Archives des catégories : EN

The Nexus of Open Science and Innovation: Insights from Patent Citations

Posté le par

Author : Abdelghani Maddi

This paper aims to analyze the extent to which inventive activity relies on open science. In other words, it investigates whether inventors utilize Open Access (OA) publications more than subscription-based ones, especially given that some inventors may lack institutional access.

To achieve this, we utilized the (Marx, 2023) database, which contains citations of patents to scientific publications (Non-Patent References-NPRs). We focused on publications closely related to invention, specifically those cited solely by inventors within the body of patent texts. Our dataset was supplemented by OpenAlex data.

The final sample comprised 961,104 publications cited in patents, of which 861,720 had a DOI. Results indicate that across all disciplines, OA publications are 38% more prevalent in patent citations (NPRs) than in the overall OpenAlex database.

In biology and medicine, inventors use 73% and 27% more OA publications, respectively, compared to closed-access ones. Chemistry and computer science are also disciplines where OA publications are more frequently utilized in patent contexts than subscription-based ones.

HAL : https://cnrs.hal.science/hal-04454843

Beyond journals and peer review: towards a more flexible ecosystem for scholarly communication

Posté le par

Author : Michael Wood

This article challenges the assumption that journals and peer review are essential for developing,evaluating and disseminating scientific and other academic knowledge. It suggests a more flexible ecosystem, and examines some of the possibilities this might facilitate. The market for academic outputs should be opened up by encouraging the separation of the dissemination service from the evaluation service.

Publishing research in subject-specific journals encourages compartmentalising research into rigid categories. The dissemination of knowledge would be better served by an open access, web-based repository system encompassing all disciplines. There would then be a role for organisations to assess the items in this repository to help users find relevant, high-quality work.

There could be a variety of such organisations which could enable reviews from peers to be supplemented with evaluation by non-peers from a variety of different perspectives: user reviews, statistical reviews, reviews from the perspective of different disciplines, and so on. This should reduce the inevitably conservative influence of relying on two or three peers, and make the evaluation system more critical, multi-dimensional and responsive to the requirements of different audience groups, changing circumstances, and new ideas.

Non-peer review might make it easier to challenge dominant paradigms, and expanding the potential audience beyond a narrow group of peers might encourage the criterion of simplicity to be taken more seriously – which is essential if human knowledge is to continue to progress.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4566

Science’s greatest discoverers: a shift towards greater interdisciplinarity, top universities and older age

Posté le par

Author : Alexander Krauss

What are the unique features and characteristics of the scientists who have made the greatest discoveries in science? To address this question, we assess all major scientific discoverers, defined as all nobel-prize and major non-nobel-prize discoverers, and their demographic, institutional and economic traits.

What emerges is a general profile of the scientists who have driven over 750 of science’s greatest advances. We find that interdisciplinary scientists who completed two or more degrees in different academic fields by the time of discovery made about half—54%—of all nobel-prize discoveries and 42% of major non-nobel-prize discoveries over the same period; this enables greater interdisciplinary methodological training for making new scientific achievements.

Science is also becoming increasingly elitist, with scientists at the top 25 ranked universities accounting for 30% of both all nobel-prize and non-nobel-prize discoveries. Scientists over the age of 50 made only 7% of all nobel-prize discoveries and 15% of non-nobel-prize discoveries and those over the age of 60 made only 1% and 3%, respectively. The gap in years between making nobel-prize discoveries and receiving the award is also increasing over time across scientific fields—illustrating that it is taking longer to recognise and select major breakthroughs.

Overall, we find that those who make major discoveries are increasingly interdisciplinary, older and at top universities. We also assess here the role and distribution of factors like geographic location, gender, religious affiliation and country conditions of these leading scientists, and how these factors vary across time and scientific fields.

The findings suggest that more discoveries could be made if science agencies and research institutions provide greater incentives for researchers to work against the common trend of narrow specialisation and instead foster interdisciplinary research that combines novel methods across fields.

URL : Science’s greatest discoverers: a shift towards greater interdisciplinarity, top universities and older age

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02781-4

Dataset Artefacts are the Hidden Drivers of the Declining Disruptiveness in Science

Posté le par

Authors : Vincent Holst, Andres Algaba, Floriano Tori, Sylvia Wenmackers, Vincent Ginis

Park et al. [1] reported a decline in the disruptiveness of scientific and technological knowledge over time. Their main finding is based on the computation of CD indices, a measure of disruption in citation networks [2], across almost 45 million papers and 3.9 million patents.

