EN

Open Access and Citation Impact: Modality, Funding, Publisher, and Disciplinary Trends at the University of Kentucky

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Ben Rawlins, Mitchell Scott

As publishers and libraries attempt to align business models and collection strategies to an everincreasing open access (OA) publishing landscape, both have found that the message of open access citation advantage (OACA) resonates with current and prospective authors. Despite its widespread promotion and acceptance, however, OACA is not universal and is subject to ongoing debate.

This quantitative study contributes to the OACA debate and research with a longitudinal focus on citation data from journal articles published 2018–2021 by University of Kentucky-affiliated authors.

The article and citation data for University of Kentucky-affiliated authors are supplemented with University of Kentucky College and departmental data, providing valuable local context. In addition to author-level departmental data, this study also considers traditional confounding variables often investigated in OACA studies, such as OA modality, funding, and funding source, and introduces journal publisher as a variable for OACA analysis.

URL : Open Access and Citation Impact: Modality, Funding, Publisher, and Disciplinary Trends at the University of Kentucky

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.69n3.8496

EN

The gender gap in scholarly self-promotion on social media

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Hao Peng, Misha Teplitskiy, Daniel M. Romero, Emőke-Ágnes Horvát

Self-promotion in science is ubiquitous but may not be exercised equally by everyone. Research on self-promotion in other domains suggests that, partly due to adverse reactions to non-gender-conforming career-enhancing behaviors, women tend to self-promote less often than men.

We test whether this pattern extends to online spaces by examining scholarly self-promotion over six years using 23M tweets about 2.8M research papers authored by 3.5M scientists. We find that, overall, women are about 28% less likely than men to self-promote their papers on Twitter (now X) despite accounting for important confounds.

The differential adoption of Twitter does not fully explain the gender gap in self-promotion, which is large even in relatively gender-balanced research areas, where adversity is expected to be smaller.

Moreover, we find that the gender gap increases with higher performance and academic status, being most pronounced for research-prolific women from top-ranked institutions who publish papers in high-impact journals.

We also find differential returns with respect to gender: while self-promotion is associated with increased tweets of papers compared to no self-promotion, the increase is slightly smaller for women than for men. Our findings reveal that scholarly self-promotion online varies meaningfully by gender and can contribute to a measurable gender gap in the visibility of scientific ideas.

URL : The gender gap in scholarly self-promotion on social media

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-60590-y

 

EN

Peer review across borders: benefits and challenges of international review panels in research funding organizations

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Helen Peterson, Liisa Husu

Peer review by external experts is widely recognized as a legitimate and trustworthy academic practice, essential for ensuring the quality and rigor of research, providing more objective and less impartial assessments, and promoting transparent decision-making in science and academia. Research Funding Organisations (RFOs) usually rely on some form of peer review to evaluate the scientific quality of research proposals to allocate their limited resources.

The peer review system is, however, also associated with several weaknesses, such as risks for bias and conflict of interest. This article explores the implications of replacing National Review Panels (NRPs) with International Review Panels (IRPs) in a national RFO, examining how this shift may impact the peer review process.

Drawing on semi-structured interviews with staff from a national RFO in a European country and members of its IRPs, the article provides a nuanced analysis of both the potential benefits and challenges with substituting NRPs with IRPs.

The results highlight how IRPs increase the distance between applicants and reviewers, which benefits the impartiality of the process. Nevertheless, this distance needs to be balanced by domestic panel members, chairs or research officers possessing appropriate knowledge of the local academic context, culture and structure.

IRPs also introduce a greater diversity of perspectives into the assessments of applicants, which may promote objective and balanced assessments. The diversity may however also lower inter-reviewer reliability, and, in turn, complicate calibration practices and hinder the development of informal deliberative norms during the process of reaching decisions and consensus.

URL : Peer review across borders: benefits and challenges of international review panels in research funding organizations

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaf030

EN

Worth the Cost? Researchers’ Use and Experience With Commercial Services for Research Outreach

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Hamid R. Jamali

Introduction

Research outreach activities aim to communicate specific research findings to non-specialist audiences. In recent years, commercial outreach services have emerged that offer fee-based assistance in transforming research findings into accessible reader-friendly content, including multimedia content, and promotional material aimed at broader audiences.

They may also publish the content on their own platforms, such as magazines or websites, to further enhance research visibility and dissemination. The experiences associated with these services are poorly understood. This study examined the motivation for use, challenges, and perceived value of commercial services for research outreach among researchers.

