Archives des auteurs : Hans Dillaerts

Big deals et open access: quelle stratégie numérique pour les bibliothèques universitaires ?

Posté le par

Auteur/Author : Isabelle Bizos

Le marché mondial de l’édition scientifique tend à se concentrer et à se développer sous la forme de monopoles anticoncurrentiels. Les coûts d’acquisitions des ressources électroniques s’envolent et les bibliothèques universitaires ne peuvent plus durablement soutenir ces augmentations exponentielles.

Fondé sur le fonctionnement de la recherche et en particulier sur le système d’évaluation des productions scientifiques, l’écosystème de l’information scientifique et technique est pris dans un cercle vicieux.

La révolution de la science ouverte et l’évolution des cadres législatifs des états bousculent les modèles économiques et deviennent un espoir pour faciliter la diffusion de l’information avec cependant des risques avérés aussi bien financiers qu’en matière de signalement et de conservation.

Les bibliothèques universitaires s’organisent et s’évaluent pour faire face aux défis de la diffusion de la documentation électronique. Elles sont au coeur des stratégies numériques des établissements de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche.

URL : Big deals et open access: quelle stratégie numérique pour les bibliothèques universitaires ?

Original location : https://www.enssib.fr/bibliotheque-numerique/notices/69602-big-deals-et-open-access-quelle-strategie-numerique-pour-les-bibliotheques-universitaires

 

Models for Engaging Liaisons in Research Data Services

Posté le par

Authors : Megan Sapp Nelson, Abigail Goben

Research data services in academic libraries is often perceived as the purview of liaison librarians. A variety of models has emerged by which these services may be developed or implemented.

These include hierarchical models and those based more on individual interest. Of critical importance with any model, however, is the identification of support and opportunities for engagement from library administration and management in order to grow and assess the implementation of research data services.

URL : Models for Engaging Liaisons in Research Data Services

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2382

Revealing Reviewers’ Identities as Part of Open Peer Review and Analysis of the Review Reports

Posté le par

Authors :  Cezary Bolek, Dejan Marolov, Monika Bolek, Jovan Shopovski

This research article is aimed at comparing review reports, in which the identity of the reviewers is revealed to the authors of the papers, with those where the reviewers decided to remain anonymous.

The review reports are gathered as part of the peer review process of the European Scientific Journal (ESJ). This journal maintains a single-blind peer review procedure and optional open review. Reviewers are familiar with the names of the authors but not vice versa. When sending the review reports, the reviewers can opt to reveal their identity to the authors.

The sample of 343 review reports from members of the ESJ editorial board, gathered within the period of May to July 2019, were analysed. The data analysis was performed using the Python programing language based on NumPy, Pandas, and Scipy packages.

Half of the reviewers decided to choose the open option and reveal their names to the authors of the papers. The other half remained anonymous. The results show that female reviewers more often decide to remain anonymous than their male colleagues. However, there is no significant difference in the review reports on the basis of gender or country of institutional affiliation of the reviewers.

Revealing identities did not make a difference in the reviewers’ point appraisal in the review reports. This difference was not significant. However, a majority of the reviewers who recommended rejection in their review reports were not willing to reveal their identities.

Even more, those reviewers who revealed their identity were more likely to recommend in their review reports acceptance without revision or a minor revision.

URL : Revealing Reviewers’ Identities as Part of Open Peer Review and Analysis of the Review Reports

DOI : http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10347

Theoretical Aspects of Scholarly Publishing about the Internet in Spanish Communication Journals

Posté le par

Authors : Rainer Rubira-García, Silvia Margarita Baldiris-Navarro, Jacqueline Venet-Gutiérrez, Silvia Magro-Vela

Theoretical aspects of scholarly publishing about the Internet in communication sciences in Spain have received little attention. The present text analyses scientific framework, categories, concepts and keywords used in research, collected from the most relevant specialized Spanish journals in the field, as well as research objectives that are pursued in connection to communication levels of study and types of data.

A content analysis of a representative sample of 227 scientific articles was done in the five leading Spanish journals in communication in the period 1995–2015, in which the academic interesting on Internet as an object of study was consolidated.

The results show a predominance of descriptive theoretical frameworks and a hegemony of journalism as an academic reference. Nevertheless, there is an increase complexity out of the mass media field.

The research on the Internet in the communication field is presented as a reflexive opportunity to understand interdisciplinarity and the way this acquires epistemological consistence in the scientific discourse.

