Preliminary survey of leading general medicine journals’ use…

Preliminary survey of leading general medicine journals’ use of Facebook and Twitter :

Aim: This study is the first to chart the use of Facebook and Twitter by peer-reviewed medical journals.

Methods: We selected the top 25 general medicine journals on the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report (JCR) list. We surveyed their Facebook and Twitter presences and scanned their Web sites for any Facebook and (or) Twitter features as of November 2011.

Results/Discussion: 20 of 25 journals had some sort of Facebook presence, with 11 also having a Twitter presence. Total ‘Likes’ across all of the Facebook pages for journals with a Facebook presence were 321,997, of which 259, 902 came from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) alone. The total numbers of Twitter ‘Followers’ were smaller by comparison when compiled across all surveyed journals. ‘Likes’ and ‘Followers’ are not the equivalents of total accesses but provide some proxy measure for impact and popularity. Those journals in our sample making best use of the open sharing nature of social media are closed-access; with the leading open access journals on the list lagging behind by comparison. We offer a partial interpretation for this and discuss other findings of our survey, provide some recommendations to journals wanting to use social media, and finally present some future research directions.

Conclusions: Journals should not underestimate the potential of social media as a powerful means of reaching out to their readership.”

URL : http://pubs.chla-absc.ca/doi/full/10.5596/c2012-010

The impact of open access journals on library and information scientists’ research in Taiwan

“As some library and information science (LIS) journals in Taiwan are open access, the aim of the study is to investigate what, if any, impact open access journals have on library and information science scholars‘ research in Taiwan. Therefore, the objectives of the study is to explore the scholarly productivity of LIS scholars in Taiwan, to find out what articles they publish and OA articles as a percentage of all titles, and to calculate the mean citation rate of open access articles and articles not freely available online. A bibliometric method was used in the study. To determine whether a difference in research impact existed, two research impact indicators were used, that is, open access articles as a percentage of all published titles and mean citation rate of open access articles and those not freely available online. Data on published articles with citation counts by the LIS scholars in Taiwan from 2000 to 2009 was collected from the ACI Database and Social Science Citation Index Database. The study shows that for 72 LIS scholars who were subjects of the investigation, 64 of them had published 745 articles within the previous ten years: 679 articles in Chinese and 66 articles in English; 499 of these were OA articles, and 264 were non-OA articles; OA articles constituted 66.98% of the total number of academic articles. The mean citation rate of OA versus non-OA article citation was 1.29.Analysis of impact indicators shows that open access journals have an impact on the research of LIS scholars in Taiwan, in particular, LIS OA journals have more research impact in Chinese than those in English.”

URL : http://eprints.ptar.uitm.edu.my/3624/

Sciences com libre accès et science ouverte Introduction…

Sciences.com — libre accès et science ouverte. Introduction :

“Confrontée au développement des réseaux électroniques, l’édition scientifique mue, mute, résiste ; nourris au lait d’Internet, les chercheurs tergiversent au moment d’y diffuser leurs productions; garantes du bien public, les institutions normalisent, s’interrogent, expérimentent. La mutation est profonde, et trouve des répercussions non seulement dans la circulation des connaissances, mais aussi dans la propriété intellectuelle et la notion d’auteur ou les conditions de publication… En quelques années, la diffusion des savoirs sur Internet et en particulier l'”open access” a changé les termes du débat. L’édition scientifique était un petit monde policé et local; aujourd’hui, c’est un marché global et un théâtre de guerre économique. Le nombre de scientifiques a explosé, les revues scientifiques se sont multipliées, les budgets explosent, et l’idéologie du “Publish or perish” domine. En parallèle, des intermédiaires du savoir, tels les sites commerciaux Cairn ou Science Direct, prennent une assise nouvelle et cherchent le meilleur modèle économique et cognitif. Les chercheurs sont placés face à une injonction paradoxale : d’une part publier, publier de plus en plus, dans des revues cotées, des revues de plus en plus mesurées, étalonnées, hiérarchisées, mais payantes et privées ; d’autre part, rendre public, diffuser au plus grand nombre, mettre en ligne le plus vite possible, librement et sans droit d’accès. Dans cette introduction au numéro spécial intitulé “Sciences.com”, les auteurs s’intéressent, dans une perspective résolument pluridisciplinaire, aux différents questions que pose cette ” science ouverte ” avec toutes ses formes de mises à disposition des connaissances produites par des scientifiques : revues gratuites, mises en ligne des publications par les institutions, modèle auteur-payeur, archives en libre accès, bibliothèques numériques ouvertes…”

URL : http://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_00586590/fr/

E-only scholarly journals: overcoming th…

E-only scholarly journals: overcoming the barriers :

“In recent years, publishers, librarians and academics have seized the opportunities offered by the electronic publication of scholarly journals. Despite the popularity of e-journals, however, content continues to be published, acquired and used in physical printed form. In the UK, we are still some way from a wholly electronic journal environment. This study is prompted by a concern from publishers and librarians that the retention of both printed and e-journal formats adds unnecessary costs throughout the supply chain from publisher to library to user. In view of the many advantages of electronic journals, this report sets out to understand the barriers to a move to e-only provision of scholarly journals in the UK, and to investigate what various players within the scholarly communications system could do in order to encourage such a move.”

URL : http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/E-only_report_for_screen.pdf