Hans Dillaerts – Page 78 – InfoDoc MicroVeille

L’usage de la plateforme HAL par les unités de recherche de l’Université de Lille. La situation en 2021

Posté le 14 octobre 2021 par Hans Dillaerts

Auteurs/Authors : Eric Kergosien, Joachim Schöpfel

Cette note présente les résultats d’une étude de suivi sur l’usage de la plateforme HAL par les laboratoires de recherche de l’Université de Lille, réalisée en avril 2021. L’analyse a porté sur les dépôts dans HAL, sur la création d’une collection et sur la part des documents en libre accès.

L’étude propose une photographie de la situation en 2021, par rapport aux résultats des analyses de 2019 et 2020, en montrant l’évolution de l’usage de HAL par les unités de recherche et l’impact de la mise en place d’une archive institutionnelle locale nommée LillOA.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03372596

Dissimuler ou disséminer ? Une étude sur le sort réservé aux résultats négatifs

Posté le 13 octobre 2021 par Hans Dillaerts

Auteures/Authors : Marie-Emilia Herbet, Jérémie Leonard, Maria Santangelo, Lucie Albaret

Une enquête composée de 34 questions a été adressée à des chercheurs en chimie, physique, sciences de l’ingénieur et de l’environnement, en vue d’identifier leur rapport aux résultats de recherche infructueux ainsi que les freins et les leviers de leur diffusion.

L’étude se fonde sur 310 réponses complètes émanant de participants affiliés à des établissements de recherche et d’enseignement français. Menée dans le cadre du projet Datacc, porté par les bibliothèques universitaires de Lyon et Grenoble Alpes, engagées dans l’accompagnement des chercheurs à l’ouverture des données de recherche, notre étude permet de combler le déficit de données sur le sujet au regard des disciplines concernées.

Elle relève que 81% des chercheurs interrogés ont déjà produit des résultats négatifs pertinents et 75% se disent prêts à publier ce type de données. Pourtant, seuls 12,5% des répondants ont déjà eu l’occasion de le faire dans une revue scientifique. Ce contraste béant entre l’intention et la pratique soulève des interrogations sur les obstacles en présence et les solutions potentielles à apporter.

URL : Dissimuler ou disséminer ? Une étude sur le sort réservé aux résultats négatifs

Original location : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03371040

Science rules! A qualitative study of scientists’ approaches to grant lottery

Posté le 13 octobre 2021 par Hans Dillaerts

Author : Axel Philipps

Using peer review to assess the validity of research proposals has always had its fair share of critics, including a more-than-fair-share of scholars. The debate about this method of assessing these proposals now seems trivial when compared with assessing the validity for granting funding by lottery.

Some of the same scholars have suggested that the way grant lottery was being assessed has made random allocation seem even-handed, less biased and more supportive of innovative research.

But we know little of what researchers actually think about grant lottery and even less about the thoughts of those scientists who rely on funding. This paper examines scientists’ perspectives on selecting grants by ‘lots’ and how they justify their support or opposition.

How do they approach something scientifically that is, in itself, not scientific? These approaches were investigated with problem-centered interviews conducted with natural scientists in Germany.

The qualitative interviews for this paper reveal that scientists in dominated and dominating field positions are, more or less, open to the idea of giving a selection process by lots a try. Nonetheless, they are against pure randomization because from their point of view it is incompatible with scientific principles.

They rather favor a combination of grant lottery and peer review processes, assuming that only under these conditions could randomly allocated funding be an integral and legitimate part of science.

URL : Science rules! A qualitative study of scientists’ approaches to grant lottery

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa027

The role of metrics in peer assessments

Posté le 13 octobre 2021 par Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Liv Langfeldt, Ingvild Reymert, Dag W Aksnes

Metrics on scientific publications and their citations are easily accessible and are often referred to in assessments of research and researchers. This paper addresses whether metrics are considered a legitimate and integral part of such assessments. Based on an extensive questionnaire survey in three countries, the opinions of researchers are analysed.

We provide comparisons across academic fields (cardiology, economics, and physics) and contexts for assessing research (identifying the best research in their field, assessing grant proposals and assessing candidates for positions).

