Archives des catégories : EN

RDM in a Decentralised University Ecosystem—A Case Study of the University of Cologne

Posté le par

Authors : Constanze Curdt, Jens Dierkes, Sonja Kloppenburg

The University of Cologne (UoC) has historically grown in highly decentralised structures. This is reflected by a two-layered library structure as well as by a number of decentralised research data management (RDM) activities established on the faculty and research consortium level.

With the aim to foster networking, cooperation, and synergies between existing activities, a university-wide RDM will be established. A one-year feasibility study was commissioned by the Rectorate in 2016 and carried out by the department research management, library and computing centre.

One study outcome was the adoption of a university-wide research data guideline. Based on a comprehensive RDM service portfolio, measures were developed to put a central RDM into practice.

The challenges have been to find the right level of integration and adaptation of existing and established decentralised structures and to develop additional new structures and services.

We will report on first steps to map out central RDM practices at the UoC and to develop a structure of cooperation between loosely coupled information infrastructure actors. Central elements of this structure are a competence center, an RDM expert network, a forum for exchange about RDM and associated topics as well as the faculties with their decentralized, domain-specific RDM services.

The Cologne Competence Center for Research Data Management (C3RDM) was founded at the end of 2018 and is still in its development phase. It provides a one-stop entry point for all questions regarding RDM. T

he center itself provides basic and generic RDM services, such as training, consulting, and data publication support, and acts as a hub to the decentral experts, information infrastructure actors, and resources.

URL : RDM in a Decentralised University Ecosystem—A Case Study of the University of Cologne

DOI : http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2022-020

Whose research benefits more from Twitter? On Twitter-worthiness of communication research and its role in reinforcing disparities of the field

Posté le par

Authors : Chung-hong Chan, Jing Zeng, Mike S. Schäfer

Twitter has become an important promotional tool for scholarly work, but individual academic publications have varied degrees of visibility on the platform. We explain this variation through the concept of Twitter-worthiness: factors making certain academic publications more likely to be visible on Twitter.

Using publications from communication studies as our analytical case, we conduct statistical analyses of 32187 articles spanning 82 journals. Findings show that publications from G12 countries, covering social media topics and published open access tend to be mentioned more on Twitter.

Similar to prior studies, this study demonstrates that Twitter mentions are associated with peer citations. Nevertheless, Twitter also has the potential to reinforce pre-existing disparities between communication research communities, especially between researchers from developed and less-developed regions. Open access, however, does not reinforce such disparities.

URL : Whose research benefits more from Twitter? On Twitter-worthiness of communication research and its role in reinforcing disparities of the field

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278840

Faculty Perceptions of Open Access Publishing: Investigating Faculty Publishing Habits to Evaluate Library Collection Alignment

Posté le par

Authors : Elisabeth Shook, Amy Vecchione

Introduction

This investigation, originally conceived as a method for informing Albertsons Library on creative solutions to the collections budget shortfall, sought to determine an institution’s faculty perceptions of publishing and/or using open access (OA) materials, as well as to identify future mechanisms that would shift perceptions of OA publishing to a more favorable light, thereby fostering adoption of OA materials in faculty research and teaching.

Methods

The study used an anonymous electronic survey of 468 faculty members, with a response rate of nearly 34%.

Results and Discussion

Respondents indicated a mixed set of adoption, with equal distribution in willingness to engage with OA journals and publications. Quality of OA publications, combined with concerns for tenure and promotion, holds faculty back from utilizing OA journals and publications in their own research and in the classroom.

Conclusion

The data collected through the course of this perceptions survey provide important insight into the perceptions of faculty at this point in time, laying the groundwork for future surveys to evaluate growth in engagement with OA publishing.

Though the data provided do not immediately alleviate collections budget constraints at Albertsons Library, the survey contributed to a more holistic understanding of faculty publishing behavior in OA journals.

URL : Faculty Perceptions of Open Access Publishing: Investigating Faculty Publishing Habits to Evaluate Library Collection Alignment

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.13216

Comparison of Study Results Reported in medRxiv Preprints vs Peer-reviewed Journal Articles

Posté le par

Authors : Guneet Janda, Vishal Khetpal, Xiaoting Shi, Joseph S. Ross, Joshua D. Wallach

Question

What is the concordance among sample size, primary end points, results for primary end points, and interpretations described in preprints of clinical studies posted on medRxiv that are subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals (preprint-journal article pairs)?

Findings

In this cross-sectional study of 547 clinical studies that were initially posted to medRxiv and later published in peer-reviewed journals, 86.4% of preprint-journal article pairs were concordant in terms of sample size, 97.6% in terms of primary end points, 81.1% in terms of results of primary end points, and 96.2% in terms of study interpretations.

