Archives des catégories : EN

Creating Institution-Wide Awareness of, and Engagement with, Open Scholarship

Posté le par

Author : Eleanor Colla

INTRODUCTION

Strategies for how, when, and why to communicate on the topics of Open Scholarship (OS) are many and varied. Here, the author reflects on how a small, regional university library went from a low knowledge base of OS to having OS more thoughtfully and thoroughly considered across many aspects of scholarship.

DESCRIPTION OF APPROACH

The author discusses how, over a three-year period, the library turned OS from being seen as a topic only the library deals with, to a nuanced conversation present across many levels of a university. This was done in three broad stages: first, upskilling librarians; second, reaching out to others working in this space and creating conversations across campus; and third, broadening conversations to different audiences whilst beginning to embed OS in institutional practices.

NEXT STEPS

Collaborative engagement across various levels has worked well for this university. The library will continue this approach to further embed OS in the culture of the institution while looking to further collaborate across the institution, and working with colleagues and OS advocates in other organizations, groups, and bodies.

URL : Creating Institution-Wide Awareness of, and Engagement with, Open Scholarship

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2387

Swedish researchers’ responses to the cancellation of the big deal with Elsevier

Posté le par

Authors: Lisa Olsson, Camilla Lindelöw, Lovisa Österlund, Frida Jakobsson

In 2018, the Swedish library consortium, Bibsam, decided to cancel big deal subscriptions with Elsevier. Many researchers (n = 4,221) let their voices be heard in a survey on the consequences of the cancellation.

Almost a third of them (n = 1,241) chose to leave free-text responses to the survey question ‘Is there anything you would like to add?’. A content analysis on these responses resulted in six themes and from these, three main conclusions are drawn.

First, there is no consensus among researchers on whether the cancellation was for good or evil. The most common argument in favour of the cancellation was the principle. The most common argument against cancellation was that it harms researchers and research.

A third of the free-text responses expressed ambivalence towards the cancellation, typically as a conflict between wanting to change the current publishing system and simultaneously suffering from the consequences of the cancellation.

The general support for open access in principle reveals a flawed publishing system, as most feel the pressure to publish in prestigious journals behind paywalls in practice. Second, it was difficult for researchers to take a position for or against cancellation due to their limited knowledge of the ongoing work of higher education institutions and library consortia.

Finally, there are indications that the cancellation made researchers reflect on open access and to some extent alter their publication pattern through their choice of copyright licence and publication channel.

URL : Swedish researchers’ responses to the cancellation of the big deal with Elsevier

DOI : http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.521

Open Science for private Interests? How the Logic of Open Science Contributes to the Commercialization of Research

Posté le par

Author : Manuela Fernández Pinto

Financial conflicts of interest, several cases of scientific fraud, and research limitations from strong intellectual property laws have all led to questioning the epistemic and social justice appropriateness of industry-funded research.

At first sight, the ideal of Open Science, which promotes transparency, sharing, collaboration, and accountability, seems to target precisely the type of limitations uncovered in commercially-driven research.

The Open Science movement, however, has primarily focused on publicly funded research, has actively encouraged liaisons with the private sector, and has also created new strategies for commercializing science.

As a consequence, I argue that Open Science ends up contributing to the commercialization of science, instead of overcoming its limitations. I use the examples of research publications and citizen science to illustrate this point.

Accordingly, the asymmetry between private and public science, present in the current plea to open science, ends up compromising the values of transparency, democracy, and accountability.

URL : Open Science for private Interests? How the Logic of Open Science Contributes to the Commercialization of Research

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.588331

Metascience as a scientific social movement

Posté le par

Authors : David Peterson, Aaron Panofsky

Emerging out of the “reproducibility crisis” in science, metascientists have become central players in debates about research integrity, scholarly communication, and science policy. The goal of this article is to introduce metascience to STS scholars, detail the scientific ideology that is apparent in its articles, strategy statements, and research projects, and discuss its institutional and intellectual future.

Put simply, metascience is a scientific social movement that seeks to use the tools of science- especially, quantification and experimentation- to diagnose problems in research practice and improve efficiency.

It draws together data scientists, experimental and statistical methodologists, and open science activists into a project with both intellectual and policy dimensions. Metascientists have been remarkably successful at winning grants, motivating news coverage, and changing policies at science agencies, journals, and universities.

Moreover, metascience represents the apotheosis of several trends in research practice, scientific communication, and science governance including increased attention to methodological and statistical criticism of scientific practice, the promotion of “open science” by science funders and journals, the growing importance of both preprint and data repositories for scientific communication, and the new prominence of data scientists as research makes a turn toward Big Science.

URL : Metascience as a scientific social movement

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/4dsqa

How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing

Posté le par

Authors : Franciszek Krawczyk, Emanuel Kulczycki

The aim of this paper is to investigate how predatory journals are characterized by authors who write about such journals. We emphasize the ways in which predatory journals have been conflated with—or distinguished from—open access journals.

We created a list of relevant publications on predatory publishing using four databases: Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, and Microsoft Academic.

We included 280 English-language publications in the review according to their contributions to the discussions on predatory publishing. Then, we coded and qualitatively analyzed these publications.

The findings show the profound influence of Jeffrey Beall, who composed and maintained himself lists of predatory publishers and journals, on the whole discussion on predatory publishing.

The major themes by which Beall has characterized predatory journals are widely present in non-Beall publications. Moreover, 122 papers we reviewed combined predatory publishing with open access using similar strategies as Beall.

The overgeneralization of the flaws of some open access journals to the entire open access movement has led to unjustified prejudices among the academic community toward open access.

This is the first large-scale study that systematically examines how predatory publishing is defined in the literature.

URL : How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271

Opening Pandora’s Box: Peeking inside Psychology’s data sharing practices, and seven recommendations for change

Posté le par

Authors : John N. Towse, David A Ellis, Andrea S Towse

Open data-sharing is a valuable practice that ought to enhance the impact, reach, and transparency of a research project.

While widely advocated by many researchers and mandated by some journals and funding agencies, little is known about detailed practices across psychological science. In a pre-registered study, we show that overall, few research papers directly link to available data in many, though not all, journals.

Most importantly, even where open data can be identified, the majority of these lacked completeness and reusability—conclusions that closely mirror those reported outside of Psychology.

Exploring the reasons behind these findings, we offer seven specific recommendations for engineering and incentivizing improved practices, so that the potential of open data can be better realized across psychology and social science more generally.

URL : Opening Pandora’s Box: Peeking inside Psychology’s data sharing practices, and seven recommendations for change

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01486-1

Software must be recognised as an important output of scholarly research

Posté le par

Authors : Caroline Jay, Robert Haines, Daniel S. Katz

Software now lies at the heart of scholarly research. Here we argue that as well as being important from a methodological perspective, software should, in many instances, be recognised as an output of research, equivalent to an academic paper.

The article discusses the different roles that software may play in research and highlights the relationship between software and research sustainability and reproducibility. It describes the challenges associated with the processes of citing and reviewing software, which differ from those used for papers.

We conclude that whilst software outputs do not necessarily fit comfortably within the current publication model, there is a great deal of positive work underway that is likely to make an impact in addressing this.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.07571