How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing

Posté le par

Authors : Franciszek Krawczyk, Emanuel Kulczycki

The aim of this paper is to investigate how predatory journals are characterized by authors who write about such journals. We emphasize the ways in which predatory journals have been conflated with—or distinguished from—open access journals.

We created a list of relevant publications on predatory publishing using four databases: Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, and Microsoft Academic.

We included 280 English-language publications in the review according to their contributions to the discussions on predatory publishing. Then, we coded and qualitatively analyzed these publications.

The findings show the profound influence of Jeffrey Beall, who composed and maintained himself lists of predatory publishers and journals, on the whole discussion on predatory publishing.

The major themes by which Beall has characterized predatory journals are widely present in non-Beall publications. Moreover, 122 papers we reviewed combined predatory publishing with open access using similar strategies as Beall.

The overgeneralization of the flaws of some open access journals to the entire open access movement has led to unjustified prejudices among the academic community toward open access.

This is the first large-scale study that systematically examines how predatory publishing is defined in the literature.

URL : How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271

Opening Pandora’s Box: Peeking inside Psychology’s data sharing practices, and seven recommendations for change

Posté le par

Authors : John N. Towse, David A Ellis, Andrea S Towse

Open data-sharing is a valuable practice that ought to enhance the impact, reach, and transparency of a research project.

While widely advocated by many researchers and mandated by some journals and funding agencies, little is known about detailed practices across psychological science. In a pre-registered study, we show that overall, few research papers directly link to available data in many, though not all, journals.

Most importantly, even where open data can be identified, the majority of these lacked completeness and reusability—conclusions that closely mirror those reported outside of Psychology.

Exploring the reasons behind these findings, we offer seven specific recommendations for engineering and incentivizing improved practices, so that the potential of open data can be better realized across psychology and social science more generally.

URL : Opening Pandora’s Box: Peeking inside Psychology’s data sharing practices, and seven recommendations for change

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01486-1

Software must be recognised as an important output of scholarly research

Posté le par

Authors : Caroline Jay, Robert Haines, Daniel S. Katz

Software now lies at the heart of scholarly research. Here we argue that as well as being important from a methodological perspective, software should, in many instances, be recognised as an output of research, equivalent to an academic paper.

The article discusses the different roles that software may play in research and highlights the relationship between software and research sustainability and reproducibility. It describes the challenges associated with the processes of citing and reviewing software, which differ from those used for papers.

We conclude that whilst software outputs do not necessarily fit comfortably within the current publication model, there is a great deal of positive work underway that is likely to make an impact in addressing this.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.07571

Questionable and open research practices: attitudes and perceptions among quantitative communication researchers

Posté le par

Authors : Bert Bakker, Kokil Jaidka, Timothy Dörr, Neil Fasching, Yphtach Lelkes

Recent contributions have questioned the credibility of quantitative communication research. While questionable research practices are believed to be widespread, evidence for this claim is primarily derived from other disciplines.

Before change in communication research can happen, it is important to document the extent to which QRPs are used and whether researchers are open to the changes proposed by the so-called open science agenda.

We conducted a large survey among authors of papers published in the top-20 journals in communication science in the last ten years (N=1039). A non-trivial percent of researchers report using one or more QRPs. While QRPs are generally considered unacceptable, researchers perceive QRPs to be common among their colleagues.

At the same time, we find optimism about the use of open science practices in communication research. We end with a series of recommendations outlining what journals, institutions and researchers can do moving forward.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7uyn5

Connecting the Knowledge Commons — From Projects to Sustainable Infrastructure

Posté le par

Authors : Leslie Chan, Pierre Mounier

The question of sustainability in the open access movement has been widely debated, yet satisfactory answers have yet to be generated:
How do we move from an approach entirely based on temporary projects to an approach based on community-based sustainable infrastructure?
What kinds of social and technical infrastructures could support the Knowledge Commons?
What values and services are being delivered, by which stakeholders, and for whom?
What governance and financial models are possible?
Given the global nature of scholarly communication, how do we ensure that the designs of the Commons are inclusive of voices from the global South?

This volume collects nine selected papers presented at ELPUB2018 Conference in June 2018 in Toronto. Each paper was carefully selected, reviewed and edited to bring to an international audience the latest contributions from researchers and experts in the field.

In addition to the technical issues related to interoperability of systems, research workflow, content preservation, and other services, the selected papers address the design and implementation of a community-based research communication infrastructure.

ELPUB Conference has featured research results in various aspects of digital publishing for over two decades, involving a diverse international community of librarians, developers, publishers, entrepreneurs, administrators and researchers across the disciplines in the sciences and the humanities.

URL : http://books.openedition.org/oep/8999

The views, perspectives, and experiences of academic researchers with data sharing and reuse: A meta-synthesis

Posté le par

Authors : Laure Perrier, Erik Blondal, Heather MacDonald

Background

Funding agencies and research journals are increasingly demanding that researchers share their data in public repositories. Despite these requirements, researchers still withhold data, refuse to share, and deposit data that lacks annotation.

We conducted a meta-synthesis to examine the views, perspectives, and experiences of academic researchers on data sharing and reuse of research data.

Methods

We searched the published and unpublished literature for studies on data sharing by researchers in academic institutions. Two independent reviewers screened citations and abstracts, then full-text articles.

Data abstraction was performed independently by two investigators. The abstracted data was read and reread in order to generate codes. Key concepts were identified and thematic analysis was used for data synthesis.

Results

We reviewed 2005 records and included 45 studies along with 3 companion reports. The studies were published between 2003 and 2018 and most were conducted in North America (60%) or Europe (17%).

The four major themes that emerged were data integrity, responsible conduct of research, feasibility of sharing data, and value of sharing data. Researchers lack time, resources, and skills to effectively share their data in public repositories.

Data quality is affected by this, along with subjective decisions around what is considered to be worth sharing. Deficits in infrastructure also impede the availability of research data. Incentives for sharing data are lacking.

Conclusion

Researchers lack skills to share data in a manner that is efficient and effective. Improved infrastructure support would allow them to make data available quickly and seamlessly. The lack of incentives for sharing research data with regards to academic appointment, promotion, recognition, and rewards need to be addressed.

URL : The views, perspectives, and experiences of academic researchers with data sharing and reuse: A meta-synthesis

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234275.s002

Institutional Repositories for Public Engagement : Creating a Common Good Model for an Engaged Campus

Posté le par

Authors : Erik A. Moore, Valerie M. Collins, Lisa R. Johnston

Most higher-education institutions strive to be publicly engaged and community centered. These institutions leverage faculty, researchers, librarians, community liaisons, and communication specialists to meet this mission, but they have largely underutilized the potential of institutional repositories.

Academic institutions can use institutional repositories to provide open access and long-term preservation to institutional gray literature, research data, university publications, and campus research products that have tangible, real-world applications for the communities they serve.

Using examples from the University of Minnesota, this article demonstrates how making this content discoverable, openly accessible, and preserved for the future through an institutional repository not only increases the value of this publicly-engaged work but also creates a lasting record of a university’s public engagement efforts and contributes to the mission of the institution.

URL : Institutional Repositories for Public Engagement : Creating a Common Good Model for an Engaged Campus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21900/j.jloe.v1i1.472