Archives des auteurs : Hans Dillaerts

Le partage de quels savoirs ? Les articles Wikipédia comme objets-frontières

Posté le par

Auteurs : Maude Gauthier, Kim Sawchuk

Wikipédia se présente comme un projet d’encyclopédie collective, un espace auquel chacun peut contribuer dans la mesure où ses principes fondateurs et ses règles sont respectés.

Dans cet article, nous réfléchissons à notre intégration et à notre contribution aux communautés éditoriales de Wikipédia. Nous avons modifié et créé une série d’articles Wikipédia reliés à la thématique du vieillissement afin qu’ils incluent les études critiques et culturelles du vieillissement.

Le partage en ligne de ce type de connaissances nous semble important, voire nécessaire, puisque ces études restent souvent sous-représentées en dehors des milieux universitaires. Remarquant de telles lacunes dans Wikipédia, nous avons saisi l’occasion de contribuer à ce commun des connaissances et d’étudier les questions de gouvernance qui ont émergé au fil de nos contributions.

Au-delà d’un exercice de vulgarisation, notre excursion dans le monde de Wikipédia nous a permis de constater que certaines entrées agissent comme des objets-frontières, des lieux de contestation entre différentes communautés de pratiques.

Pour élaborer notre propos, nous nous concentrons sur deux cas, celui du Centre for Women, Ageing and Media dans Wikipédia en anglais et celui de Technologies et vieillissementdans Wikipédia en français.

URL : Le partage de quels savoirs ? Les articles Wikipédia comme objets-frontières

Alternative location : http://journals.openedition.org/ticetsociete/2408

Une introduction aux communs de la connaissance

Posté le par

Auteur/Author : Hervé Le Crosnier

Nous proposons une introduction aux communs de la connaissance qui s’appuie sur une tentative de définir les communs eux-mêmes, pour évaluer ensuite ce qui s’y rapporte dans les domaines intangibles du savoir et du numérique.

Il apparaît difficile d’avoir une définition canonique des communs. Malgré un corpus scientifique en augmentation rapide, il subsiste des approches différentes selon les pays, les régions, les cultures…

Mais cela est certainement un bienfait : les communs sont avant tout le résultat d’une expérience vécue. L’article présente différentes approches des communs, à la fois dans les débats théoriques et dans les pratiques des mouvements associés au partage de ressources.

Il documente le passage d’une théorie appliquée à des ressources localisées vers des pratiques coopératives élargies grâce au numérique.

URL : Une introduction aux communs de la connaissance

Alternative location : http://journals.openedition.org/ticetsociete/2481

Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015

Posté le par

Authors : Colin F. Camerer, Anna Dreber, Felix Holzmeister, Teck-Hua Ho, Jürgen Huber, Magnus Johannesson, Michael Kirchler, Gideon Nave, Brian Nosek, Thomas Pfeiffer, Adam Altmejd, Nick Buttrick, Taizan Chan, Yiling Chen, Eskil Forsell, Anup Gampa, Emma Heikensten, Lily Hummer, Taisuke Imai, Siri Isaksson, Dylan Manfredi, Julia Rose, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Hang Wu

Being able to replicate scientific findings is crucial for scientific progress. We replicate 21 systematically selected experimental studies in the social sciences published in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015.

The replications follow analysis plans reviewed by the original authors and pre-registered prior to the replications. The replications are high powered, with sample sizes on average about five times higher than in the original studies.

We find a significant effect in the same direction as the original study for 13 (62%) studies, and the effect size of the replications is on average about 50% of the original effect size. Replicability varies between 12 (57%) and 14 (67%) studies for complementary replicability indicators.

Consistent with these results, the estimated true positive rate is 67% in a Bayesian analysis. The relative effect size of true positives is estimated to be 71%, suggesting that both false positives and inflated effect sizes of true positives contribute to imperfect reproducibility.

Furthermore, we find that peer beliefs of replicability are strongly related to replicability, suggesting that the research community could predict which results would replicate and that failures to replicate were not the result of chance alone.

URL : Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z

Reproducible data citations for computational research

Posté le par

Author : Christian Schulz

The general purpose of a scientific publication is the exchange and spread of knowledge. A publication usually reports a scientific result and tries to convince the reader that it is valid.

With an ever-growing number of papers relying on computational methods that make use of large quantities of data and sophisticated statistical modeling techniques, a textual description of the result is often not enough for a publication to be transparent and reproducible.

While there are efforts to encourage sharing of code and data, we currently lack conventions for linking data sources to a computational result that is stated in the main publication text or used to generate a figure or table.

Thus, here I propose a data citation format that allows for an automatic reproduction of all computations. A data citation consists of a descriptor that refers to the functional program code and the input that generated the result.

The input itself may be a set of other data citations, such that all data transformations, from the original data sources to the final result, are transparently expressed by a directed graph.

Functions can be implemented in a variety of programming languages since data sources are expected to be stored in open and standardized text-based file formats.

A publication is then an online file repository consisting of a Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) document and additional data and code source files, together with a summarization of all data sources, similar to a list of references in a bibliography.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07541

The rent’s too high: Self-archive for fair online publication costs

Posté le par

Authors : Robert T. Thibault, Amanda MacPherson, Stevan Harnad, Amir Raz

The main contributors of scientific knowledge, researchers, generally aim to disseminate their findings far and wide. And yet, publishing companies have largely kept these findings behind a paywall.

With digital publication technology markedly reducing cost, this enduring wall seems disproportionate and unjustified; moreover, it has sparked a topical exchange concerning how to modernize academic publishing.

This discussion, however, seems to focus on how to compensate major publishers for providing open access through a “pay to publish” model, in turn transferring financial burdens from libraries to authors and their funders.

Large publishing companies, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, PLoS, and Frontiers, continue to earn exorbitant revenues each year, hundreds of millions of dollars of which now come from processing charges for open-access articles.

A less expensive and equally accessible alternative exists: widespread self-archiving of peer-reviewed articles. All we need is awareness of this alternative and the will to employ it.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.06130

Towards a culture of open science and data sharing in health and medical research

Posté le par

Author : Anisa Rowhani-Farid

This thesis investigated the factors that contribute to the cultural shift towards open science and data sharing in health and medical research, with a focus on the role health and medical journals play.

The findings of this research demonstrate that journal data sharing policies are not effective and that journals do not currently provide incentives for sharing.

This study contributed to the movement towards more reproducible research by providing empirical evidence for the strengthening of journal data sharing policies and the adoption of an incentive for open research.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5204/thesis.eprints.119697

How open is open access research in Library and Information Science?

Posté le par

Authors : Wanyenda Leonard Chilimo, Omwoyo Bosire Onyancha

The study investigates Library and Information Science (LIS) journals that published research articles between 2003 and 2013, which were about open access (OA) and were indexed in LIS databases.

The purpose was to investigate the journals’ OA policies, ascertain the degree to which these policies facilitate OA to publications, and investigate whether such texts are also available as OA. The results show that literature growth in the domain has been significant, with a total of 1,402 articles produced during the eleven years under study.

The OA policies of the fifty-six journals that published the highest number of articles were analysed. The results show that most articles (404; 41%) were published in hybrid journals, whereas 272 (29.7%) appeared in OA journals.

Some 143 (53%) of the articles published in hybrid journals were available as green OA copies. In total, 602 (66%) of all the articles published were available as OA.

The results show that the adoption of OA for research articles on that very subject is somewhat higher than in other fields. The study calls on LIS professionals to be conversant with the OA policies of the various journals that may publish their research.

URL : How open is open access research in Library and Information Science?

Alternative location : http://sajlis.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/1710