EN

The Changing Landscape of Open Access Publishing: Can Open Access Publishing Make the Scholarly World More Equitable and Productive?

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Richard G. Dudley

Almost 50% of scholarly articles are now open access in some form. This greatly benefits scholars at most institutions and is especially helpful to independent scholars and those without access to libraries. It also furthers the long-standing idea of knowledge as a public good.

The changing dynamics of open access (OA) threaten this positive development by solidifying the pay-to-publish OA model which further marginalizes peripheral scholars and incentivizes the development of sub-standard and predatory journals. Causal loop diagrams (CLDs) are used to illustrate these interactions.

URL : The Changing Landscape of Open Access Publishing: Can Open Access Publishing Make the Scholarly World More Equitable and Productive?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2345

FR

Le partage des données vu par les chercheurs : une approche par la valeur

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Auteur/Author : Violaine Rebouillat

Le propos de cet article porte sur la compréhension des logiques qui interviennent dans la définition de la valeur des données de la recherche, celles-ci pouvant avoir une influence sur les critères déterminant leur motivation au partage.

L’approche méthodologique repose sur une enquête qualitative, menée dans le cadre d’une recherche doctorale, qui a déployé 57 entretiens semi-directifs. Alors que les travaux menés autour des données sont focalisés sur les freins et motivations du partage, l’originalité de cette recherche consiste à identifier les différents prismes par lesquels la question de la valeur des données impacte la motivation et la décision de leur partage.

L’analyse des résultats montre que, tous domaines confondus, la valeur des données reste encore cristallisée autour de la publication et de la reconnaissance symbolique du travail du chercheur.

Les résultats permettent de comprendre que la question du partage est confrontée à un impensé : celui du cadre actuel de l’évaluation de la recherche, qui met l’article scientifique au cœur de son dispositif.

Ce travail contribue donc à montrer que l’avenir du partage des données dépend des systèmes alternatifs futurs d’évaluation de la recherche, associés à la science ouverte.

URL : https://lesenjeux.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/2021/varia/03-le-partage-des-donnees-vu-par-les-chercheurs-une-approche-par-la-valeur/

EN

Transparency, provenance and collections as data: the National Library of Scotland’s Data Foundry

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Sarah Ames

‘Collections as data’ has become a core activity for libraries in recent years: it is important that we make collections available in machine-readable formats to enable and encourage computational research. However, while this is a necessary output, discussion around the processes and workflows required to turn collections into data, and to make collections data available openly, are just as valuable.

With libraries increasingly becoming producers of their own collections – presenting data from digitisation and digital production tools as part of datasets, for example – and making collections available at scale through mass-digitisation programmes, the trustworthiness of our processes comes into question.

In a world of big data, often of unclear origins, how can libraries be transparent about the ways in which collections are turned into data, how do we ensure that biases in our collections are recognised and not amplified, and how do we make these datasets available openly for reuse?

This paper presents a case study of work underway at the National Library of Scotland to present collections as data in an open and transparent way – from establishing a new Digital Scholarship Service, to workflows and online presentation of datasets.

It considers the changes to existing processes needed to produce the Data Foundry, the National Library of Scotland’s open data delivery platform, and explores the practical challenges of presenting collections as data online in an open, transparent and coherent manner.

URL : Transparency, provenance and collections as data: the National Library of Scotland’s Data Foundry

Original location : https://www.liberquarterly.eu/article/10.18352/lq.10371/

FR

Modes d’évaluation ouverte par les pairs : de la revue à la plateforme

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Auteurs/Authors : Evelyne Broudoux, Madjid Ihadjadene

Cet article a pour but de proposer un état de l’art des différentes formes de l’évaluation d’articles ou de communications par les pairs. De l’évaluation « aveugle» à l’évaluation « ouverte », de multiples possibilités existent et sont expérimentées.

C’est dans le champ des sciences que l’on trouve le plus d’innovations sociotechniques s’appuyant sur des plateformes de publication modélisant des workflows éditoriaux originaux.

L’ouverture de l’évaluation peut se produire entre pairs, en rendant publiques les identités et/ou les rapports des évaluateurs, à différents stades de l’article scientifique : préprint, en cours de rédaction, ou encore après publication.

