Authors : Tamarinde L. Haven, Lex M. Bouter, Yvo M. Smulders, Joeri K. Tijdink
Publications determine to a large extent the possibility to stay in academia (“publish or perish”). While some pressure to publish may incentivise high quality research, too much publication pressure is likely to have detrimental effects on both the scientific enterprise and on individual researchers.
Our research question was: What is the level of perceived publication pressure in the four academic institutions in Amsterdam and does the pressure to publish differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields?
Investigating researchers in Amsterdam with the revised Publication Pressure Questionnaire, we find that a negative attitude towards the current publication climate is present across academic ranks and disciplinary fields.
Postdocs and assistant professors (M = 3.42) perceive the greatest publication stress and PhD-students (M = 2.44) perceive a significant lack of resources to relieve publication stress. Results indicate the need for a healthier publication climate where the quality and integrity of research is rewarded.
URL : Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217931
Authors : Rosie Hanneke, Jeanne M. Link
This study explores the variety of information formats used and audiences targeted by public health faculty in the process of disseminating research.
The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with twelve faculty members in the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago, asking them about their research practices, habits, and preferences.
Faculty scholars disseminate their research findings in a variety of formats intended for multiple audiences, including not only their peers in academia, but also public health practitioners, policymakers, government and other agencies, and community partners.
Librarians who serve public health faculty should bear in mind the diversity of faculty’s information needs when designing and improving library services and resources, particularly those related to research dissemination and knowledge translation.
Promising areas for growth in health sciences libraries include supporting data visualization, measuring the impact of non-scholarly publications, and promoting institutional repositories for dissemination of research.
URL : The complex nature of research dissemination practices among public health faculty researchers
Alternative location : http://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/524
Author : Aleš Pogačnik
What does “open science” mean to researchers? A survey of researchers at the Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (ZRC SAZU) suggests some interesting conclusions, particularly as far as the humanities are concerned. According to the responses, most of these researchers are in favour of open science as a matter of personal conviction.
However, when it comes to publishing their own work, hardly any would consent to being published under some basic conditions of open science (adaptation, commercial use). Furthermore, they do appreciate subscription-based e-libraries, although they admit to using other methods, e.g. “resourcefulness”, to gain access to research papers.
They would rather not pay to be published or to acquire an e-article of a fellow researcher. They read predominantly in English, with the second language of their research literature being Slovenian (before any other language). Even the most productive age group (40–50 years of age) write more articles than they perform peer-reviewing.
They do not support open reviews, yet they consider peer-reviews to be very important; in their opinion peer-reviewing should be included in their evaluation. The survey and its results are just a minor example from a European country, but they have a very clear and universal message: open science is something yet to be defined.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02141850
Authors : Robert Heaton, Dylan Burns, Becky Thoms
More than 250 authors at Utah State University published an Open Access (OA) article in 2016. Analysis of survey results and publication data from Scopus suggests that the following factors led authors to choose OA venues: ability to pay publishing charges, disciplinary colleagues’ positive attitudes toward OA, and personal feelings such as altruism and desire to reach a wide audience.
Tenure status was not an apparent factor. This article adds to the body of literature on author motivations and can inform library outreach and marketing efforts, the creation of new publishing models, and the conversation about the larger scholarly publishing landscape.
URL : Altruism or Self-Interest? Exploring the Motivations of Open Access Authors
DOI : https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.4.485
Authors : Francisco Segado-Boj, Jesús Díaz-Campo, Erika Fernández-Gómez, María-Ángeles Chaparro-Domínguez
This study examines Spanish academics’ motives for using social networking sites (SNS) and their perceptions regarding the limitations of and drawbacks to social media.
We analyse 18 in-depth interviews conducted with Spanish university professors chosen according to their disciplines, academic ranks and level of use. Our findings confirm prior research based on the uses and gratifications theory.
Thus, we conclude that SNS are used for managing content, identifying experts in a researcher’s field of knowledge. In addition, academics need to manage different personal identities in each SNS they use.
URL : https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7296
Authors : Kelly D Cobey, Agnes Grudniewicz, Manoj M Lalu, Danielle B Rice, Hana Raffoul, David Moher
To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals.
An online survey delivered to two sets of corresponding authors containing demographic information, and questions about researchers’ perceptions of publishing in the presumed predatory journal, type of article processing fees paid and the quality of peer review received. The survey also asked six open-ended items about researchers’ motivations and experiences.
Using Beall’s lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory.
Eighty-two authors partially responded (~14% response rate (11.4%[44/386] from the initial sample, 19.3%[38/197] from second sample) to our survey. The top three countries represented were India (n=21, 25.9%), USA (n=17, 21.0%) and Ethiopia (n=5, 6.2%).
Three participants (3.9%) thought the journal they published in was predatory at the time of article submission. The majority of participants first encountered the journal via an email invitation to submit an article (n=32, 41.0%), or through an online search to find a journal with relevant scope (n=22, 28.2%).
Most participants indicated their study received peer review (n=65, 83.3%) and that this was helpful and substantive (n=51, 79.7%). More than a third (n=32, 45.1%) indicated they did not pay fees to publish.
Auteurs/Authors : Marie-Laure Malingre, Morgane Mignon, Cécile Pierre, Alexandre Serres
La structuration et le partage des données s’imposent depuis cinq ans au monde de la recherche, à travers des injonctions politiques (de Horizon 2020 au Plan national pour la science ouverte).
L’analyse de l’enquête menée en 2017 auprès des chercheurs de l’université Rennes 2 sur leurs pratiques, représentations et attentes en matière de données conduit à interroger le terme lui-même. Variable et complexe, contrairement à ce que suggère le mot « donnée », la notion ne va pas de soi.
L’article s’efforcera de montrer qu’elle fait l’objet d’une triple construction, épistémologique, intellectuelle et politique, dans les discours des chercheurs et des acteurs institutionnels, en tension avec les pratiques constatées sur le terrain.
DOI : https://www.openscience.fr/Construction-s-et-contradictions-des-donnees-de-recherche-en-SHS#