Archives des catégories : EN

Student perceptions of the creation and reuse of open educational resources: A case study of the development-oriented student organisation

Posté le par

Authors : Michael Paskevicius, Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams

This case study explores students’ perceptions of the creation and reuse of digital teaching and learning resources in their work as tutors as part of a volunteer community development organisation at a large South African University.

Through a series of semi-structured interviews, student-tutors reflect on their use and reuse of digital educational resources, and identify the challenges they experience in curating, adapting, and reusing educational resources for use in their teaching activities.

The data is analysed qualitatively within the framework of an activity system (Engeström, 1987) to surface the primary systemic tensions that student-tutors face in the reuse of resources found online as well as open educational resources (OER).

This study found that student-tutors sourced and used educational materials from the Internet, largely irrespective of their licensing conditions, while also creating and remixing a substantial number of educational materials to make them suitable for use in their context.

We conclude that greater awareness of the availability of OER and explicit open licencing for works sourced and created within community development organisations could enhance sharing, collaboration, and help sustain high impact resources.

URL : Student perceptions of the creation and reuse of open educational resources: A case study of the development-oriented student organisation

Alternative location : http://www.jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/253

Evidence of Open Access of scientific publications in Google Scholar: a large-scale analysis

Posté le par

Authors : Alberto Martín-Martín, Rodrigo Costas, Thed van Leeuwen, Emilio López-Cózar

This article uses Google Scholar (GS) as a source of data to analyse Open Access (OA) levels across all countries and fields of research. All articles and reviews with a DOI and published in 2009 or 2014 and covered by the three main citation indexes in the Web of Science (2,269,022 documents) were selected for study.

The links to freely available versions of these documents displayed in GS were collected. To differentiate between more reliable (sustainable and legal) forms of access and less reliable ones, the data extracted from GS was combined with information available in DOAJ, CrossRef, OpenDOAR, and ROAR.

This allowed us to distinguish the percentage of documents in our sample that are made OA by the publisher (23.1%, including Gold, Hybrid, Delayed, and Bronze OA) from those available as Green OA (17.6%), and those available from other sources (40.6%, mainly due to ResearchGate).

The data shows an overall free availability of 54.6%, with important differences at the country and subject category levels. The data extracted from GS yielded very similar results to those found by other studies that analysed similar samples of documents, but employed different methods to find evidence of OA, thus suggesting a relative consistency among methods.

URL : Evidence of Open Access of scientific publications in Google Scholar: a large-scale analysis

Alternative location : https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/k54uv/

Defining Success in Open Science

Posté le par

Authors : Sarah E. Ali-Khan, Antoine Jean, Emily MacDonald, E. Richard Gold

Mounting evidence indicates that worldwide, innovation systems are increasing unsustainable. Equally, concerns about inequities in the science and innovation process, and in access to its benefits, continue. Against a backdrop of growing health, economic and scientific challenges global stakeholders are urgently seeking to spur innovation and maximize the just distribution of benefits for all.

Open Science collaboration (OS) – comprising a variety of approaches to increase open, public, and rapid mobilization of scientific knowledge – is seen to be one of the most promising ways forward. Yet, many decision-makers hesitate to construct policy to support the adoption and implementation of OS without access to substantive, clear and reliable evidence.

In October 2017, international thought-leaders gathered at an Open Science Leadership Forum in the Washington DC offices of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share their views on what successful Open Science looks like.

Delegates from developed and developing nations, national governments, science agencies and funding bodies, philanthropy, researchers, patient organizations and the biotechnology, pharma and artificial intelligence (AI) industries discussed the outcomes that would rally them to invest in OS, as well as wider issues of policy and implementation.

This first of two reports, summarizes delegates’ views on what they believe OS will deliver in terms of research, innovation and social impact in the life sciences. Through open and collaborative process over the next months, we will translate these success outcomes into a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assess when, where and how open science collaborations best advance research, innovation and social benefit.

Ultimately, this work aims to develop and openly share tools to allow stakeholders to evaluate and re-invent their innovation ecosystems, to maximize value for the global public and patients, and address long-standing questions about the mechanics of innovation.

URL : Defining Success in Open Science

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/mniopenres.12780.2

Science Is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence From a Randomized Control Trial

Posté le par

Authors : Neil Thompson, Douglas Hanley

“I sometimes think that general and popular treatises are almost as important for the progress of science as original work.” – Charles Darwin, 1865.