Cet état de l’art est basé sur un ensemble de publications essentiellement produites par les acteurs de l’évaluation ouverte, issus principalement des disciplines STM.

URL : Modes d’évaluation ouverte par les pairs : de la revue à la plateforme

URL : https://revue-cossi.numerev.com/articles/revue-9/2496-modes-d-evaluation-ouverte-par-les-pairs-de-la-revue-a-la-plateforme

EN

Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Guillaume Cabanac, Cyril Labbé

In 2014 leading publishers withdrew more than 120 nonsensical publications automatically generated with the SCIgen program. Casual observations suggested that similar problematic papers are still published and sold, without follow-up retractions.

No systematic screening has been performed and the prevalence of such nonsensical publications in the scientific literature is unknown. Our contribution is 2-fold.

First, we designed a detector that combs the scientific literature for grammar-based computer-generated papers. Applied to SCIgen, it has a 83.6% precision. Second, we performed a scientometric study of the 243 detected SCIgen-papers from 19 publishers.

We estimate the prevalence of SCIgen-papers to be 75 per million papers in Information and Computing Sciences. Only 19% of the 243 problematic papers were dealt with: formal retraction (12) or silent removal (34).

Publishers still serve and sometimes sell the remaining 197 papers without any caveat. We found evidence of citation manipulation via edited SCIgen bibliographies. This work reveals metric gaming up to the point of absurdity: fraudsters publish nonsensical algorithmically generated papers featuring genuine references.

It stresses the need to screen papers for nonsense before peer-review and chase citation manipulation in published papers. Overall, this is yet another illustration of the harmful effects of the pressure to publish or perish.

URL : Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24495

EN

Digital Object Identifier (DOI) Under the Context of Research Data Librarianship

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Jia Liu

A digital object identifier (DOI) is an increasingly prominent persistent identifier in finding and accessing scholarly information. This paper intends to present an overview of global development and approaches in the field of DOI and DOI services with a slight geographical focus on Germany.

At first, the initiation and components of the DOI system and the structure of a DOI name are explored. Next, the fundamental and specific characteristics of DOIs are described and DOIs for three (3) kinds of typical intellectual entities in the scholar communication are dealt with; then, a general DOI service pyramid is sketched with brief descriptions of functions of institutions at different levels.

After that, approaches of the research data librarianship community in the field of RDM, especially DOI services, are elaborated. As examples, the DOI services provided in German research libraries as well as best practices of DOI services in a German library are introduced; and finally, the current practices and some issues dealing with DOIs are summarized. It is foreseeable that DOI, which is crucial to FAIR research data, will gain extensive recognition in the scientific world.

URL : Digital Object Identifier (DOI) Under the Context of Research Data Librarianship

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2021.1180

EN

Open access book usage data – how close is COUNTER to the other kind?

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Ronald Snijder

In April 2020, the OAPEN Library moved to a new platform, based on DSpace 6. During the same period, IRUS-UK started working on the deployment of Release 5 of the COUNTER Code of Practice (R5). This is, therefore, a good moment to compare two widely used usage metrics – R5 and Google Analytics (GA).

This article discusses the download data of close to 11,000 books and chapters from the OAPEN Library, from the period 15 April 2020 to 31 July 2020. When a book or chapter is downloaded, it is logged by GA and at the same time a signal is sent to IRUS-UK.

This results in two datasets: the monthly downloads measured in GA and the usage reported by R5, also clustered by month. The number of downloads reported by GA is considerably larger than R5. The total number of downloads in GA for the period is over 3.6 million.

In contrast, the amount reported by R5 is 1.5 million, around 400,000 downloads per month. Contrasting R5 and GA data on a country-by-country basis shows significant differences. GA lists more than five times the number of downloads for several countries, although the totals for other countries are about the same.

When looking at individual tiles, of the 500 highest ranked titles in GA that are also part of the 1,000 highest ranked titles in R5, only 6% of the titles are relatively close together. The choice of metric service has considerable consequences on what is reported.

Thus, drawing conclusions about the results should be done with care. One metric is not better than the other, but we should be open about the choices made. After all, open access book metrics are complicated, and we can only benefit from clarity.

URL : Open access book usage data – how close is COUNTER to the other kind?

DOI : http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.539