EN

Meaningful Metrics: A 21st Century Librarian’s Guide to Bibliometrics, Altmetrics, and Research Impact

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

What does it mean to have meaningful metrics in today’s complex higher education landscape? With a foreword by Heather Piwowar and Jason Priem, this highly engaging and activity-laden book serves to introduce readers to the fast-paced world of research metrics from the unique perspective of academic librarians and LIS practitioners.

Starting with the essential histories of bibliometrics and altmetrics, and continuing with in-depth descriptions of the core tools and emerging issues at stake in the future of both fields, Meaningful Metrics is a convenient all-in-one resource that is designed to be used by a range of readers, from those with little to no background on the subject to those looking to become movers and shakers in the current scholarly metrics movement. Authors Borchardt and Roemer, offer tips, tricks, and real-world examples illustrate how librarians can support the successful adoption of research metrics, whether in their institutions or across academia as a whole.

URL : http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/booksanddigitalresources/digital/9780838987568_metrics_OA.pdf

EN

Promoting Open Access and Innovation: From Synergies to Le Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur les Humanités Numériques

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

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

EN

OA in the Library Collection: The Challenges of Identifying and Maintaining Open Access Resources

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

While librarians, researchers, and the general public have embraced the concept of Open Access (OA), librarians still have a difficult time managing OA resources. To find out why, Bulock and Hosburgh surveyed librarians about their experiences managing OA resources and the strengths and weaknesses of management systems.

At this session, they shared survey results, reflected on OA workflows at their own libraries, and updated audience members on relevant standards and initiatives. Survey respondents reported challenges related to hybrid OA, inaccurate metadata, and inconsistent communication along the serials supply chain. Recommended solutions included the creation of consistent, centralized article-level metadata and the development of OA collection development principles for libraries.

URL : http://scholarship.rollins.edu/as_facpub/136/

EN

Improving the peer-review process and editorial quality: key errors escaping the review and editorial process in top scientific journals

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

We apply a novel mistake index to assess trends in the proportion of corrections published between 1993 and 2014 in Nature, Science and PNAS. The index revealed a progressive increase in the proportion of corrections published in these three high-quality journals.

The index appears to be independent of the journal impact factor or the number of items published, as suggested by a comparative analyses among 16 top scientific journals of different impact factors and disciplines. A more detailed analysis suggests that the trend in the time-to-correction increased significantly over time and also differed among journals (Nature 233 days; Science 136 days; PNAS 232 days).

A detailed review of 1,428 errors showed that 60% of corrections were related to figures, authors, references or results. According to the three categories established, 34.7% of the corrections were considered mild, 47.7% moderate and 17.6% severe, also differing among journals. Errors occurring during the printing process were responsible for 5% of corrections in Nature, 3% in Science and 18% in PNAS.

The measurement of the temporal trends in the quality of scientific manuscripts can assist editors and reviewers in identifying the most common mistakes, increasing the rigor of peer-review and improving the quality of published scientific manuscripts.

URL : Improving the peer-review process and editorial quality: key errors escaping the review and editorial process in top scientific journals

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1670

FR

Entre science légitime et science amateur : le devenir trivial d’une information scientifique sur Internet

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

À partir de l’exemple d’un article scientifique publié dans la revue américaine en ligne PLoS ONE, on montre que la circulation d’une information scientifique sur le Net peut rapidement et massivement déborder des cadres habituels de la diffusion de la culture scientifique (médias, passeurs individuels et collectifs labellisés…). Cette recherche interroge ce que le « devenir trivial » d’une information scientifique dit des relations connaissances scientifiques/vulgarisation, science légitime/science amateur et plus généralement sciences/société.

Car si la circulation d’un « être culturel » hors de son champ de pertinence trouve un terreau fécond au sein même de la sphère scientifique, ses frontières avec les sphères profanes sont également autant des coupures que des coutures.

URL : https://lesenjeux.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/2015/supplement-a/12-entre-science-legitime-et-science-amateur-le-devenir-trivial-dune-information-scientifique-sur-internet

FR

Les imaginaires de la « science 2.0 » : De l’idéal de la science ouverte au « marketing de soi »

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Le présent article porte sur les imaginaires entourant la « science 2.0 » appréhendée en tant qu’ensemble de discours et de pratiques cristallisant un certain nombre d’évolutions de l’activité scientifique dans le contexte du Web contemporain. L’auteure présente les premiers constats d’une recherche exploratoire visant à mettre en question les fondements des imaginaires portés par les discours autour de dispositifs de réseaux sociaux pour chercheurs et à analyser leur articulation avec la formation de nouveaux usages.

Différents enjeux soulevés par ces questions relatives aux changements associés au numérique dans le monde scientifique sont discutés.

URL : http://communication.revues.org/6070

EN

Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Background

Recent controversies highlighting substandard peer review in Open Access (OA) and traditional (subscription) journals have increased the need for authors, funders, publishers, and institutions to assure quality of peer-review in academic journals. I propose that transparency of the peer-review process may be seen as an indicator of the quality of peer-review, and develop and validate a tool enabling different stakeholders to assess transparency of the peer-review process.

Methods and Findings

Based on editorial guidelines and best practices, I developed a 14-item tool to rate transparency of the peer-review process on the basis of journals’ websites. In Study 1, a random sample of 231 authors of papers in 92 subscription journals in different fields rated transparency of the journals that published their work. Authors’ ratings of the transparency were positively associated with quality of the peer-review process but unrelated to journal’s impact factors.

In Study 2, 20 experts on OA publishing assessed the transparency of established (non-OA) journals, OA journals categorized as being published by potential predatory publishers, and journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Results show high reliability across items (α = .91) and sufficient reliability across raters. Ratings differentiated the three types of journals well.

In Study 3, academic librarians rated a random sample of 140 DOAJ journals and another 54 journals that had received a hoax paper written by Bohannon to test peer-review quality. Journals with higher transparency ratings were less likely to accept the flawed paper and showed higher impact as measured by the h5 index from Google Scholar.

Conclusions

The tool to assess transparency of the peer-review process at academic journals shows promising reliability and validity. The transparency of the peer-review process can be seen as an indicator of peer-review quality allowing the tool to be used to predict academic quality in new journals.

URL : Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147913