EN – Page 3 – InfoDoc MicroVeille

14 février 2025

Beyond the Lens: Quantifying the Impact of Scientific Documentaries through Amazon Reviews

Authors : Jill Naiman, Aria Pessianzadeh, Hanyu Zhao, AJ Christensen, Alistair Nunn, Shriya Srikanth, Anushka Gami, Emma Maxwell, Louisa Zhang, Sri Nithya Yeragorla, Rezvaneh Rezapour

Engaging the public with science is critical for a well-informed population. A popular method of scientific communication is documentaries. Once released, it can be difficult to assess the impact of such works on a large scale, due to the overhead required for in-depth audience feedback studies. In what follows, we overview our complementary approach to qualitative studies through quantitative impact and sentiment analysis of Amazon reviews for several scientific documentaries.

In addition to developing a novel impact category taxonomy for this analysis, we release a dataset containing 1296 human-annotated sentences from 1043 Amazon reviews for six movies created in whole or part by a team of visualization designers who focus on cinematic presentations of scientific data. Using this data, we train and evaluate several machine learning and large language models, discussing their effectiveness and possible generalizability for documentaries beyond those focused on for this work.

Themes are also extracted from our annotated dataset which, along with our large language model analysis, demonstrate a measure of the ability of scientific documentaries to engage with the public.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08705

12 février 2025

The Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS): Bringing Open-Source Software Practices to the Scholarly Publishing Community for Authors, Reviewers, Editors, and Publishers

Authors : Patrick Diehl, Charlotte Soneson, Rachel C. Kurchin, Ross Mounce, Daniel S. Katz

Introduction

Open-source software (OSS) is a critical component of open science, but contributions to the OSS ecosystem are systematically undervalued in the current academic system. The Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS) contributes to addressing this by providing a venue (that is itself free, diamond open access, and all open-source, built in a layered structure using widely available elements/services of the scholarly publishing ecosystem) for publishing OSS, run in the style of OSS itself.

A particularly distinctive element of JOSS is that it uses open peer review in a collaborative, iterative format, unlike most publishers. Additionally, all the components of the process—from the reviews to the papers to the software that is the subject of the papers to the software that the journal runs—are open.

Background

We describe JOSS’s history and its peer review process using an editorial bot, and we present statistics gathered from JOSS’s public review history on GitHub showing an increasing number of peer reviewed papers each year. We discuss the new JOSSCast and use it as a data source to understand reasons why interviewed authors decided to publish in JOSS.

Discussion and Outlook

JOSS’s process differs significantly from traditional journals, which has impeded JOSS’s inclusion in indexing services such as Web of Science. In turn, this discourages researchers within certain academic systems, such as Italy’s, which emphasize the importance of Web of Science and/or Scopus indexing for grant applications and promotions. JOSS is a fully diamond open-access journal with a cost of around US$5 per paper for the 401 papers published in 2023. The scalability of running JOSS with volunteers and financing JOSS with grants and donations is discussed.

URL : The Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS): Bringing Open-Source Software Practices to the Scholarly Publishing Community for Authors, Reviewers, Editors, and Publishers

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18285

12 février 2025

Data Makers and Users’ Views on Useful Paradata. Priorities in Documenting Data Creation, Curation, Manipulation and Use in Archaeology

Authors : Isto Huvila, Lisa Andersson, Olle Sköld, Ying-Hsang Liu

Understanding and making data (re)usable requires adequate documentation of the data but also information on how it has been created, curated, manipulated and used, termed in data documentation literature as paradata. This paper reports results of a survey study (N=91) of data creating and (re)using archaeologists’ views of what data creation, curation, manipulation and use related information (termed here as paradata) they consider important when they are working with data. Data makers’ and users’ perceptions align to a considerable degree.

It is important to have an explanation of the original general context of data creation and knowing the purpose, procedures and methods of data making, analysis and documentation. The findings underline that there is a need to continue developing and testing ideas how to capture and document paradata, and to find ways how to help data makers adopt proven practices to facilitate paradata making.