Due to a factual plotting mistake, database entries with zero references were omitted in the CD index distributions, hiding a large number of outliers with a maximum CD index of one, while keeping them in the analysis [1]. Our reanalysis shows that the reported decline in disruptiveness can be attributed to a relative decline of these database entries with zero references. Notably, this was not caught by the robustness checks included in the manuscript.

The regression adjustment fails to control for the hidden outliers as they correspond to a discontinuity in the CD index. Proper evaluation of the Monte-Carlo simulations reveals that, because of the preservation of the hidden outliers, even random citation behaviour replicates the observed decline in disruptiveness.

Finally, while these papers and patents with supposedly zero references are the hidden drivers of the reported decline, their source documents predominantly do make references, exposing them as pure dataset artefacts.

URL : Dataset Artefacts are the Hidden Drivers of the Declining Disruptiveness in Science

DOI : https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10656940

From Data Creator to Data Reuser: Distance Matters

Posté le par

Authors : Christine L. Borgman, Paul T. Groth

Sharing research data is complex, labor-intensive, expensive, and requires infrastructure investments by multiple stakeholders. Open science policies focus on data release rather than on data reuse, yet reuse is also difficult, expensive, and may never occur. Investments in data management could be made more wisely by considering who might reuse data, how, why, for what purposes, and when.

Data creators cannot anticipate all possible reuses or reusers; our goal is to identify factors that may aid stakeholders in deciding how to invest in research data, how to identify potential reuses and reusers, and how to improve data exchange processes.

Drawing upon empirical studies of data sharing and reuse, we develop the theoretical construct of distance between data creator and data reuser, identifying six distance dimensions that influence the ability to transfer knowledge effectively: domain, methods, collaboration, curation, purposes, and time and temporality.

These dimensions are primarily social in character, with associated technical aspects that can decrease – or increase – distances between creators and reusers. We identify the order of expected influence on data reuse and ways in which the six dimensions are interdependent.

Our theoretical framing of the distance between data creators and prospective reusers leads to recommendations to four categories of stakeholders on how to make data sharing and reuse more effective: data creators, data reusers, data archivists, and funding agencies.

URL : From Data Creator to Data Reuser: Distance Matters

arXiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07926

Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review

Posté le par

Authors : Tony Ross-Hellauer, Serge P.J.M. Horbach

Diverse efforts are underway to reform the journal peer review system. Combined with growing interest in Open Science practices, Open Peer Review (OPR) has become of central concern to the scholarly community. However, what OPR is understood to encompass and how effective some of its elements are in meeting the expectations of diverse communities, are uncertain.

This scoping review updates previous efforts to summarize research on OPR to May 2022. Following the PRISMA methodological framework, it addresses the question: “What evidence has been reported in the scientific literature from 2017 to May 2022 regarding uptake, attitudes, and efficacy of two key aspects of OPR (Open Identities and Open Reports)?”

The review identifies, analyses and synthesizes 52 studies matching inclusion criteria, finding that OPR is growing, but still far from common practice. Our findings indicate positive attitudes towards Open Reports and more sceptical approaches to Open Identities.

Changes in reviewer behaviour seem limited and no evidence for lower acceptance rates of review invitations or slower turnaround times is reported in those studies examining those issues. Concerns about power dynamics and potential backfiring on critical reviews are in need of further experimentation.

We conclude with an overview of evidence gaps and suggestions for future research. Also, we discuss implications for policy and practice, both in the scholarly communications community and the research evaluation community more broadly.

URL : Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae004

Is gold open access helpful for academic purification? A causal inference analysis based on retracted articles in biochemistry

Posté le par

Authors : Er-Te Zheng, Zhichao Fang, Hui-Zhen Fu

The relationship between transparency and credibility has long been a subject of theoretical and analytical exploration within the realm of social sciences, and it has recently attracted increasing attention in the context of scientific research. Retraction serves as a pivotal mechanism in addressing concerns about research integrity.

This study aims to empirically examining the relationship between open access level and the effectiveness of current mechanism, specifically academic purification centered on retracted articles. In this study, we used matching and Difference-in-Difference (DiD) methods to examine whether gold open access is helpful for academic purification in biochemistry field.

We collected gold open access (Gold OA) and non-open access (non-OA) biochemistry retracted articles as the treatment group, and matched them with corresponding unretracted articles as the control group from 2005 to 2021 based on Web of Science and Retraction Watch database.

The results showed that compared to non-OA, Gold OA is advantageous in reducing the retraction time of flawed articles, but does not demonstrate a significant advantage in reducing citations after retraction. This indicates that Gold OA may help expedite the detection and retraction of flawed articles, ultimately promoting the practice of responsible research.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103640