prioritize the literature. Online access has eliminated the need for journals as distribution channels, so their primary current role is to provide authors with feedback prior to publication and a quick way for other researchers to prioritize the literature based on which journal publishes a paper. However, the feedback provided by reviewers is not focused on scientific merit but on whether to publish in a particular journal, which is generally of little use to authors and an opaque and noisy basis for prioritizing the literature. Further, each submission of a rejected manuscript requires the entire machinery of peer review to creak to life anew. This redundancy incurs delays, inconsistency, and increased burdens on authors, reviewers, and editors. Finally, reviewers have no real incentive to review well or quickly, as their performance is not tracked, let alone rewarded. One of the consistent suggestions for modifying the current peer review system is the introduction of some form of post-publication reception, and the development of a marketplace where the priority of a paper rises and falls based on its reception from the field (see other articles in this special topics). However, the information that accompanies a paper into the marketplace is as important as the marketplace’s mechanics. Beyond suggestions concerning the mechanisms of reception, we propose an update to the system of publishing in which publication is guaranteed, but pre-publication peer review still occurs, giving the authors the opportunity to revise their work following a mini pre-reception from the field. This step also provides a consistent set of rankings and reviews to the marketplace, allowing for early prioritization and stabilizing its early dynamics. We further propose to improve the general quality of reviewing by providing tangible rewards to those who do it well. »
    URL : http://www.frontiersin.org/computational_neuroscience/10.3389/fncom.2011.00055/full

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 8 December 2011 à 17 h 13 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , , , , , , Scientific Publishing, ,   

    L’Edition scientifique en SHS face au numérique et à Internet: Un enjeu pour la France :

    « Les révolutions en cours des supports et des pratiques tant de l’écriture que de la lecture, associées au développement du numérique ainsi qu’à la multiplication des applications internet, remettent profondément en cause les activités de l’ensemble des acteurs impliqués dans la chaine traditionnelle de l’édition, y compris les bibliothèques. Elles touchent tout particulièrement les activités scientifiques en SHS, les disciplines concernées se voyant offrir à travers elles des perspectives dans la société qui leur étaient jusque là pratiquement inaccessibles. C’est dire l’importance pour les chercheurs en SHS – en particulier français – des enjeux qui se jouent actuellement autour des politiques menées dans ce domaine. »

    URL : http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/50/3-4/513.abstract.fr
    doi: 10.1177/0539018411411031

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 26 August 2011 à 17 h 20 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: collaboration platforms, , reputation, , , Scientific Publishing, version control,   

    Wikis in scholarly publishing :

    « Scientific research is a process concerned with the creation, collective accumulation, contextualization, updating and maintenance of knowledge. Wikis provide an environment that allows to collectively accumulate, contextualize, update and maintain knowledge in a coherent and transparent fashion. Here, we examine the potential of wikis as platforms for scholarly publishing. In the hope to stimulate further discussion, the article itself was drafted on Species ID – http://species-id.net; a wiki that hosts a prototype for wiki-based scholarly publishing – where it can be updated, expanded or otherwise improved. »

    URL : http://iospress.metapress.com/content/q42617538838t6j2/

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 28 July 2011 à 13 h 50 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , , Scientific Publishing   

    Science and Technology Committee – Eighth Report : Peer review in scientific publications :

    « Peer review in scholarly publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In recent years there have been an increasing number of reports and articles assessing the current state of peer review. In view of the importance of evidence-based scientific information to government, it seemed appropriate to undertake a detailed examination of the current peer-review system as used in scientific publications. Both to see whether it is operating effectively and to shine light on new and innovative approaches. We also explored some of the broader issues around research impact, publication ethics and research integrity.

    We found that despite the many criticisms and the little solid evidence on the efficacy of pre-publication editorial peer review, it is considered by many as important and not something that can be dispensed with. There are, however, many ways in which current pre-publication peer-review practices can and should be improved and optimised, although we recognise that different types of peer review are suitable to different disciplines and research communities. Innovative approaches—such as the use of pre-print servers, open peer review, increased transparency and online repository-style journals—should be explored by publishers, in consultation with their journals and taking into account the requirements of their research communities. Some of these new approaches may help to reduce the necessary burden on researchers, and also help accelerate the pace of publication of research. We encourage greater recognition of the work carried out by reviewers, by both publishers and employers. All publishers need to have in place systems for recording and acknowledging the contribution of those involved in peer review.