A minority of the researchers responding to the survey reported that metrics were reasons for considering something to be the best research. Still, a large majority in all the studied fields indicated that metrics were important or partly important in their review of grant proposals and assessments of candidates for academic positions.

In these contexts, the citation impact of the publications and, particularly, the number of publications were emphasized. These findings hold across all fields analysed, still the economists relied more on productivity measures than the cardiologists and the physicists. Moreover, reviewers with high scores on bibliometric indicators seemed more frequently (than other reviewers) to adhere to metrics in their assessments.

Hence, when planning and using peer review, one should be aware that reviewers—in particular reviewers who score high on metrics—find metrics to be a good proxy for the future success of projects and candidates, and rely on metrics in their evaluation procedures despite the concerns in scientific communities on the use and misuse of publication metrics.

URL : The role of metrics in peer assessments

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa032

Impact and visibility of Norwegian, Finnish and Spanish journals in the fields of humanities

Posté le 11 octobre 2021 par Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Elías Sanz-Casado, Daniela De Filippo, Rafael Aleixandre Benavent, Vidar Røeggen, Janne Pölönen

This article analyses the impact and visibility of scholarly journals in the humanities that are publishing in the national languages in Finland, Norway and Spain. Three types of publishers are considered: commercial publishers, scholarly society as publisher, and research organizations as publishers.

Indicators of visibility and impact were obtained from Web of Science, SCOPUS, Google Metrics, Scimago Journal Rank and Journal Citation Report.

The findings compiled show that in Spain the categories “History and Archaeology” and “Language and Literature” account for almost 70% of the journals analysed, while the other countries offer a more homogeneous distribution.

In Finland, the scholarly society publisher is predominant, in Spain, research organization as publishers, mostly universities, have a greater weighting, while in Norway, the commercial publishers take centre stage.

The results show that journals from Finland and Norway will have reduced possibilities in terms of impact and visibility, since the vernacular language appeals to a smaller readership. Conversely, the Spanish journals are more attractive for indexing in commercial databases. Distribution in open access ranges from 64 to 70% in Norwegian and Finish journals, and to 91% in Spanish journals.

The existence of DOI range from 31 to 41% in Nordic journals to 60% in Spanish journals and has a more widespread bearing on the citations received in all three countries (journals with DOI and open access are cited more frequently).

URL : Impact and visibility of Norwegian, Finnish and Spanish journals in the fields of humanities

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04169-6

FAIR Forever? Accountabilities and Responsibilities in the Preservation of Research Data

Posté le 11 octobre 2021 par Hans Dillaerts

Author : Amy Currie, William Kilbride

Digital preservation is a fast-moving and growing community of practice of ubiquitous relevance, but in which capability is unevenly distributed. Within the open science and research data communities, digital preservation has a close alignment to the FAIR principles and is delivered through a complex specialist infrastructure comprising technology, staff and policy.

However, capacity erodes quickly, establishing a need for ongoing examination and review to ensure that skills, technology, and policy remain fit for changing purpose. To address this challenge, the Digital Preservation Coalition (DPC) conducted the FAIR Forever study, commissioned by the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) Sustainability Working Group and funded by the EOSC Secretariat Project in 2020, to assess the current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to the preservation of research data across EOSC, and the feasibility of establishing shared approaches, workflows and services that would benefit EOSC stakeholders.

This paper draws from the FAIR Forever study to document and explore its key findings on the identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the preservation of FAIR data in EOSC, and to the preservation of research data more broadly.

It begins with background of the study and an overview of the methodology employed, which involved a desk-based assessment of the emerging EOSC vision, interviews with representatives of EOSC stakeholders, and focus groups with digital preservation specialists and data managers in research organizations.

It summarizes key findings on the need for clarity on digital preservation in the EOSC vision and for elucidation of roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities to mitigate risks of data loss, reputation, and sustainability. It then outlines the recommendations provided in the final report presented to the EOSC Sustainability Working Group.

To better ensure that research data can be FAIRer for longer, the recommendations of the study are presented with discussion on how they can be extended and applied to various research data stakeholders in and outside of EOSC, and suggest ways to bring together research data curation, management, and preservation communities to better ensure FAIRness now and in the long term.

URL : FAIR Forever? Accountabilities and Responsibilities in the Preservation of Research Data

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v16i1.768