Meaning

This study suggests that most clinical studies posted as preprints on medRxiv and subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals had concordant study characteristics, results, and final interpretations.

URL : Comparison of Clinical Study Results Reported in medRxiv Preprints vs Peer-reviewed Journal Articles

Original location : https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2799350

Phase 1 of the NIH Preprint Pilot: Testing the viability of making preprints discoverable in PubMed Central and PubMed

Posté le par

Authors : Kathryn Funk, Teresa Zayas-Cabán, Jeffrey Beck

Introduction

The National Library of Medicine (NLM) launched a pilot in June 2020 to 1) explore the feasibility and utility of adding preprints to PubMed Central (PMC) and making them discoverable in PubMed and 2) to support accelerated discoverability of NIH-supported research without compromising user trust in NLM’s widely used literature services.

Methods

The first phase of the Pilot focused on archiving preprints reporting NIH-supported SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19 research. To launch Phase 1, NLM identified eligible preprint servers and developed processes for identifying NIH-supported preprints within scope in these servers.

Processes were also developed for the ingest and conversion of preprints in PMC and to send corresponding records to PubMed. User interfaces were modified for display of preprint records. NLM collected data on the preprints ingested and discovery of preprint records in PMC and PubMed and engaged users through focus groups and a survey to obtain direct feedback on the Pilot and perceptions of preprints.

Results

Between June 2020 and June 2022, NLM added more than 3,300 preprint records to PMC and PubMed, which were viewed 4 million times and 3 million times, respectively. Nearly a quarter of preprints in the Pilot were not associated with a peer-reviewed published journal article. User feedback revealed that the inclusion of preprints did not have a notable impact on trust in PMC or PubMed.

Discussion

NIH-supported preprints can be identified and added to PMC and PubMed without disrupting existing operations processes. Additionally, inclusion of preprints in PMC and PubMed accelerates discovery of NIH research without reducing trust in NLM literature services.

Phase 1 of the Pilot provided a useful testbed for studying NIH investigator preprint posting practices, as well as knowledge gaps among user groups, during the COVID-19 public health emergency, an unusual time with heightened interest in immediate access to research results.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.12.520156

Open access and predatory publishing: a survey of the publishing practices of academic pharmacists and nurses in the United States

Posté le par

Authors : Bridget C. Conlogue, Neyda V. Gilman, Louisa M. Holmes

Objective: Academics are under great pressure to publish their research, the rewards for which are well known (tenure, promotion, grant funding, professional prestige). As open access publishing gains acceptance as a publishing option, researchers may choose a “predatory publisher.” The purpose of this study is to investigate the motivations and rationale of pharmacy and nursing academics in the United States to publish in open access journals that may be considered “predatory.”

Methods: A 26-item questionnaire was programmed in Qualtrics and distributed electronically to approximately 4,500 academic pharmacists and nurses, 347 of whom completed questionnaires (~8%). Pairwise correlations were performed followed by a logistic regression to evaluate statistical associations between participant characteristics and whether participants had ever paid an article processing fee (APF).

Results: Participants who had published more articles, were more familiar with predatory publishing, and who were more concerned about research metrics and tenure were more likely to have published in open access journals. Moderate to high institutional research intensity has an impact on the likelihood of publishing open access. The majority of participants who acknowledged they had published in a predatory journal took no action after realizing the journal was predatory and reported no negative impact on their career for having done so.

Conclusion: The results of this study provide data and insight into publication decisions made by pharmacy and nursing academics. Gaining a better understanding of who publishes in predatory journals and why can help address the problems associated with predatory publishing at the root.

URL : Open access and predatory publishing: a survey of the publishing practices of academic pharmacists and nurses in the United States

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1377

Champions of Transparency in Education: What Journal Reviewers Can Do to Encourage Open Science Practices

Posté le par

Authors : Rachel Renbarger, Jill L. Adelson, Joshua Rosenberg, Sondra M Stegenga, Olivia Lowrey, Pamela Rose Buckley, Qiyang Zhang

As the field of education and especially gifted education gradually moves towards open science, our research community increasingly values transparency and openness brought by open science practices.

Yet, individual researchers may be reluctant to adopt open science practices due to low incentives, barriers of extra workload, or lack of support to apply these in certain areas, such as qualitative research.

We encourage and give guidelines to reviewers to champion open science practices by warmly influencing authors to consider applying open science practices to quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research and providing ample support to produce higher-quality publications.

Instead of imposing open science practices on authors, we advocate reviewers suggest small, non-threatening, specific steps to support authors without making them feel overwhelmed, judged, or punished.

We believe that these small steps taken by reviewers will make a difference to create a more supportive environment for researchers to adopt better practices.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/xqfwb