    Publishers also have a responsibility to ensure that the people involved in the peer-review process are adequately trained for the role that they play. Training for editors, authors and reviewers varies across the publishing sector and across different research institutions. We encourage publishers to work together to develop standards—which could be applied across the industry—to ensure that all editors, whether staff or academic, are fully equipped for the job that they do. Furthermore, we consider that all early-career researchers should be given the option for training in peer review; responsibility for this lies primarily with the funders of research.

    Funders of research have an interest in ensuring that the work they fund is both scientifically sound and reproducible. We consider that it should be a fundamental aim of the peer-review process that all publications are scientifically sound. Reproducibility should be the gold standard that all peer reviewers and editors aim for when assessing whether a manuscript has supplied sufficient information to allow others to repeat and build on the experiments. As such, the presumption must be that, unless there is a strong reason otherwise, data should be fully disclosed and made publicly available. In line with this principle, data associated with all publicly funded research should, where possible, be made widely and freely available. The work of researchers who expend time and effort adding value to their data, to make it usable by others, should be acknowledged and encouraged.

    While pre-publication peer review (the first records of which date back to the 17th century) continues to play an important role in ensuring that the scientific record is sound, the growth of post-publication peer review and commentary represents an enormous opportunity for experimentation with new media and social networking tools. Online communications allow the widespread sharing of links to articles, ensuring that interesting research is spread across the world, facilitating rapid commentary and review by the global audience. They also have a valuable role to play in alerting the community to potential deficiencies and problems with published work. We encourage the prudent use of online tools for post-publication review and commentary as a means of supplementing pre-publication review.

    On the subject of impact, it was clear to us that the publication of peer-reviewed articles, particularly those that are published in journals with high Impact Factors, has a direct effect on the careers of researchers and the reputations of research institutions. Assessing the impact or perceived importance of research before it is published requires subjective judgement. We therefore have concerns about the use of journal Impact Factor as a proxy measure for the quality of individual articles. While we have been assured by research funders that they do not use this as a proxy measure for the quality of research or of individual articles, representatives of research institutions have suggested that publication in a high-impact journal is still an important consideration when assessing individuals for career progression. We consider that research institutions should be cautious about this approach as there is an element of chance in getting articles accepted in such journals. We have heard in the course of this inquiry that there is no substitute for reading the article itself in assessing the worth of a piece of research.

    Finally, we found that the integrity of the peer-review process can only ever be as robust as the integrity of the people involved. Ethical and scientific misconduct—such as in the Wakefield case—damages peer review and science as a whole. Although it is not the role of peer review to police research integrity and identify fraud or misconduct, it does, on occasion, identify suspicious cases. While there is guidance in place for journal editors when ethical misconduct is suspected, we found the general oversight of research integrity in the UK to be unsatisfactory. We note that the UK Research Integrity Futures Working Group report recently made sensible recommendations about the way forward for research integrity in the UK, which have not been adopted. We recommend that the Government revisit the recommendation that the UK should have an oversight body for research integrity that provides « advice and support to research employers and assurance to research funders », across all disciplines. Furthermore, while employers must take responsibility for the integrity of their employees’ research, we recommend that there be an external regulator overseeing research integrity. We also recommend that all UK research institutions have a specific member of staff leading on research integrity. »

    URL : http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/85602.htm

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 1 June 2011 à 17 h 39 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , , , , ownership, , Scientific Publishing   

    Owning the Right to Open Up Access to Scientific Publications :

    « Whether the researchers themselves, rather than the institution they work for, are at all in a position to implement OA principles actually depends on the initial allocation of rights on their works. Whereas most European Union Member States have legislation that provides that the copyright owner is the natural person who created the work, the copyright laws of a number European countries, including those of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, establish a presumption, according to which the copyright of works made in the course of employment belongs initially to the employer, which in this case would be the university. In France, a similar presumption applies to works created by employees of the State. Even if researchers are in a position to exercise the rights on their works, they may, nevertheless, be required to transfer these to a publisher in order to get their article or book published. This paper, therefore, analyses the legal position of researchers, research institutions and publishers respectively, and considers what the consequences are for the promotion of OA publishing in light of the principles laid down in the Berlin Declaration and the use of Creative Commons licenses. »

    URL : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1829889

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
c
Écrire un nouvel article
j
Prochain article/commentaire
k
Article/commentaire précédent
r
répondre
e
modifier
o
Afficher/masquer les commentaires
t
haut de page
l
se connecter
h
Afficher/masquer l'aide
shift + esc
Annuler