Archives des auteurs : Hans Dillaerts

Impact factions: assessing the citation impact of different types of open access repositories

Posté le par

Authors : Jonathan Wheeler, Ngoc‑Minh Pham, Kenning Arlitsch, Justin D. Shanks

Institutional repositories (IR) maintained by research libraries play a central role in providing open access to taxpayer-funded research products. It is difficult to measure the extent to which IR contribute to new scholarship because publisher self-archiving policies typically require researchers to cite the “version of record” of a manuscript even when an IR copy is accessed to conduct the research.

While some studies report an open access (OA) citation advantage resulting from the availability of self-archived or “green” OA manuscripts, few have sought to measure an OA citation effect of IR separately from disciplinary repositories, including arXiv and PubMed Central.

In this study, the authors present a bibliometric analysis examining correlations between search engine performance of items in IR, OA availability from different types of repositories, and citations. The analysis uses a novel, open dataset of IR access and usage derived from five months of Google search engine results pages (SERP) data, which were aggregated by the Repository Analytics and Metrics Portal (RAMP) web service.

Findings indicate that making OA copies of manuscripts available in self-archiving or “green” repositories results in a positive citation effect, although the disciplinary repositories within the sample significantly outperform the other types of OA services analyzed. Also evident is an increase in citations when a single manuscript is available in multiple OA sources.

URL : Impact factions: assessing the citation impact of different types of open access repositories

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04467-7

First Line Research Data Management for Life Sciences: a Case Study

Posté le par

Authors : J. Paul van Schayck, Maarten Coonen

Modern life sciences studies depend on the collection, management and analysis of comprehensive datasets in what has become data-intensive research. Life science research is also characterised by having relatively small groups of researchers.

This combination of data-intensive research performed by a few people has led to an increasing bottleneck in research data management (RDM). Parallel to this, there has been an urgent call by initiatives like FAIR and Open Science to openly publish research data which has put additional pressure on improving the quality of RDM.

Here, we reflect on the lessons learnt by DataHub Maastricht, a RDM support group of the Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+) in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in providing first-line RDM support for life sciences.

DataHub Maastricht operates with a small core team, and is complemented with disciplinary data stewards, many of whom have joint positions with DataHub and a research group. This organisational model helps creating shared knowledge between DataHub and the data stewards, including insights how to focus support on the most reusable datasets. This model has shown to be very beneficial given limited time and personnel.

We found that co-hosting tailored platforms for specific domains, reducing storage costs by implementing tiered storage and promoting cross-institutional collaboration through federated authentication were all effective features to stimulate researchers to initiate RDM.

Overall, utilising the expertise and communication channel of the embedded data stewards was also instrumental in our RDM success. Looking into the future, we foresee the need to further embed the role of data stewards into the lifeblood of the research organisation, along with policies on how to finance long-term storage of research data.

The latter, to remain feasible, needs to be combined with a further formalising of appraisal and reappraisal of archived research data.

URL : First Line Research Data Management for Life Sciences: a Case Study

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v16i1.761

Multi-Stakeholder Research Data Management Training as a Tool to Improve the Quality, Integrity, Reliability and Reproducibility of Research

Posté le par

Author : Jukka Rantasaari

To ensure the quality and integrity of data and the reliability of research, data must be well documented, organised, and described. This calls for research data management (RDM) education for researchers.

In light of 3 ECTS Basics of Research Data Management (BRDM) courses held between 2019 and 2021, we aim to find how a generic level multi-stakeholder training can improve STEM and HSS disciplines’ doctoral students’ and postdoc researchers’ competencies in RDM. The study uses quantitative, descriptive and inferential statistics to analyse respondents’ self-ratings of their competencies, and a qualitative grounded theory-inspired approach to code and analyse course participants’ feedback.

Results: On average, based on the post-course surveys, respondents’ (n = 123) competencies improved one point on a four-level scale, from “little competence” (2) to “somewhat competent” (3). Participants also reported that the training would change their current practices in planning research projects, data management and documentation, acknowledging legal and data privacy viewpoints, and data collecting and organising.

Participants indicated that it would be helpful to see legal and data privacy principles and regulations presented as concrete instructions, cases, and examples. The most requested continuing education topics were metadata and description, discipline specific cultures, and backup, version management, and storage.

Conclusions: Regarding to the widely used criteria for successful training containing 1) active participation during training; 2) demand for RDM training; 3) increased participants’ knowledge and understanding of RDM and confidence in enacting RDM practices; and 4) positive post-training feedback, BRDM meets the criteria.

This study shows that although reaching excellent competence in a RDM basics training is improbable, participants become aware of RDM and its contents and gain the elementary tools and basic skills to begin applying sound RDM practices in their research.

Furthermore, participants are introduced to the academic and research support professionals and vice versa: Stakeholders will get to know the challenges that young researchers and research students encounter when applying RDM. The study reveals valuable information on doctoral students’ and postdoc researchers’ competencies, the impact of education on competencies, and further learning needs in RDM.