Simultaneously, it is crucial that the paradata aimed at facilitating data use is relevant for data users rather than, for instance, technical or administrative details considered useful primarily by data makers.

URL : Data Makers and Users’ Views on Useful Paradata. Priorities in Documenting Data Creation, Curation, Manipulation and Use in Archaeology

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v19i1.892

11 février 2025

A worldwide itinerary of research ethics in science for a better social responsibility and justice: a bibliometric analysis and review

Author : Ingrid Sonya Mawussi Adjovi

This study provides a comprehensive overview of research ethics in science using an approach that combine bibliometric analysis and systematic review. The importance of ethical conduct in scientific research to maintain integrity, credibility, and societal relevance has been highlighted. The findings revealed a growing awareness of ethical issues, as evidenced by the development of numerous guidelines, codes of conduct, and oversight institutions.

However, significant challenges persist, including the lack of standardized approaches for detecting misconduct, limited understanding of the factors contributing to unethical behavior, and unclear definitions of ethical violations. To address these issues, this study recommends promoting transparency and data sharing, enhancing education, and training programs, establishing robust mechanisms to identify and address misconduct, and encouraging collaborative research and open science practices.

This study emphasizes the need for a collaborative approach to restore public confidence in science, protect its positive impact, and effectively address global challenges, while upholding the principles of social responsibility and justice. This comprehensive approach is crucial for maintaining research credibility, conserving resources, and safeguarding both the research participants and the public.

URL : A worldwide itinerary of research ethics in science for a better social responsibility and justice: a bibliometric analysis and review

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1504937

11 février 2025

Humanities scholars’ needs for open social scholarship platforms as online scholarly information sharing infrastructure

Authors : Daniel Tracy, Graham Jensen

The contemporary scholarly communication environment is characterized by the growth in mandates and infrastructure for open access publication and open approaches to the research lifecycle, with a consequent explosion in the number of online platforms seeking to provide infrastructure for open scholarship. These include corporate academic social networks and scholar-governed infrastructure created as a reaction against those networks, as well as the recent major transformation of the social media landscape in the wake of changes at Twitter (now X), previously a major outlet for scholarly engagement with the public.

Analysts of this environment have pointed out that most platform initiatives focus on narrow use cases rather than building up solutions through a holistic understanding of scholar workflows. This exploratory study uses focus group interviews to draw out responses to one academically governed platform, the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) Commons, in the context of humanities scholars’ existing work.

It explores humanities scholars’ needs and behaviors related to sharing scholarly information with each other and broader audiences, particularly on the Internet. Feedback from participants sheds light on opportunities and challenges for academy-governed infrastructure for “open social scholarship.” Themes identified include technical fatigue and burnout in the current multi-platform environment, sustainability, and desires to reach and engage the right academic and non-academic audiences when appropriate.

URL : Humanities scholars’ needs for open social scholarship platforms as online scholarly information sharing infrastructure

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v30i2.13742

5 février 2025

Regional profile of questionable publishing

Authors : Taekho You, Jinseo Park, June Young Lee, Jinhyuk Yun

Countries and authors in the academic periphery occasionally have been criticized for contributing to the expansion of questionable publishing because they share a major fraction of papers in questionable journals. On the other side, topics preferred by mainstream journals sometimes necessitate large-scale investigation, which is impossible for developing countries.

Thus, local journals, commonly low-impacted, are essential to sustain the regional academia for such countries. In this study, we perform an in-depth analysis of the distribution of questionable publications and journals with their interplay with countries quantifying the influence of questionable publications regarding academia’s inequality.

We find that low-impact journals play a vital role in the regional academic environment, whereas questionable journals with equivalent impact publish papers from all over the world, both geographically and academically. The business model of questionable journals differs from that of regional journals, and may thus be detrimental to the broader academic community.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.07844