Archives des auteurs : Hans Dillaerts

Humanités numériques & Sciences de l’information : ressemblance, complémentarité et développements mutualisés

Posté le par

Auteur/Author : Basma Makhlouf Shabou

Cet article examine la relation entre les humanités numériques et les sciences de l’information, discutant de leurs similarités et de leur complémentarité, et conclut avec des études de cas illustratives et des définitions de termes clés. Les deux disciplines sont liées à la technologie numérique, à l’information et aux objets culturels, au comportement humain et sont centrales à la gestion et l’analyse de données.

Les sciences de l’information sont responsables de la préparation des données et de leur gestion tout au long de leur cycle de vie, tandis que les humanités numériques ont un potentiel important dans l’utilisation des archives et des collections spéciales comme laboratoires de recherche.

L’article aborde également le rôle de l’automatisation et de l’intelligence artificielle dans le développement de techniques et de méthodes utilisées dans les humanités numériques. Il explore des études de cas inspirantes dans le monde des bibliothèques et des archives, mettant en évidence le rôle culturel et les relations interdisciplinaires et transdisciplinaires impliquées.

Les exemples comprennent des archives numériques dans le domaine artistique, des institutions nationales et des projets européens tels que la Bibliothèque européenne et Time Machine Europe, qui combinent les humanités numériques et les sciences de l’information.

L’article conclut en soulignant la relation interdisciplinaire et transdisciplinaire continue entre les humanités numériques et les sciences de l’information, ainsi que les défis et les développements futurs dans le domaine.

URL : Humanités numériques & Sciences de l’information : ressemblance, complémentarité et développements mutualisés

DOI : https://doi.org/10.34874/IMIST.PRSM/jis-v21i2.39204

Attending to the Cultures of Data Science Work

Posté le par

Author : Lindsay Poirier

This essay reflects on the shifting attention to the “social” and the “cultural” in data science communities. While recently the “social” and the “cultural” have been prioritized in data science discourse, social and cultural concerns that get raised in data science are almost always outwardly focused – applying to the communities that data scientists seek to support more so than more computationally-focused data science communities.

I argue that data science communities have a responsibility to attend not only to the cultures that orient the work of domain communities, but also to the cultures that orient their own work.

I describe how ethnographic frameworks such as thick description can be enlisted to encourage more reflexive data science work, and I conclude with recommendations for documenting the cultural provenance of data policy and infrastructure.

URL : Attending to the Cultures of Data Science Work

DOI : http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2023-006

Metrics and peer review agreement at the institutional level

Posté le par

Authors : Vincent A Traag, Marco Malgarini, Sarlo Scipione

In the past decades, many countries have started to fund academic institutions based on the evaluation of their scientific performance. In this context, post-publication peer review is often used to assess scientific performance. Bibliometric indicators have been suggested as an alternative to peer review.

A recurrent question in this context is whether peer review and metrics tend to yield similar outcomes. In this paper, we study the agreement between bibliometric indicators and peer review based on a sample of publications submitted for evaluation to the national Italian research assessment exercise (2011–2014).

In particular, we study the agreement between bibliometric indicators and peer review at a higher aggregation level, namely the institutional level. Additionally, we also quantify the internal agreement of peer review at the institutional level. We base our analysis on a hierarchical Bayesian model using cross-validation.

We find that the level of agreement is generally higher at the institutional level than at the publication level. Overall, the agreement between metrics and peer review is on par with the internal agreement among two reviewers for certain fields of science in this particular context.

This suggests that for some fields, bibliometric indicators may possibly be considered as an alternative to peer review for the Italian national research assessment exercise. Although results do not necessarily generalise to other contexts, it does raise the question whether similar findings would obtain for other research assessment exercises, such as in the United Kingdom.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.14830

Hybrid Gold Open Access Citation Advantage in Clinical Medicine: Analysis of Hybrid Journals in the Web of Science

Posté le par

Authors : Chompunuch Saravudecha, Duangruthai Na Thungfai, Chananthida Phasom, Sodsri Gunta-in, Aorrakanya Metha, Peangkobfah Punyaphet, Tippawan Sookruay, Wannachai Sakuludomkan, Nut Koonrungsesomboon

Biomedical fields have seen a remarkable increase in hybrid Gold open access articles. However, it is uncertain whether the hybrid Gold open access option contributes to a citation advantage, an increase in the citations of articles made immediately available as open access regardless of the article’s quality or whether it involves a trending topic of discussion.

This study aimed to compare the citation counts of hybrid Gold open access articles to subscription articles published in hybrid journals. The study aimed to ascertain if hybrid Gold open access publications yield an advantage in terms of citations.