URL : Multi-Stakeholder Research Data Management Training as a Tool to Improve the Quality, Integrity, Reliability and Reproducibility of Research

DOI : https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.11726

Open Science Knowledge Production: Addressing Epistemological Challenges and Ethical Implications

Posté le par

Author : Bjørn Hofmann

Open Science (OS) is envisioned to have a wide range of benefits including being more transparent, shared, accessible, and collaboratively developed than traditional science. Despite great enthusiasm, there are also several challenges with OS.

In order to ensure that OS obtains its benefits, these challenges need to be addressed. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to provide an overview of one type of challenge, i.e., epistemological challenges with OS knowledge production, and their ethical implications.

Based on a literature review, it (a) reveals factors undermining the envisioned benefits of OS, (b) identifies negative effects on knowledge production, and (c) exposes epistemological challenges with the various phases of the OS process.

The main epistemic challenges are related to governance, framing, looping effects, proper data procurement, validation, replication, bias, and polarization. The ethical implications are injustice, reduced benefit (efficiency), increased harm (as a consequence of poor-quality science), deception and manipulation (reduced autonomy), and lack of trustworthiness.

Accordingly, to obtain the envisioned benefits of OS, we need to address these epistemological challenges and their ethical implications.

URL : Open Science Knowledge Production: Addressing Epistemological Challenges and Ethical Implications

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10030024

Quelles collaborations entre Directions de la recherche et bibliothèques au sein des universités ?

Posté le par

Auteur/Author : Sylvain Lachendrowiecz

Les évolutions institutionnelles des universités françaises au cours des vingt dernières années ont eu pour conséquence l’importance accrue prise par les services centraux. Parmi ces services, les Directions de la recherche assument des fonctions variées : allocation des moyens aux unités de recherche, aide à la recherche de financements, valorisation, etc.

Par ailleurs, les bibliothèques universitaires poursuivent depuis l’autonomie des universités leur intégration dans leurs établissements et tissent des liens avec les autres services. Face aux évolutions du paysage de la recherche et aux demandes des chercheurs, Directions de la recherche et bibliothèques sont amenées à collaborer sur différents sujets.

Cette collaboration prend des formes plus ou moins approfondies selon les établissements, allant de simples échanges ou participation à des projets communs, à des services mutualisés.

Ces échanges ont un impact sur les cultures professionnelles des différents services : en bibliothèque, les personnels d’appui à la recherche, en travaillant au contact des unités de recherche et des Directions de la recherche, développent des compétences et des manières de travailler nouvelles et sont de moins en moins en contact avec les autres services de leur propre structure.

URL : Quelles collaborations entre Directions de la recherche et bibliothèques au sein des universités ?

Original location : https://www.enssib.fr/bibliotheque-numerique/notices/70687-quelles-collaborations-entre-directions-de-la-recherche-et-bibliotheques-au-sein-des-universites

Publication practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: Expedited publishing or simply an early bird effect?

Posté le par

Authors : Yulia V. Sevryugina, Andrew J. Dicks

This study explores the evolution of publication practices associated with the SARS-CoV-2 research papers, namely, peer-reviewed journal and review articles indexed in PubMed and their associated preprints posted on bioRxiv and medRxiv servers: a total of 4,031 journal article-preprint pairs.

Our assessment of various publication delays during the January 2020 to March 2021 period revealed the early bird effect that lies beyond the involvement of any publisher policy action and is directly linked to the emerging nature of new and ‘hot’ scientific topics.

We found that when the early bird effect and data incompleteness are taken into account, COVID-19 related research papers show only a moderately expedited speed of dissemination as compared with the pre-pandemic era.

Medians for peer-review and production stage delays were 66 and 15 days, respectively, and the entire conversion process from a preprint to its peer-reviewed journal article version took 109.5 days.

The early bird effect produced an ephemeral perception of a global rush in scientific publishing during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic. We emphasize the importance of considering the early bird effect in interpreting publication data collected at the outset of a newly emerging event.

URL : Publication practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: Expedited publishing or simply an early bird effect?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1483

A focus groups study on data sharing and research data management

Posté le par

Authors : Devan Ray Donaldson, Joshua Wolfgang Koepke

Data sharing can accelerate scientific discovery while increasing return on investment beyond the researcher or group that produced them. Data repositories enable data sharing and preservation over the long term, but little is known about scientists’ perceptions of them and their perspectives on data management and sharing practices.

Using focus groups with scientists from five disciplines (atmospheric and earth science, computer science, chemistry, ecology, and neuroscience), we asked questions about data management to lead into a discussion of what features they think are necessary to include in data repository systems and services to help them implement the data sharing and preservation parts of their data management plans.

Participants identified metadata quality control and training as problem areas in data management. Additionally, participants discussed several desired repository features, including: metadata control, data traceability, security, stable infrastructure, and data use restrictions. We present their desired repository features as a rubric for the research community to encourage repository utilization. Future directions for research are discussed.

URL : A focus groups study on data sharing and research data management

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01428-w