Auteurs/Authors : Léa Mosnier, Françoise Acquier, Véronique Dom
Afin de mettre en place une politique de gestion des données du laboratoire AAU, une enquête a été menée au sein des deux équipes (CRENAU et CRESSON), permettant ainsi d’amorcer un plan de sensibilisation à la question des données de la recherche.
Inspirées des enquêtes effectuées auprès des chercheurs et doctorants des Universités de Lille, Rennes, Bordeaux et Bruxelles, les questionnaires ont été adaptés aux données collectées et traitées dans un laboratoire de recherche architecturale et urbaine, fortement interdisciplinaire.
Open science, diffusion et archivage en open access, gestion des données de recherche ; c’est cet immense mur de thématiques qui se dresse devant les chercheurs. Pour la plupart, ces enjeux sont les fruits de lentes, mais sûres transformations de la recherche vers une forme toujours plus collaborative et axée sur les données.
De plus, les chercheurs doivent faire face à une compétitivité toujours plus féroce où le nerf de la guerre réside dans la capacité à sécuriser des financements. Or, dans la continuité du foisonnement des nouveaux enjeux, les bailleurs de fonds durcissent leurs exigences d’année en année.
Pris en tenaille entre leurs responsabilités et un temps limité, les chercheurs sont souvent débordés et désarmés pour faire face à tous ces aspects. Pourtant, les chercheurs possèdent des alliés de taille autour d’eux qui peuvent les épauler sur ces divers sujets : les services institutionnels.
Synthèse d’un travail de master réalisé sur mandat de la Haute école de travail social de Genève (HETS-GE), le présent article se propose d’explorer la notion de soutien à la recherche dans un premier temps à travers la définition de ce concept et de ces enjeux, couplée à une brève revue de la littérature spécialisée.
Celle-ci est ensuite complétée par les éléments marquants d’entretiens individuels et de focus groups menés sur le terrain qui ont permis de dresser un tour d’horizon de la situation actuelle du soutien à la recherche à la HETS-GE.
La combinaison de ces deux types de données a mené à la formulation de propositions ancrées dans le contexte de la HETS-GE. Ces propositions se veulent toutefois applicables aux institutions préoccupées par les enjeux actuels de la recherche, et par les manières d’embrasser les transformations résultantes, afin de pouvoir faire évoluer l’offre de services et d’assurer un soutien adéquat et pérenne à la communauté de recherche.
Authors : Drahomira Herrmannova, Nancy Pontika, Petr Knoth
Recent years have seen fast growth in the number of policies mandating Open Access (OA) to research outputs.
We conduct a large-scale analysis of over 800 thousand papers from repositories around the world published over a period of 5 years to investigate: a) if the time lag between the date of publication and date of deposit in a repository can be effectively tracked across thousands of repositories globally, and b) if introducing deposit deadlines is associated with a reduction of time from acceptance to open public availability of research outputs.
We show that after the introduction of the UK REF 2021 OA policy, this time lag has decreased significantly in the UK and that the policy introduction might have accelerated the UK’s move towards immediate OA compared to other countries.
This supports the argument for the inclusion of a time-limited deposit requirement in OA policies.
Authors : David Nicholas, Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo, Jie Xu, Anthony Watkinson, Abdullah Abrizah, Eti Herman, Marzena Świgon
This article presents findings from the first year of the Harbingers research project started in 2015. The project is a 3-year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs) to ascertain their current and changing habits with regard to information searching, use, sharing, and publication.
The study recruited 116 researchers from seven countries (UK, USA, China, France, Malaysia, Poland, and Spain) and performed in-depth interviews by telephone, Skype, or face-to-face to discover behaviours and opinions.
This paper reports on findings regarding discovery and access to scholarly information. Findings confirm the universal popularity of Google/Google Scholar. Library platforms and web-scale discovery services are largely unmentioned and unnoticed by this user community, although many ECRs pass through them unknowingly on the way to authenticated use of their other preferred sources, such as Web of Science.
ECRs are conscious of the benefits of open access in delivering free access to papers. Social media are widely used as a source of discovering scholarly information. ResearchGate is popular and on the rise in all countries surveyed. Smartphones have become a regularly used platform on which to perform quick and occasional searches for scholarly information but are only rarely used for reading full text.