This cross-sectional study included the list of hybrid journals under 59 categories in the ‘Clinical Medicine’ group from Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports (JCR) during 2018–2021. The number of citable items with ‘Gold Open Access’ and ‘Subscription and Free to Read’ in each journal, as well as the number of citations of those citable items, were extracted from JCR.

A hybrid Gold open access citation advantage was computed by dividing the number of citations per citable item with hybrid Gold open access by the number of citations per citable item with a subscription.

A total of 498, 636, 1009, and 1328 hybrid journals in the 2018 JCR, 2019 JCR, 2020 JCR, and 2021 JCR, respectively, were included in this study. The citation advantage of hybrid Gold open access articles over subscription articles in 2018 was 1.45 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.24–1.65); in 2019, it was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.20–1.41); in 2020, it was 1.30 (95% CI, 1.20–1.39); and in 2021, it was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.20–1.42).

In the ‘Clinical Medicine’ discipline, the articles published in the hybrid journal as hybrid Gold open access had a greater number of citations when compared to those published as a subscription, self-archived, or otherwise openly accessible option.

URL : Hybrid Gold Open Access Citation Advantage in Clinical Medicine: Analysis of Hybrid Journals in the Web of Science

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11020021

Biases in scholarly recommender systems: impact, prevalence, and mitigation

Posté le par

Authors : Michael Färber, Melissa Coutinho, Shuzhou Yuan

With the remarkable increase in the number of scientific entities such as publications, researchers, and scientific topics, and the associated information overload in science, academic recommender systems have become increasingly important for millions of researchers and science enthusiasts.

However, it is often overlooked that these systems are subject to various biases. In this article, we first break down the biases of academic recommender systems and characterize them according to their impact and prevalence. In doing so, we distinguish between biases originally caused by humans and biases induced by the recommender system.

Second, we provide an overview of methods that have been used to mitigate these biases in the scholarly domain.

Based on this, third, we present a framework that can be used by researchers and developers to mitigate biases in scholarly recommender systems and to evaluate recommender systems fairly.

Finally, we discuss open challenges and possible research directions related to scholarly biases.

URL : Biases in scholarly recommender systems: impact, prevalence, and mitigation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04636-2

Do altmetric scores reflect article quality? Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021

Posté le par

Authors : Mike Thelwall, Kayvan Kousha, Mahshid Abdoli, Emma Stuart, Meiko Makita, Paul Wilson, Jonathan Levitt

Altmetrics are web-based quantitative impact or attention indicators for academic articles that have been proposed to supplement citation counts. This article reports the first assessment of the extent to which mature altmetrics from Altmetric.com and Mendeley associate with individual article quality scores.

It exploits expert norm-referenced peer review scores from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 for 67,030+ journal articles in all fields 2014–2017/2018, split into 34 broadly field-based Units of Assessment (UoAs). Altmetrics correlated more strongly with research quality than previously found, although less strongly than raw and field normalized Scopus citation counts.

Surprisingly, field normalizing citation counts can reduce their strength as a quality indicator for articles in a single field. For most UoAs, Mendeley reader counts are the best altmetric (e.g., three Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.5), tweet counts are also a moderate strength indicator in eight UoAs (Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.3), ahead of news (eight correlations above 0.3, but generally weaker), blogs (five correlations above 0.3), and Facebook (three correlations above 0.3) citations, at least in the United Kingdom.

In general, altmetrics are the strongest indicators of research quality in the health and physical sciences and weakest in the arts and humanities.

URL : Do altmetric scores reflect article quality? Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021

Original location : https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asi.24751

The Transformation of the Green Road to Open Access

Posté le par

Authors : Joachim Schöpfel, Stéphane Chaudiron, Bernard Jacquemin, Eric Kergosien, Hélène Prost, Florence Thiault

(1) Background: The 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative recommended on self-archiving of scientific articles in open repositories as the “green road” to open access. Twenty years later, only one part of the researchers deposits their publications in open repositories; moreover, one part of the repositories’ content is not based on self-archived deposits but on mediated nonfaculty contributions. The purpose of the paper is to provide more empirical evidence on this situation and to assess the impact on the future of the green road.

(2) Methods: We analyzed the contributions on the French national HAL repository from more than 1,000 laboratories affiliated to the ten most important French research universities, with a focus on 2020, representing 14,023 contributor accounts and 166,939 deposits.

(3) Results: We identified seven different types of contributor accounts, including deposits from nonfaculty staff and import flows from other platforms. Mediated nonfaculty contribution accounts for at least 48% of the deposits. We also identified difference between institutions and disciplines.

(4) Conclusions: Our empirical results reveal a transformation of open repositories from self-archiving and direct scientific communication towards research information management. Repositories like HAL are somewhere in the middle of the process. The paper describes data quality as the main issue and major challenge of this transformation.

URL : The Transformation of the Green Road to Open Access

DOI : https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202302.0268.v1