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#
Authors : Kathleen Gregory, Paul Groth, Helena Cousijn, Andrea Scharnhorst, Sally Wyatt
A cross‐disciplinary examination of the user behaviors involved in seeking and evaluating data is surprisingly absent from the research data discussion. This review explores the data retrieval literature to identify commonalities in how users search for and evaluate observational research data in selected disciplines.
Two analytical frameworks, rooted in information retrieval and science and technology studies, are used to identify key similarities in practices as a first step toward developing a model describing data retrieval.
URL : Searching Data: A Review of Observational Data Retrieval Practices in Selected Disciplines
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24165
Authors : Carol Tenopir, Lisa Christian, Jordan Kaufman
While journal articles are still considered the most important sources of scholarly reading, libraries may no longer have a monopoly on providing discovery and access. Many other sources of scholarly information are available to readers.
This international study examines how researchers discover, read, and use scholarly literature for their work. Respondents in 2018 report an average of almost 20 article readings a month and there are still significant differences found in the reading and use of scholarly literature by discipline and geographical location, consistent with the earlier studies.
Researchers show they are willing to change or adopt new strategies to discover and obtain articles.
URL : Seeking, Reading, and Use of Scholarly Articles: An International Study of Perceptions and Behavior of Researchers
Alternative location : https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/1/18
Authors : Gregory S. Patience, Federico Galli, Paul A. Patience, Daria C. Boffito
Authorship is the currency of an academic career for which the number of papers researchers publish demonstrates creativity, productivity, and impact. To discourage coercive authorship practices and inflated publication records, journals require authors to affirm and detail their intellectual contributions but this strategy has been unsuccessful as authorship lists continue to grow.
Here, we surveyed close to 6000 of the top cited authors in all science categories with a list of 25 research activities that we adapted from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) authorship guidelines.
Responses varied widely from individuals in the same discipline, same level of experience, and same geographic region. Most researchers agreed with the NIH criteria and grant authorship to individuals who draft the manuscript, analyze and interpret data, and propose ideas.
However, thousands of the researchers also value supervision and contributing comments to the manuscript, whereas the NIH recommends discounting these activities when attributing authorship.
People value the minutiae of research beyond writing and data reduction: researchers in the humanities value it less than those in pure and applied sciences; individuals from Far East Asia and Middle East and Northern Africa value these activities more than anglophones and northern Europeans.
While developing national and international collaborations, researchers must recognize differences in peoples values while assigning authorship.
URL : Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198117