InfoDoc MicroVeille – Page 100 – Veille dédiée aux Sciences de l'Information et des Bibliothèques // Collecting and Sharing research papers in Library and Information science ISSN 2429-3938

Open Access Publishing Probabilities Based on Gender and Authorship Structures in Vietnam

Posted on 15 octobre 2021 by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Huyen Thanh T. Nguyen, Minh-Hoang Nguyen, Tam-Tri Le, Manh-Toan Ho, Quan-Hoang Vuong

Open access (OA) publishing is beneficial for researchers to improve recognition, representation, and visibility in academia. However, few studies have been conducted for studying the association between gender and OA publishing likelihood.

Therefore, the current study explores the impacts of gender-based authorship structures on OA publishing in Vietnamese social sciences and humanities. Bayesian analysis was performed on a dataset of 3122 publications in social sciences and humanities.

We found that publications with mixed-gender authorship were most likely to be published under Gold Access terms (26.31–31.65%). In contrast, the likelihood of publications with the solely male or female author(s) was lower.

It is also notable that if female researcher(s) held the first-author position in an article of mixed-gender authorship, the publication would be less likely to be published under Gold Access terms (26.31% compared to 31.65% of male-first-author structure).

In addition, publications written by a solo female author (14.19%) or a group of female authors (10.72%) had lower OA publishing probabilities than those written by a solely male author(s) (17.14%).

These findings hint at the possible advantage of gender diversity and the disadvantage of gender homophily (especially female-only authorship) on OA publishing likelihood. Moreover, they show there might be some negative impacts of gender inequality on OA publishing.

As a result, the notion of gender diversity, financial and policy supports are recommended to promote the open science movement.

URL : Open Access Publishing Probabilities Based on Gender and Authorship Structures in Vietnam

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9040045

Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases

Posted on 15 octobre 2021 by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Lutz Bornmann, Robin Haunschild, Rüdiger Mutz

Growth of science is a prevalent issue in science of science studies. In recent years, two new bibliographic databases have been introduced, which can be used to study growth processes in science from centuries back: Dimensions from Digital Science and Microsoft Academic.

In this study, we used publication data from these new databases and added publication data from two established databases (Web of Science from Clarivate Analytics and Scopus from Elsevier) to investigate scientific growth processes from the beginning of the modern science system until today.

We estimated regression models that included simultaneously the publication counts from the four databases. The results of the unrestricted growth of science calculations show that the overall growth rate amounts to 4.10% with a doubling time of 17.3 years. As the comparison of various segmented regression models in the current study revealed, models with four or five segments fit the publication data best.

We demonstrated that these segments with different growth rates can be interpreted very well, since they are related to either phases of economic (e.g., industrialization) and/or political developments (e.g., Second World War).

In this study, we additionally analyzed scientific growth in two broad fields (Physical and Technical Sciences as well as Life Sciences) and the relationship of scientific and economic growth in UK.

The comparison between the two fields revealed only slight differences. The comparison of the British economic and scientific growth rates showed that the economic growth rate is slightly lower than the scientific growth rate.

URL : Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00903-w

Do we achieve anything by teaching research integrity to starting PhD students?

Posted on 15 octobre 2021 by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Shila Abdi, Steffen Fieuws, Benoit Nemer, Kris Dierickx

Education of young researchers has been proposed as a way to promote research integrity. However, the effectiveness of research integrity education on PhD students is unknown. In a longitudinal design, we surveyed over 1000 starting PhD students from various disciplines regarding knowledge, attitude and behaviour before, immediately after and 3 months after a compulsory 3-h course given by a panel of experts.

Compared with a control group who did not follow the course, the course recipients showed significant (multivariate analysis) but modest improvements in knowledge and attitude scores immediately after the course, but not after 3 months; a prolonged impact was apparent regarding behaviour.

Moreover, the course spurred 93% of PhD students to have conversations about research integrity and 79% declared applying the content of the course. Among other interventions, formal education in research integrity may contribute to foster a climate of research integrity in academia.

URL : Do we achieve anything by teaching research integrity to starting PhD students?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00908-5

Does double-blind peer review reduce bias? Evidence from a top computer science conference

Posted on 14 octobre 2021 by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Mengyi Sun, Jainabou Barry Danfa, Misha Teplitskiy

Peer review is essential for advancing scientific research, but there are long-standing concerns that authors’ prestige or other characteristics can bias reviewers. Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a way to reduce reviewer bias, but the evidence for its effectiveness is limited and mixed.

Here, we examine the effects of double-blind peer review by analyzing the review files of 5,027 papers submitted to a top computer science conference that changed its reviewing format from single- to double-blind in 2018.

First, we find that the scores given to the most prestigious authors significantly decreased after switching to double-blind review. However, because many of these papers were above the threshold for acceptance, the change did not affect paper acceptance significantly.

Second, the inter-reviewer disagreement increased significantly in the double-blind format.

Third, papers rejected in the single-blind format are cited more than those rejected under double-blind, suggesting that double-blind review better excludes poorer quality papers.

Lastly, an apparently unrelated change in the rating scale from 10 to 4 points likely reduced prestige bias significantly such that papers’ acceptance was affected.

These results support the effectiveness of double-blind review in reducing biases, while opening new research directions on the impact of peer-review formats.

URL : Does double-blind peer review reduce bias? Evidence from a top computer science conference

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24582

L’usage de la plateforme HAL par les unités de recherche de l’Université de Lille. La situation en 2021

Posted on 14 octobre 2021 by Hans Dillaerts

Auteurs/Authors : Eric Kergosien, Joachim Schöpfel

Cette note présente les résultats d’une étude de suivi sur l’usage de la plateforme HAL par les laboratoires de recherche de l’Université de Lille, réalisée en avril 2021. L’analyse a porté sur les dépôts dans HAL, sur la création d’une collection et sur la part des documents en libre accès.

L’étude propose une photographie de la situation en 2021, par rapport aux résultats des analyses de 2019 et 2020, en montrant l’évolution de l’usage de HAL par les unités de recherche et l’impact de la mise en place d’une archive institutionnelle locale nommée LillOA.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03372596

Dissimuler ou disséminer ? Une étude sur le sort réservé aux résultats négatifs

Posted on 13 octobre 2021 by Hans Dillaerts

Auteures/Authors : Marie-Emilia Herbet, Jérémie Leonard, Maria Santangelo, Lucie Albaret

Une enquête composée de 34 questions a été adressée à des chercheurs en chimie, physique, sciences de l’ingénieur et de l’environnement, en vue d’identifier leur rapport aux résultats de recherche infructueux ainsi que les freins et les leviers de leur diffusion.

L’étude se fonde sur 310 réponses complètes émanant de participants affiliés à des établissements de recherche et d’enseignement français. Menée dans le cadre du projet Datacc, porté par les bibliothèques universitaires de Lyon et Grenoble Alpes, engagées dans l’accompagnement des chercheurs à l’ouverture des données de recherche, notre étude permet de combler le déficit de données sur le sujet au regard des disciplines concernées.

Elle relève que 81% des chercheurs interrogés ont déjà produit des résultats négatifs pertinents et 75% se disent prêts à publier ce type de données. Pourtant, seuls 12,5% des répondants ont déjà eu l’occasion de le faire dans une revue scientifique. Ce contraste béant entre l’intention et la pratique soulève des interrogations sur les obstacles en présence et les solutions potentielles à apporter.

URL : Dissimuler ou disséminer ? Une étude sur le sort réservé aux résultats négatifs

Original location : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03371040