“Key Findings :
••The role of internet search engines in facilitating discovery of scholarly resources has continued to increase. The perceived decline in the role of the library catalog noted in previous cycles of this survey has been arrested and even modestly reversed, driven perhaps to some degree by significant strategic shifts in library discovery tools and services.
•• Respondents are generally satisfied with their ability to access the scholarly literature, not least because freely available materials have come to play a significant role in meeting their needs.
•• While respondents continued to trend overall towards greater acceptance of a print to electronic transition for scholarly journals, they grew modestly less comfortable with replacing print subscriptions with electronic access. Monographs, although widely used in electronic form, present a mixed picture for any possible format transition. While some monograph use cases are quite strong for electronic versions, others – especially long-form reading – are seen to favor print by a decisive share. Even so, a growing share of respondents expects substantial change in library collecting practices for monographs in the next five years.
•• Respondents’ personal interests are the primary factor in selecting research topics, but junior faculty members report that tenure considerations play an important role, as well. Collaboration models vary significantly across scholarly fields. While humanists are less likely than scientists or social scientists
to conduct quantitative analyses, nevertheless some 25% of humanists report gathering their own data for this purpose.
•• Small but non-trivial shares of respondents use technology in their undergraduate teaching. But while most recognize the availability of resources to help them do so, many respondents do not draw upon resources beyond their own ideas or feel strongly motivated to seek out opportunities to use more technology in their teaching.
•• Respondents tend to value established scholarly dissemination methods, prioritizing audiences in their sub-discipline and discipline, and those of lay professionals, more so than undergraduates or the general public. Similarly, they continue to select journals in which to publish based on characteristics such as topical coverage, readership, and impact factor. Finally, respondents tend to value existing publisher services, such as peer review, branding, copy-editing, while expressing less widespread agreement about the value of newer dissemination support services offered by libraries that are intended to maximize access and impact.
•• Respondents perceive less value from many functions of the academic library than they did in the last cycle of this survey. One notable exception is the gateway function, which experienced a modest resurgence in perceived value. A minority of respondents sees the library as primarily responsible for teaching research skills to undergraduates. And, though still a clear minority, the share of respondents who wish to see substantial change to library staff and buildings has increased. There are large differences in perceptions between disciplinary groups: for example, a smaller share of scientists views many
library roles as very important.
•• Conferences remain at the heart of respondents’ perceptions of the role and value of the scholarly societies in which they participate. Conferences are valued for both the formal function of discovering new scholarship and informal role of connecting scholars with peers.”
A Scienceographic Comparison of Physics Papers from the arXiv and viXra Archives :
“arXiv is an e-print repository of papers in physics, computer science, and biology, amongst others. viXra is a newer repository of e-prints on similar topics. Scienceography is the study of the writing of science. In this work we perform a scienceographic comparison of a selection of papers from the physics section of each archive. We provide the first study of the viXra archive and describe key differences on how science is written by these communities.”
Analysis and visualization of the dynamics of research groups in terms of projects and co-authored publications. A case study of library and information science in Argentina :
“Objective: The present study offers a novel methodological contribution to the study of the configuration and dynamics of research groups, through a comparative perspective of the projects funded (inputs) and publication co-authorships (output).
Method: A combination of bibliometric techniques and social network analysis was applied to a case study: the Departmento de Bibliotecología (DHUBI), Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina, for the period 2000-2009. The results were interpreted statistically and staff members of the department, were interviewed.
Results: The method makes it possible to distinguish groups, identify their members and reflect group make-up through an analytical strategy that involves the categorization of actors and the interdisciplinary and national or international projection of the networks that they configure. The integration of these two aspects (input and output) at different points in time over the analyzed period leads to inferences about group profiles and the roles of actors.
Conclusions: The methodology presented is conducive to micro-level interpretations in a given area of study, regarding individual researchers or research groups. Because the comparative input-output analysis broadens the base of information and makes it possible to follow up, over time, individual and group trends, it may prove very useful for the management, promotion and evaluation of science.”