URL : Theoretical Aspects of Scholarly Publishing about the Internet in Spanish Communication Journals

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8030042

PRINCIPIA: a Decentralized Peer-Review Ecosystem

Posté le par

Authors : Andrea Mambrini, Andrea Baronchelli, Michele Starnini, Daniele Marinazzo, Manlio De Domenico

Peer review is a cornerstone of modern scientific endeavor. However, there is growing consensus that several limitations of the current peer review system, from lack of incentives to reviewers to lack of transparency, risks to undermine its benefits.

Here, we introduce the PRINCIPIA (http://www.principia.network/) framework for peer-review of scientific outputs (e.g., papers, grant proposals or patents).

The framework allows key players of the scientific ecosystem — including existing publishing groups — to create and manage peer-reviewed journals, by building a free market for reviews and publications. PRINCIPIA’s referees are transparently rewarded according to their efforts and the quality of their reviews.

PRINCIPIA also naturally allows to recognize the prestige of users and journals, with an intrinsic reputation system that does not depend on third-parties. PRINCIPIA re-balances the power between researchers and publishers, stimulates valuable assessments from referees, favors a fair competition between journals, and reduces the costs to access research output and to publish.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.09011

Digital Editions and Version Numbering

Posté le par

Author : Paul A. Broyles

Digital editions are easily modified after they are first published — a state of affairs that poses challenges both for long-term scholarly reference and for various forms of electronic distribution and analysis.

This article argues that producers of digital editions should assign meaningful version numbers to their editions and update those version numbers with each change, allowing both humans and computers to know when resources have been modified and how significant the changes are.

As an examination of versioning practices in the software industry reveals, version numbers are not neutral descriptors but social products intended for use in specific contexts, and the producers of digital editions must consider how version numbers will be used in developing numbering schemes.

It may be beneficial to version different parts of an edition separately, and in particular to version the data objects or content of an edition independently from the environment in which it is displayed.

The article concludes with a case study of the development of a versioning policy for the Piers Plowman Electronic Archive, and includes an appendix surveying how a selection of digital editions handle the problem of recording and communicating changes.

URL : http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/14/2/000455/000455.html

Research methodology and characteristics of journal articles with original data, preprint articles and registered clinical trial protocols about COVID-19

Posté le par

Authors : Mahir Fidahic, Danijela Nujic, Renata Runjic, Marta Civljak, Zvjezdana Lovric Makaric, Livia Puljak

Background

The research community reacted rapidly to the emergence of COVID-19. We aimed to assess characteristics of journal articles, preprint articles, and registered trial protocols about COVID-19 and its causal agent SARS-CoV-2.

Methods

We analyzed characteristics of journal articles with original data indexed by March 19, 2020, in World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 collection, articles published on preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv by April 3, 2010.

Additionally, we assessed characteristics of clinical trials indexed in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) by April 7, 2020.

Results

Among the first 2118 articles on COVID-19 published in scholarly journals, 533 (25%) contained original data. The majority was published by authors from China (75%) and funded by Chinese sponsors (75%); a quarter was published in the Chinese language.

Among 312 articles that self-reported study design, the most frequent were retrospective studies (N = 88; 28%) and case reports (N = 86; 28%), analyzing patients’ characteristics (38%). Median Journal Impact Factor of journals where articles were published was 5.099.

Among 1088 analyzed preprint articles, the majority came from authors affiliated in China (51%) and were funded by sources in China (46%). Less than half reported study design; the majority were modeling studies (62%), and analyzed transmission/risk/prevalence (43%).

Of the 927 analyzed registered trials, the majority were interventional (58%). Half were already recruiting participants. The location for the conduct of the trial in the majority was China (N = 522; 63%).

The median number of planned participants was 140 (range: 1 to 15,000,000). Registered intervention trials used highly heterogeneous primary outcomes and tested highly heterogeneous interventions; the most frequently studied interventions were hydroxychloroquine (N = 39; 7.2%) and chloroquine (N = 16; 3%).

Conclusions

Early articles on COVID-19 were predominantly retrospective case reports and modeling studies. The diversity of outcomes used in intervention trial protocols indicates the urgent need for defining a core outcome set for COVID-19 research.

Chinese scholars had a head start in reporting about the new disease, but publishing articles in Chinese may limit their global reach. Mapping publications with original data can help finding gaps that will help us respond better to the new public health emergency.

URL : Research methodology and characteristics of journal articles with original data, preprint articles and registered clinical trial protocols about COVID-19

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01047-2