Archives des mots-clés : scientific communication

Perception of postgraduate students towards open access publication in some selected institutions in Malaysia

Posté le par

Author : James Oluwaseyi Hodonu-Wusu

This article investigates perception of postgraduate students towards open access publication in two research institutions in Malaysia. A descriptive survey was used in the study which involves 121 respondents from 500 sample population sent instrument to from both Universities.

A simple random techniques was used for the study. Data were analyzed using frequency counts, percentages, mean and standard deviation, independent sample t-test and One-way analysis of variance tests (ANOVA) was employed to determine if there is a statistically significant mean differences in perceived usefulness and perceived effectiveness of OA publications between ages of postgraduate students.

The findings revealed why postgraduate scholars should embrace Open Access publication for wider visibility and reproducibility of academic research and development.

The results also shows that majority of the respondents were of mean age of 2.67 and highest age bracket was between 26-35 years. However, the sample size of the survey was quite small and further research is needed to determine if similar findings are obtained when other researchers are included in the sample.

URL : Perception of postgraduate students towards open access publication in some selected institutions in Malaysia

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/a4mjz

Géopolitique de l’open access

Posté le par

Auteur/Author : Ghislaine Chartron

Cette communication commence par rappeler des repères de contextualisation du développement de l’open access. Elle insiste sur le brouillage qui s’est progressivement installé concernant les finalités du mouvement.

La dimension internationale est ensuite considérée comme une entrée majeure, à la fois pour la consolidation de l’open access, pour analyser les déséquilibres potentiels et pour comprendre les stratégies de pouvoir sous-jacentes.

Le texte appuie un renouveau du pilotage par les communautés scientifiques afin de redonner du sens au mouvement. Les principaux enjeux pour la recherche régionale des pays du Sud sont également débattus.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01930281/

Automatically Annotating Articles Towards Opening and Reusing Transparent Peer Reviews

Posté le par

Authors : Afshin Sadeghi, Sarven Capadisli, Johannes Wilm, Christoph Lange, Philipp Mayr

An increasing number of scientific publications are created in open and transparent peer review models: a submission is published first, and then reviewers are invited, or a submission is reviewed in a closed environment but then these reviews are published with the final article, or combinations of these.

Reasons for open peer review include giving better credit to reviewers and enabling readers to better appraise the quality of a publication. In most cases, the full, unstructured text of an open review is published next to the full, unstructured text of the article reviewed.

This approach prevents human readers from getting a quick impression of the quality of parts of an article, and it does not easily support secondary exploitation, e.g., for scientometrics on reviews.

While document formats have been proposed for publishing structured articles including reviews, integrated tool support for entire open peer review workflows resulting in such documents is still scarce.

We present AR-Annotator, the Automatic Article and Review Annotator which employs a semantic information model of an article and its reviews, using semantic markup and unique identifiers for all entities of interest.

The fine-grained article structure is not only exposed to authors and reviewers but also preserved in the published version. We publish articles and their reviews in a Linked Data representation and thus maximize their reusability by third-party applications.

We demonstrate this reusability by running quality-related queries against the structured representation of articles and their reviews.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.01027

Valoriser les publications d’un laboratoire universitaire dans l’environnement de la science ouverte : Retour d’expérience de la collection GERiiCO sur HAL

Posté le par

Auteurs/Authors : Joachim Schöpfel, Hélène Prost, Amel Fraisse, Stéphane Chaudiron

La question de la diffusion des résultats de la recherche et, en particulier, le libre accès aux publications des chercheurs est au cœur de la politique pour la science ouverte. Comment peut se positionner un laboratoire de recherche universitaire ? Comment peut se traduire la politique pour la science ouverte sur le terrain d’un campus universitaire ?

Sous forme d’un retour d’expérience, notre étude analyse la mise en place de la collection du laboratoire GERiiCO de l’Université de Lille sur l’archive ouverte nationale HAL.

L’objectif de l’initiative est double : d’une part, assurer une visibilité maximale et un impact au-delà de la communauté disciplinaire, à travers des médias sociaux et le référencement des moteurs de recherche ; d’autre part, contribuer à l’évaluation de la production scientifique du laboratoire.

Nous présentons les ressources mobilisées et les actions mises en oeuvre, analysons les résultats en termes de dépôts, d’usage et de services, et évoquons les facteurs de succès, les problèmes rencontrés et quelques perspectives pour le futur développement.

En particulier, nous comparons le contenu de la collection HAL avec les résultats de la base de données scientométrique d’Elsevier (Scopus) et du moteur de recherche Google Scholar, et nous montrons le potentiel de la collection pour visualiser les relations au sein du laboratoire (analyse de réseaux) et son rayonnement international.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01940352

Biomedical authors’ awareness of publication ethics: an international survey

Posté le par

Authors : Sara Schroter, Jason Roberts, Elizabeth Loder, Donald B Penzien, Sarah Mahadeo, Timothy T Houle

Objective

The extent to which biomedical authors have received training in publication ethics, and their attitudes and opinions about the ethical aspects of specific behaviours, have been understudied. We sought to characterise the knowledge and attitudes of biomedical authors about common issues in publication ethics.

