Archives des catégories : EN

Varieties of diffusion in academic publishing: How status and legitimacy influence growth trajectories of new innovation

Posté le par

Authors : Kyle Siler, Vincent Larivière

Open Access (OA) publishing has progressed from an initial fringe idea to a still-growing, major component of modern academic communication. The proliferation of OA publishing presents a context to examine how new innovations and institutions develop.

Based on analyses of 1,296,304 articles published in 83 OA journals, we analyze changes in the institutional status, gender, age, citedness, and geographical locations of authors over time. Generally, OA journals tended towards core-to-periphery diffusion patterns.

Specifically, journal authors tended to decrease in high-status institutional affiliations, male and highly cited authors over time. Despite these general tendencies, there was substantial variation in the diffusion patterns of OA journals. Some journals exhibited no significant demographic changes, and a few exhibited periphery-to-core diffusion patterns.

We find that although both highly and less-legitimate journals generally exhibit core-to-periphery diffusion patterns, there are still demographic differences between such journals. Institutional and cultural legitimacy—or lack thereof—affects the social and intellectual diffusion of new OA journals.

URL : Varieties of diffusion in academic publishing: How status and legitimacy influence growth trajectories of new innovation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24844

Scientific divulgation before the post-truth and the crisis of credibility of science in the context of Digital Humanities

Posté le par

Authors : Dheyvid Adriano do Livramento Chaves, Edgar Bisset Alvarez

This article proposes to reflect, in the light of Digital Humanities, on the influence of post-truth on the credibility crisis of science. The objective is to identify the role of scientific divulgation in the recovery of science’s credibility and combat post-truth and the possibilities of using social networks for scientific divulgation by public universities.

When defining itself as descriptive, the research seeks to accomplish an analysis of the benefits and contributions that can result in the contextualization of the problem with the field of knowledge regarding the Digital Humanities.

The results showed that scientific divulgation through social networks contributes to combating the effects of post-truth culture and, consequently, recovering the credibility of science.

Finally, it was concluded that the protagonists actors in the promotion of scientific divulgation strategies are public universities, because they have the democratization of access to knowledge as a social commitment.

URL : Scientific divulgation before the post-truth and the crisis of credibility of science in the context of Digital Humanities

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0889202335e2377317

Presence and consequences of positive words in scientific abstracts

Posté le par

Authors : Moritz Edlinger, Finn Buchrieser, Guilherme Wood

Abstracts are the showcase of scientific studies, crafted to make an impression on the reader within a limited space and to determine the amount of attention each study receives. Systemic conditions in the sciences may change the expressive norm and incentive scientists to hype abstracts to promote their work and career. Previous studies found that terms such as “unprecedented”, “novel” and “unique” have been used increasingly in recent history, to describe one’s own research findings.

The present study investigates the use of valence-loaded scientific jargon in the abstracts of scientific articles. Sentiment analysis with dictionaries specifically attuned to detect valence-loaded scientific jargon was employed to analyze more than 2,300,000 MEDLINE abstracts from the fields of psychology, biology, and physics. Results show that over the last four decades, abstracts have contained an increasing amount of valence-loaded scientific jargon, as previously observed in earlier studies.

Moreover, our results reveal that the positive emotional content of abstracts is increasing in a way that cannot be accounted for by the increase in text length, which has also been observed in the same time period. There were small differences between scientific disciplines. A detailed analysis of the distribution of valence-loaded scientific jargon within abstracts reveals a strong concentration towards the end of the text.

We discuss these results in light of psychological evidence relating positive emotions with the propensity to overestimate the value of information to inform judgment and the increase in the competition for attention due to a pressure to publish.

URL : Presence and consequences of positive words in scientific abstracts

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04864-6

Gender diversity and publication activity—an analysis of STEM in the UK

Posté le par

Authors : Yasaman Sarabi, Matthew Smith

Gender diversity in STEM remains a significant issue, as the field continues to be a male dominated one, despite increased attention on the subject. This article examines the interplay between gender diversity on projects funded by a major UK research council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and the publication activity of a project, as measured by the average journal quality of project publication output, over a 10-year period.

The proportion of female representation and leadership on these projects remains very low. For the projects examined as part of this study, over 70% of these projects have no female representation, and less than 15% have a female lead.