As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However, Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world, including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does.

Incorporating ideas into Wikipedia leads to those ideas being used more in the scientific literature. We provide correlational evidence of this across thousands of Wikipedia articles and causal evidence of it through a randomized control trial where we add new scientific content to Wikipedia.

We find that the causal impact is strong, with Wikipedia influencing roughly one in every ∼830 words in related scientific journal articles. We also find causal evidence that the scientific articles referenced in Wikipedia receive more citations, suggesting that Wikipedia complements the traditional journal system by pointing researchers to key underlying scientific articles.

Our findings speak not only to the influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of repositories of scientific knowledge and the role that they play in the creation of scientific knowledge.

DOI : https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3039505

Text Data Mining from the Author’s Perspective: Whose Text, Whose Mining, and to Whose Benefit?

Posté le par

Authors : Christine L. Borgman

Given the many technical, social, and policy shifts in access to scholarly content since the early days of text data mining, it is time to expand the conversation about text data mining from concerns of the researcher wishing to mine data to include concerns of researcher-authors about how their data are mined, by whom, for what purposes, and to whose benefits.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04552

What’s in a Name? Exploring identity in the field of library journal publishing

Posté le par

Authors : Jacqueline Whyte Appleby, Jeanette Hatherill, Andrea Kosavic, Karen Meijer-Kline

INTRODUCTION

This paper explores the variability in self-identifying practices of academic libraries engaged in journal publishing and hosting activities. We were interested in how libraries characterized their efforts in this area and looked at whether there is an unspoken threshold for differentiation with respect to publishing-support naming conventions.

METHODS

Using the Library Publishing Directory, in-depth interviews, and a more widely circulated follow-up survey, the research team examined service offerings, divisions of responsibility, funding, terminology, and semantic associations within publishing, both as an active practice and as an advertised service.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We aimed to tease out whether there was any sort of tipping point, or inferred rules, around when an institution chose to call the activity either publishing or hosting. We found no particular service, set of services, funding structure, or division of labor that obviously influenced the use of a particular term.

Rather than noting a divide between publishing and hosting, participants spoke of both a spectrum and a tiering of work and support, though all emphasized that these models did not describe the quality of the work produced.

This paper also discusses how use of the term library publishing creates additional ambiguity in naming practices, and considers some implications for library staff newly immersed in scholarly publishing work.

URL : What’s in a Name? Exploring identity in the field of library journal publishing

DOI : http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2209

Students’ satisfaction and perceived impact on knowledge, attitudes and skills after a 2-day course in scientific writing: a prospective longitudinal study in Spain

Posté le par

Authors : Esteve Fernández, Ana M García, Elisabet Serés, Fèlix Bosch

Objectives

This study aimed to determine students’ satisfaction with a 2-day course on scientific writing in health sciences and to assess their perceptions of the long-term impact on their knowledge, attitudes and skills.

Setting

27 iterations of a 2-day course on writing and publishing scientific articles in health sciences.

Participants

741 students attending the 27 courses.

Design

Prospective longitudinal study.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Immediately after each course, students completed a first questionnaire, rating their satisfaction with different aspects of the classroom sessions on a Likert scale (0–5). Approximately 2 years after the course, students completed a follow-up questionnaire, using a Likert scale (0–4) to rate their knowledge, skills and attitudes in relation to scientific writing before and after attending the course.

Results

741 students (70% women) participated in the 27 iterations of the course; 568 (76.8%) completed the first questionnaire and 182 (24.6%) completed the follow-up questionnaire. The first questionnaire reflected high overall satisfaction (mean score, 4.6).

In the second questionnaire, students reported that the course had improved their knowledge (mean improvement: 1.6; 95% CI 1.6 to 1.7), attitudes (mean improvement: 1.3; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.4) and skills (mean improvement: 1.4; 95% CI 1.3 to 1.4) related to writing and publishing scientific papers. Most respondents (n=145, 79.7%) had participated in drafting a scientific paper after the course; in this subgroup, all the specific writing skills assessed in the second questionnaire significantly improved.

Conclusions

Students were satisfied with the format and the contents of the course, and those who responded to the follow-up survey considered that the course had improved their knowledge, attitudes and skills in relation to scientific writing and publishing. Courses are particularly important in countries without strong traditions in scientific publication.

URL : Students’ satisfaction and perceived impact on knowledge, attitudes and skills after a 2-day course in scientific writing: a prospective longitudinal study in Spain

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018657