Design

Cross-sectional online survey.

Setting and participants

Corresponding authors of research submissions to 20 journals.

Main outcome measure(s)

Perceived level of unethical behaviour (rated 0 to 10) presented in five vignettes containing key variables that were experimentally manipulated on entry to the survey and perceived level of knowledge of seven ethical topics related to publishing (prior publication, author omission, self-plagiarism, honorary authorship, conflicts of interest, image manipulation and plagiarism).

Results

4043/10 582 (38%) researchers responded. Respondents worked in 100 countries and reported varying levels of publishing experience. 67% (n=2700) had received some publication ethics training from a mentor, 41% (n=1677) a partial course, 28% (n=1130) a full course and 55% (n=2206) an online course; only a small proportion rated training received as excellent.

There was a full range (0 to 10 points) in ratings of the extent of unethical behaviour within each vignette, illustrating a broad range of opinion about the ethical acceptability of the behaviours evaluated, but these opinions were little altered by the context in which it occurred.

Participants reported substantial variability in their perceived knowledge of seven publication ethics topics; one-third perceived their knowledge to be less than ‘some knowledge’ for the sum of the seven ethical topics and only 9% perceived ‘substantial knowledge’ of all topics.

Conclusions

We found a large degree of variability in espoused training and perceived knowledge, and variability in views about how ethical or unethical scenarios were. Ethical standards need to be better articulated and taught to improve consistency of training across institutions and countries.

URL : Biomedical authors’ awareness of publication ethics: an international survey

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021282

Journals that Rise from the Fourth Quartile to the First Quartile in Six Years or Less: Mechanisms of Change and the Role of Journal Self-Citations

Posté le par

Author : Juan Miguel Campanario

Journal self-citations may be increased artificially to inflate a journal’s scientometric indicators. The aim of this study was to identify possible mechanisms of change in a cohort of journals that rose from the fourth (Q4) to the first quartile (Q1) over six years or less in Journal Citation Reports (JCR), and the role of journal self-citations in these changes.

A total of 51 different journals sampled from all JCR Science Citation Index (SCI) subject categories improved their rank position from Q4 in 2009 to Q1 in any year from 2010 to 2015. I identified changes in the numerator or denominator of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) that were involved in each year-to-year transition.

The main mechanism of change was the increase in the number of citations used to compute the JIF. The effect of journal self-citations in the increase of the JIF was studied. The main conclusion is that there was no evidence of widespread JIF manipulation through the overuse of journal self-citations.

URL : Journals that Rise from the Fourth Quartile to the First Quartile in Six Years or Less: Mechanisms of Change and the Role of Journal Self-Citations

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6040047

Marketing via Email Solicitation by Predatory (and Legitimate) Journals: An Evaluation of Quality, Frequency and Relevance

Posté le par

Authors: Warren Burggren, Dilip K. Madasu, Kevin S. Hawkins, Martin Halbert

INTRODUCTION

Open access (OA) journals have proliferated in recent years. Many journals are highly reputable, delivering on the promise of open access to research as an alternative to traditional, subscriptionbased journals.

Yet some OA journals border on, or clearly fall within, the realm of so-called “predatory journals.” Most discussion of such journals has focused on the quality of articles published within them.

Considerably less attention has been paid to the marketing practices of predatory journals—primarily their mass e-mailing—and to the impact that this practice may have on recipients’ perception of OA journals as a whole.

METHODS

This study analyzed a subset of the 1,816 e-mails received by a single university biology faculty member during a 24-month period (2015 and 2016) with an update from December 2017 and January 2018.

RESULTS

Of those e-mails sent in 2015, approximately 37% were copies or near-copies of previous e-mail messages sent to the recipient, less than 25% of e-mails from predatory journals mentioned publication fees, only about 30% of soliciting journals were listed in DOAJ, and only about 4% had an identifiable impact factor.

While most e-mails indicated a purported familiarity with, and respect for, the recipient, more than two thirds of the e-mails did not, implying use of mass-e-mailing methodologies.

Almost 80% of the e-mail solicitations had grammar and/or spelling mistakes. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, only a staggeringly small 4% of e-mails were judged highly relevant to the recipient’s area of expertise.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In light of the marketing practices of many predatory journals, we advocate specific instructions for librarians, faculty mentors, and administrators of legitimate OA journals as they interact with new researchers, junior faculty, and other professionals learning how to discern the quality of journals that send direct e-mail solicitations.

URL : Marketing via Email Solicitation by Predatory (and Legitimate) Journals: An Evaluation of Quality, Frequency and Relevance

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2246