This study does not find a significant relationship between gender diversity and journal quality output. This study highlights that an important avenue for future work is the development of alternative metrics to assess the performance of research projects in a discipline characterized by very low levels of gender diversity, to fully unpack the impact of project team gender diversity on project output activity.

URL : Gender diversity and publication activity—an analysis of STEM in the UK

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad008

How unpredictable is research impact? Evidence from the UK’s Research Excellence Framework

Posté le par

Authors : Ohid Yaqub, Dmitry Malkov, Josh Siepel

Although ex post evaluation of impact is increasingly common, the extent to which research impacts emerge largely as anticipated by researchers, or as the result of serendipitous and unpredictable processes, is not well understood.

In this article, we explore whether predictions of impact made at the funding stage align with realized impact, using data from the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF). We exploit REF impact cases traced back to research funding applications, as a dataset of 2,194 case–grant pairs, to compare impact topics with funder remits.

For 209 of those pairs, we directly compare their descriptions of ex ante and ex post impact. We find that impact claims in these case–grant pairs are often congruent with each other, with 76% showing alignment between anticipated impact at funding stage and the eventual claimed impact in the REF. Co-production of research, often perceived as a model for impactful research, was a feature of just over half of our cases.

Our results show that, contrary to other preliminary studies of the REF, impact appears to be broadly predictable, although unpredictability remains important. We suggest that co-production is a reasonably good mechanism for addressing the balance of predictable and unpredictable impact outcomes.

URL : How unpredictable is research impact? Evidence from the UK’s Research Excellence Framework

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad019

Judging Journals: How Impact Factor and Other Metrics Differ across Disciplines

Posté le par

Authors : Quinn Galbraith, Alexandra Carlile Butterfield, Chase Cardon

Given academia’s frequent use of publication metrics and the inconsistencies in metrics across disciplines, this study examines how various disciplines are treated differently by metric systems. We seek to offer academic librarians, university rank and tenure committees, and other interested individuals guidelines for distinguishing general differences between journal bibliometrics in various disciplines.

This study addresses the following questions: How well represented are different disciplines in the indexing of each metrics system (Eigenfactor, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar)? How does each metrics system treat disciplines differently, and how do these differences compare across metrics systems?

For university libraries and academic librarians, this study may increase understanding of the comparative value of various metrics, which hopefully will facilitate more informed decisions regarding the purchase of journal subscriptions and the evaluation of journals and metrics systems.

This study indicates that different metrics systems prioritize different disciplines, and metrics are not always easily compared across disciplines. Consequently, this study indicates that simple reliance on metrics in publishing or purchasing decisions is often flawed.

URL : Judging Journals: How Impact Factor and Other Metrics Differ across Disciplines

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.84.6.888

Why are these publications missing? Uncovering the reasons behind the exclusion of documents in free-access scholarly databases

Posté le par

Authors : Lorena Delgado-Quirós, Isidro F. Aguillo, Alberto Martín-Martín, Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, Enrique Orduña-Malea, José Luis Ortega

This study analyses the coverage of seven free-access bibliographic databases (Crossref, Dimensions—non-subscription version, Google Scholar, Lens, Microsoft Academic, Scilit, and Semantic Scholar) to identify the potential reasons that might cause the exclusion of scholarly documents and how they could influence coverage.

To do this, 116 k randomly selected bibliographic records from Crossref were used as a baseline. API endpoints and web scraping were used to query each database. The results show that coverage differences are mainly caused by the way each service builds their databases.

While classic bibliographic databases ingest almost the exact same content from Crossref (Lens and Scilit miss 0.1% and 0.2% of the records, respectively), academic search engines present lower coverage (Google Scholar does not find: 9.8%, Semantic Scholar: 10%, and Microsoft Academic: 12%). Coverage differences are mainly attributed to external factors, such as web accessibility and robot exclusion policies (39.2%–46%), and internal requirements that exclude secondary content (6.5%–11.6%).

In the case of Dimensions, the only classic bibliographic database with the lowest coverage (7.6%), internal selection criteria such as the indexation of full books instead of book chapters (65%) and the exclusion of secondary content (15%) are the main motives of missing publications.

URL : Why are these publications missing? Uncovering the reasons behind the exclusion of documents in free-access scholarly databases

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24839