Auteur/autrice : Hans Dillaerts

Publié le

Assessing the publishing priorities and preferences among STEM researchers at a large R1 institution

Authors : Ibraheem Ali, Jason Burton, M. Wynn Tranfield

The cost of academic publishing has increased substantially despite the ease with which information can be shared on the web. Open Access publishing is a key mechanism for amplifying research access, inclusivity, and impact.

Despite this, shifting to a free-to-read publishing environment requires navigating complex barriers that vary by career status and publishing expectations. In this article, we investigate the motivations and preferences of researchers situated within our large research institution as a case study for publishing attitudes at similar institutions.

We surveyed the publishing priorities and preferences of researchers at various career stages in STEM fields as they relate to openness, data practices, and assessment of research impact. Our results indicate that publishing preferences, data management experience and research impact assessment vary by career status and departmental approaches to promotion.

We find that open access publishing is widely appreciated regardless of career status, but financial limitations and publishing expectations were common barriers to publishing in Open Access journals.

Our findings shed light on publishing attitudes and preferences among researchers at a major R1 research institution, and offer insight into advocacy strategies that incentivize open access publishing.

URL : Assessing the publishing priorities and preferences among STEM researchers at a large R1 institution

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16316

Publié le

A scoping review on the use and acceptability of preprints

Authors : Amanda Blatch-Jones, Alejandra Recio Saucedo, Beth Giddins

Background

Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that has not been submitted to a peer reviewed journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models.

However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle.

Methods

A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017-2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022).

Results

379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation).

For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities).

Conclusions

Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/nug4p

Publié le

Enter the dragon: China and global academic publishing

Author : Ken Hyland

One of the most dramatic changes in global publishing in the last decade has been the emergence of China. China now has more researchers than the United States, outspends the United States and European Union in research and publishes more scientific papers each year than any other nation in the world.

The quality of these papers is also increasing, with more appearing in top-ranked journals and gaining more citations overall. Despite this success, China has gained an unenviable reputation for research misconduct and geopolitical issues threaten its continuation.

Given the impact of China’s growing presence on editors, publishers and non-Chinese authors seeking to publish in the same journals, it is important to understand the reasons, directions and outcomes of these changes, their effect on Chinese scholars and local Chinese journals, and where they might be leading.

In this review paper I explore the rise of Chinese scholarship, its influence on global publishing and on Chinese scholars, and how the Chinese government is responding to its new role in global academic publishing.

URL : Enter the dragon: China and global academic publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1545

Publié le

Politiques documentaires et de médiation des livres numériques en bibliothèque académique

Autrice/Author : Mathilde Gourret

Il y a encore une dizaine d’années, en France, le livre numérique pouvait être qualifié de ressource « émergente » en bibliothèque académique. Les politiques documentaires des établissements peinaient à se saisir de cet objet nouveau. Depuis, le paysage éditorial du livre numérique s’est considérablement transformé.

L’offre éditoriale s’est diversifiée et l’essor des monographies numériques en accès ouvert entraîne une nouvelle donne pour les bibliothèques. Dans ce nouveau contexte, comment les bibliothèques académiques peuvent-elles intégrer les livres numériques dans leurs collections ?

Comment articuler les monographies numériques et imprimées dans une offre répondant aux besoins des usagers ? Pour répondre à ces interrogations, on s’intéressera aux politiques et pratiques documentaires mises en œuvre au sein des bibliothèques académiques françaises, en s’interrogeant en particulier sur les organisations, outils et processus qui sous-tendent ces pratiques.

URL : Politiques documentaires et de médiation des livres numériques en bibliothèque académique

Original location : https://www.enssib.fr/bibliotheque-numerique/notices/71195-politiques-documentaires-et-de-mediation-des-livres-numeriques-en-bibliotheque-academique

Publié le

“We Share All Data with Each Other”: Data-Sharing in Peer-to-Peer Relationships

Author : Eva Barlösius

Although the topic of data-sharing has boomed in the past few years, practices of datasharing have attracted only scant attention within working groups and scientific cooperation (peer-to-peer data-sharing).

To understand these practices, the author draws on Max Weber’s concept of social relationship, conceptualizing data-sharing as social action that takes place within a social relationship. The empirical material consists of interviews with 34 researchers representing five disciplines—linguistics, biology, psychology, computer sciences, and neurosciences.

The analysis identifies three social forms of data-sharing in peer-to-peer relationships: (a) closed communal sharing, which is based on a feeling of belonging together; (b) closed associative sharing, in which the participants act on the basis of an agreement; and (c) open associative sharing, which is oriented to “institutional imperatives” (Merton) and to formal regulations.

The study shows that far more data-sharing is occurring in scientific practice than seems to be apparent from a concept of open data alone. If the main goal of open-data policy programs is to encourage researchers to increase access to their data, it could be instructive to study the three forms of data-sharing to improve the understanding of why and how scientists make their data accessible to other researchers.

URL : “We Share All Data with Each Other”: Data-Sharing in Peer- to-Peer Relationships

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-023-09487-y

Publié le

Identification and classification of evaluation indicators for scientific and technical publications and related factors

Authors : Hassan Mahmoudi Topkanlo, Mehrdad CheshmehSohrabi

Introduction

Given the importance of the issue of the widespread impact of scientific and technical publications in today’s world, and the diversity and multiplicity of indicators for measuring these publications, it is a necessity to classify these indicators from different angles and through different tools and methods.

Method

This study used documentary analysis and Delphi technique methods. The members of the Delphi panel were twenty-one experts in metric fields in information science who answered the research questionnaires several times until reaching a consensus.

Analysis

Kendall’s coefficient of concordance and a one-sample t-test were used to measure the agreement of the panel members as raters on the questionnaire items.

Results

A total of thirty-four sub-categories of indicators of assessment were identified which were categorised according to their similarities and differences into eight main categories as follows: measurement method, measurement unit, measurement content, measurement purpose, measurement development, measurement resource, measurability, and measurement environment.

Conclusion

Classification of the indicators of evaluation for scientific and technical publications and related factors can lead to improved understanding, critique, modelling and development of indicators. The findings of this study can be considered a basis for further research and help develop evaluative theoretical foundations in scientific and technical publications and related factors.

URL : Identification and classification of evaluation indicators for scientific and technical publications and related factors

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47989/irpaper953

Publié le

The Invisible Workload of Open Research

Author : Thomas J. Hostler

It is acknowledged that conducting open research requires additional time and effort compared to conducting ‘closed’ research. However, this additional work is often discussed only in abstract terms, a discourse which ignores the practicalities of how researchers are expected to find the time to engage with these practices in the context of their broader role as multifaceted academics.

In the context of a sector that is blighted by stress, burnout, untenable workloads, and hyper-competitive pressures to produce, there is a clear danger that additional expectations to engage in open practices add to the workload burden and increase pressure on academics even further. In this article, the theories of academic capitalism and workload creep are used to explore how workload models currently exploit researchers by mismeasuring academic labour.

The specific increase in workload resulting from open practices and associated administration is then outlined, including via the cumulative effects of administrative burden.

It is argued that there is a high chance that without intervention, increased expectations to engage in open research practices may lead to unacceptable increases in demands on academics. Finally, the individual and systematic responsibilities to mitigate this are discussed.

URL : The Invisible Workload of Open Research

DOI : https://doi.org/10.36850/mr5