Methods

An online questionnaire surveyed researchers who had published with two commercial services, ResearchOutreach.org or ResearchFeatures.com, between January 2022 and February 2024, yielding 104 responses (20% response rate).

Results

Most respondents used commercial services to increase their research visibility and reach a broader audience. Factors influencing researchers’ decision to use commercial services included convenience, professionalism, broad audience access, and insufficient university outreach support.Most respondents (91.5%) were satisfied with the representation of their research, and about half faced no challenges.

One-third said they would recommend the service; however, issues like content quality, time consumption, and high costs were noted. Interestingly, a third of the participants paid personally, and around 67% reported no significant impact from the publication on their work.

Discussion

While commercial outreach services can enhance research visibility, their cost-effectiveness and impact vary. A significant portion of researchers reported little to no tangible benefits from these services, which raises concerns about their cost-effectiveness and the accuracy of marketing claims.

Conclusion

This study reveals a mix of positive and negative experiences with commercial outreach services, which highlights that their usefulness depends on individual circumstances and expectations. Concerns around cost and effectiveness persist. More transparent evaluations are needed. Collaboration between institutions and service providers might help support effective research dissemination and ensure equitable access to outreach resources.

URL : Worth the Cost? Researchers’ Use and Experience With Commercial Services for Research Outreach

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18409

FR

Revues de droit et science ouverte : écosystème, pratiques des chercheurs, rôle des bibliothèques

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Auteur/Author : Pierre Guibourg

Cette étude vise à décrire l’écosystème actuel des revues françaises de droit, qui semble dominé par des logiques extra-académiques, au premier plan desquelles le poids important des grands éditeurs privés.

Dans ce contexte, se pose la question de l’accès ouvert en droit, qui est moins développé que dans les autres SHS, ainsi que celle des actions que mènent et que peuvent mener les bibliothèques pour faire changer cette situation.

URL : Revues de droit et science ouverte : écosystème, pratiques des chercheurs, rôle des bibliothèques

enssib : https://www.enssib.fr/bibliotheque-numerique/notices/73421-revues-de-droit-et-science-ouverte-ecosysteme-pratiques-des-chercheurs-role-des-bibliotheques

FR

(In)former, accompagner, convaincre : comment engager les jeunes chercheurs dans la science ouverte

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Auteur : Adrien Julla-Marcy

Le sujet des jeunes chercheurs a progressivement pris de l’importance au cours des dix dernières années jusqu’à devenir un enjeu majeur des politiques d’ouverture de la science. Les jeunes chercheurs sont identifiés comme le public-cible des actions de formation car ils aspirent à des valeurs d’intégrité de la recherche proches des principes de la science ouverte.

Pour autant, ils subissent des injonctions contradictoires entre volonté d’ouverture et stratégies de carrière.

Si les services d’appui à la recherche disposent de leviers concrets pour les convaincre d’ouvrir leur production scientifique, poser la question de l’engagement des jeunes chercheurs suppose de réfléchir à la réforme des conditions de la recherche et, en particulier, de l’évaluation.

URL : (In)former, accompagner, convaincre : comment engager les jeunes chercheurs dans la science ouverte

enssib : https://www.enssib.fr/bibliotheque-numerique/documents/73422-informer-accompagner-convaincre-comment-engager-les-jeunes-chercheurs-dans-la-science-ouverte.pdf

EN

Generative AI and the future of scientometrics: current topics and future questions

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Benedetto Lepori, Jens Peter Andersen, Karsten Donnay

The aim of this paper is to review the use of GenAI in scientometrics, and to begin a debate on the broader implications for the field. First, we provide an introduction on GenAI’s generative and probabilistic nature as rooted in distributional linguistics.

And we relate this to the debate on the extent to which GenAI might be able to mimic human ‘reasoning’. Second, we leverage this distinction for a critical engagement with recent experiments using GenAI in scientometrics, including topic labelling, the analysis of citation contexts, predictive applications, scholars’ profiling, and research assessment.

GenAI shows promise in tasks where language generation dominates, such as labelling, but faces limitations in tasks that require stable semantics, pragmatic reasoning, or structured domain knowledge. However, these results might become quickly outdated. Our recommendation is, therefore, to always strive to systematically compare the performance of different GenAI models for specific tasks.

Third, we inquire whether, by generating large amounts of scientific language, GenAI might have a fundamental impact on our field by affecting textual characteristics used to measure science, such as authors, words, and references. We argue that careful empirical work and theoretical reflection will be essential to remain capable of interpreting the evolving patterns of knowledge production.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.00783