Veille dédiée aux Sciences de l'Information et des Bibliothèques // Collecting and Sharing research papers in Library and Information science ISSN 2429-3938
Authors : Tobias Blanke, Andrew Prescott
This book chapter attempts to counter anxieties in the humanities and social science about the role of big data in research by focusing on approaches which, by being firmly grounded in the traditional values of disciplines, enhance existing methods to produce fruitful research.
Big data poses many methodological challenges, but these pressures should prompt scholars to pay much closer attention to methodological issues than they have in the past.
Auteur/author : Thomas Violet
L’environnement culturel, institutionnel, économique et technologique en mutation incite les bibliothèques à produire un rapport annuel d’activité afin de disposer d’un document de référence et de promouvoir leurs activités.
Si elles possèdent depuis longtemps une tradition de collecte des données d’activité, basée sur les différentes enquêtes ministérielles, elle ne produisent pas toutes un document synthétique autonome.
À la croisée des problématiques d’évaluation et de communication, les différentes pratiques des bibliothèques françaises éclairent les possibilités et enjeux d’un tel document, ses objectifs, les difficultés de sa fabrication ainsi que son circuit de diffusion.
URL : Produire un rapport d’activité : Pourquoi ? Comment ?
Alternative location : http://www.enssib.fr/bibliotheque-numerique/notices/66455-produire-un-rapport-d-activite-pourquoi-comment
Authors : Sonja Milovanovic, Jovana Stojanovic, Ljupcho Efremov, Rosarita Amore, Stefania Boccia
Along with the proliferation of Open Access (OA) publishing, the interest for comparing the scientific quality of studies published in OA journals versus subscription journals has also increased.
With our study we aimed to compare the methodological quality and the quality of reporting of primary epidemiological studies and systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals.
In order to identify the studies to appraise, we listed all OA and non-OA journals which published in 2013 at least one primary epidemiologic study (case-control or cohort study design), and at least one systematic review or meta-analysis in the field of oncology.
For the appraisal, we picked up the first studies published in 2013 with case-control or cohort study design from OA journals (Group A; n = 12), and in the same time period from non-OA journals (Group B; n = 26); the first systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in 2013 from OA journals (Group C; n = 15), and in the same time period from non-OA journals (Group D; n = 32).
We evaluated the methodological quality of studies by assessing the compliance of case-control and cohort studies to Newcastle and Ottawa Scale (NOS) scale, and the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scale.
The quality of reporting was assessed considering the adherence of case-control and cohort studies to STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist, and the adherence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist.
Among case-control and cohort studies published in OA and non-OA journals, we did not observe significant differences in the median value of NOS score (Group A: 7 (IQR 7–8) versus Group B: 8 (7–9); p = 0.5) and in the adherence to STROBE checklist (Group A, 75% versus Group B, 80%; p = 0.1).
The results did not change after adjustment for impact factor. The compliance with AMSTAR and adherence to PRISMA checklist were comparable between systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals (Group C, 46.0% versus Group D, 55.0%; p = 0.06), (Group C, 72.0% versus Group D, 76.0%; p = 0.1), respectively).
The epidemiological studies published in OA journals in the field of oncology approach the same methodological quality and quality of reporting as studies published in non-OA journal.
Auteur/Author : Marie-France Lebouc, Anne Chartier
Professeures dans une école de gestion, nous menons, depuis des années, un dialogue réflexif sur nos pratiques de recherche et de publication. La gestion est un domaine de plus en plus populaire et où la concurrence entre écoles s’exacerbe.
Les gestionnaires et les chercheurs des écoles de gestion ressentent un besoin stratégique d’excellence et de bonne réputation, ce qui passe, bien sûr, par la publication. Comment les contraintes actuelles de publication pèsent-elles sur nous, les chercheurs ? Quels savoirs produisons-nous dorénavant et pour qui ?
Nous tenterons de répondre à partir d’un examen de nos propres pratiques. Notamment, nous verrons que des barrières empêchent l’accès à ces savoirs. Comment sortir de ces problèmes ?
Toujours à partir de notre compréhension personnelle de l’intériorisation et de l’institutionnalisation des contraintes de publication, nous émettrons une opinion plutôt pessimiste sur les chances de l’accès libre de libérer la circulation des savoirs en sciences de gestion.
Authors : Bo-Christer Björk, Cenyu Shen, Mikael Laakso
Open Access (OA) is nowadays increasingly being used as a business model for the publishing of scholarly peer reviewed journals, both by specialized OA publishing companies and major, predominantly subscription-based publishers.
However, in the early days of the web OA journals were mainly founded by independent academics, who were dissatisfied with the predominant print and subscription paradigm and wanted to test the opportunities offered by the new medium.
There is still an on-going debate about how OA journals should be operated, and the volunteer model used by many such ‘indie’ journals has been proposed as a viable alternative to the model adopted by big professional publishers where publishing activities are funded by authors paying expensive article processing charges (APCs).
Our longitudinal quantitative study of 250 ‘indie’ OA journals founded prior to 2002, showed that 51% of these journals were still in operation in 2014 and that the median number of articles published per year had risen from 11 to 18 among the survivors.
Of these surviving journals, only 8% had started collecting APCs. A more detailed qualitative case study of five such journals provided insights into how such journals have tried to ensure the continuity and longevity of operations.
URL : A longitudinal study of independent scholar-published open access journals
Author : Yi Shen
This paper presents the results of a research data assessment and landscape study in the institutional context of Virginia Tech to determine the data sharing and reuse practices of academic faculty researchers.
Through mapping the level of user engagement in “openness of data,” “openness of methodologies and workflows,” and “reuse of existing data,” this study contributes to the current knowledge in data sharing and open access, and supports the strategic development of institutional data stewardship.
Asking faculty researchers to self-reflect sharing and reuse from both data producers’ and data users’ perspectives, the study reveals a significant gap between the rather limited sharing activities and the highly perceived reuse or repurpose values regarding data, indicating that potential values of data for future research are lost right after the original work is done.
The localized and sporadic data management and documentation practices of researchers also contribute to the obstacles they themselves often encounter when reusing existing data.
Alternative location : http://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/10.2.157
Author: Deborah H. Charbonneau, Joan E. Beaudoin
This article reports the results of a study examining the state of data guidance provided to authors by 50 oncology journals. The purpose of the study was the identification of data practices addressed in the journals’ policies.
While a number of studies have examined data sharing practices among researchers, little is known about how journals address data sharing. Thus, what was discovered through this study has practical implications for journal publishers, editors, and researchers.
The findings indicate that journal publishers should provide more meaningful and comprehensive data guidance to prospective authors. More specifically, journal policies requiring data sharing, should direct researchers to relevant data repositories, and offer better metadata consultation to strengthen existing journal policies.
By providing adequate guidance for authors, and helping investigators to meet data sharing mandates, scholarly journal publishers can play a vital role in advancing access to research data.
URL : State of Data Guidance in Journal Policies: A Case Study in Oncology
Alternative location : http://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/10.2.136