Non classé

Characterizing Social Media Metrics of Scholarly Papers: The Effect of Document Properties and Collaboration Patterns

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

« A number of new metrics based on social media platforms—grouped under the term “altmetrics”—have recently been introduced as potential indicators of research impact. Despite their current popularity, there is a lack of information regarding the determinants of these metrics. Using publication and citation data from 1.3 million papers published in 2012 and covered in Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science as well as social media counts from Altmetric.com, this paper analyses the main patterns of five social media metrics as a function of document characteristics (i.e., discipline, document type, title length, number of pages and references) and collaborative practices and compares them to patterns known for citations. Results show that the presence of papers on social media is low, with 21.5% of papers receiving at least one tweet, 4.7% being shared on Facebook, 1.9% mentioned on blogs, 0.8% found on Google+ and 0.7% discussed in mainstream media. By contrast, 66.8% of papers have received at least one citation. Our findings show that both citations and social media metrics increase with the extent of collaboration and the length of the references list. On the other hand, while editorials and news items are seldom cited, it is these types of document that are the most popular on Twitter. Similarly, while longer papers typically attract more citations, an opposite trend is seen on social media platforms. Finally, contrary to what is observed for citations, it is papers in the Social Sciences and humanities that are the most often found on social media platforms. On the whole, these findings suggest that factors driving social media and citations are different. Therefore, social media metrics cannot actually be seen as alternatives to citations; at most, they may function as complements to other type of indicators. »

URL : Characterizing Social Media Metrics of Scholarly Papers

DOI : 10.1371/journal.pone.0120495

Non classé

The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

« Low reproducibility rates within life science research undermine cumulative knowledge production and contribute to both delays and costs of therapeutic drug development. An analysis of past studies indicates that the cumulative (total) prevalence of irreproducible preclinical research exceeds 50%, resulting in approximately US$28,000,000,000 (US$28B)/year spent on preclinical research that is not reproducible—in the United States alone. We outline a framework for solutions and a plan for long-term improvements in reproducibility rates that will help to accelerate the discovery of life-saving therapies and cures. »

URL : The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research

DOI : 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165

Non classé

The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

« The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers’ high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as well as its evolution over time and across various disciplines, has not yet been analyzed. This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers). NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics. The paper also examines the migration of journals between small and big publishing houses and explores the effect of publisher change on citation impact. It concludes with a discussion on the economics of scholarly publishing. »

URL : The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era

DOI :10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

Non classé

Open Access Target Validation Is a More Efficient Way to Accelerate Drug Discovery

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

« There is a scarcity of novel treatments to address many unmet medical needs. Industry and academia are finally coming to terms with the fact that the prevalent models and incentives for innovation in early stage drug discovery are failing to promote progress quickly enough. Here we will examine how an open model of precompetitive public–private research partnership is enabling efficient derisking and acceleration in the early stages of drug discovery, whilst also widening the range of communities participating in the process, such as patient and disease foundations. »

URL : Open Access Target Validation Is a More Efficient Way to Accelerate Drug Discover

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002164

Non classé

E-book publishing in Lithuania: the publisher‘s perspective

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

« Introduction. The aim of the research was to increase understanding of the state of e-book production in Lithuania and collect the data about the opinions of publishers regarding the future of e-books in the country.

Method. A review of similar surveys in other countries was carried out and the research method was based on Winston’s model of innovation diffusion. The questionnaire to publishers was prepared using the models of book publishing and distribution or book circuit developed by Murray and Squires. Data were collected by surveying respondents using paper and online questionnaires.

Analysis. A quantitative descriptive statistical analysis was carried out, while open questions were analysed qualitatively looking for emerging topics.

Results. More than half of active Lithuanian publishers completed the survey. Thirty per cent of those who answered the questionnaire publish e-books, but only six publishers had published a significant number of titles. The overall perception of other actors of the book market, such as libraries, book-sellers and self-publishing authors and others is positive. They are not regarded as a threat. The publishers do not expect rapid and significant growth of e-book market in Lithuania in the near future.

Conclusions. The biggest hindrance to growth is a small size of the market and the lack of an export market for Lithuanian e-books. The demand of users for portable and convenient format and the use of new technologies in the educational system are the two biggest drivers in the development of e-book production. The user preference for traditional printed book is seen as one of the barriers for further development. Lithuanian publishers regard the market of e-books as rather uncertain and do not risk high investments in it. »

URL : http://www.informationr.net/ir/20-2/paper672.html

Non classé

Social construction of knowledge in Wikipedia

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

« This paper investigates how knowledge is constructed collaboratively in a crowd-sourced environment. More specifically, the study presented in this paper empirically analyzes online discussions in regard to Wikipedia entries on the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Disaster that occurred in March 2011 in Japan. For this study, we examined the encyclopedia articles in both the English and Japanese versions of Wikipedia. The findings indicate similarities and differences between the two language versions. The implications of the study for collaborative knowledge production are also discussed. »

URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i6.5869

Non classé

E-books: Histories, trajectories, futures

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

« This essay traces the historical trajectory of e-books in the U.S. and imagines their possible futures. Legal, economic, and technical developments that led to contemporary e-books reveal a tension between commercial and non-commercial programming. Commercial e-book designs control end uses, reduce production and distribution costs, stimulate consumption, and monitor user behaviors; however, alternative producers and users on the periphery continue to challenge these centralizing tendencies. »

URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i6.5641