An intersectional approach to analyse gender productivity and open access: a bibliometric analysis of the Italian National Research Council

Posté le par

Authors : Roberta Ruggieri, Fabrizio Pecoraro, Daniela Luzi

Gender equality and Open Access (OA) are priorities within the European Research Area and cross-cutting issues in European research program H2020. Gender and openness are also key elements of responsible research and innovation.

However, despite the common underlying targets of fostering an inclusive, transparent and sustainable research environment, both issues are analysed as independent topics. This paper represents a first exploration of the inter-linkages between gender and OA analysing the scientific production of researchers of the Italian National Research Council under a gender perspective integrated with the different OA publications modes.

A bibliometric analysis was carried out for articles published in the period 2016–2018 and retrieved from the Web of Science. Results are presented constantly analysing CNR scientific production in relation to gender, disciplinary fields and OA publication modes.

These variables are also used when analysing articles that receive financial support. Our results indicate that gender disparities in scientific production still persist particularly in STEM disciplines, while the gender gap is the closest to parity in medical and agricultural sciences.

A positive dynamic toward OA publishing and women’s scientific production is shown when disciplines with well-established open practices are related to articles supported by funds. A slightly higher women’s propensity toward OA is shown when considering Gold OA, or authorships with women in the first and last article by-line position.

The prevalence of Italian funded articles with women’s contributions published in Gold OA journals seems to confirm this tendency, especially if considering the weak enforcement of the Italian OA policies.

URL : An intersectional approach to analyse gender productivity and open access: a bibliometric analysis of the Italian National Research Council

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03802-0

What About Reuse? A Study on the Use of Open Educational Resources in Dutch Higher Education

Posté le par

Authors : Marjon Baas, Robert Schuwer

Extensive research has taken place over the years to examine the barriers of OER adoption, but little empirical studies has been undertaken to map the amount of OER reuse. The discussion around the actual use of OER, outside the context in which they were developed, remains ongoing.

Previous studies have already shown that searching and evaluating resources are barriers for actual reuse. Hence, in this quantitative survey study we explored teachers’ practices with resources in Higher Education Institutes in the Netherlands. The survey had three runs, each in a different context, with a total of 439 respondents.

The results show that resources that are hard or time-consuming to develop are most often reused from third parties without adaptations. Resources that need to be more context specific are often created by teachers themselves.

To improve our understanding of reuse, follow-up studies must explore reuse with a more qualitative research design in order to explore how these hidden practices of dark reuse look like and how teachers and students benefit of it.

URL : What About Reuse? A Study on the Use of Open Educational Resources in Dutch Higher Education

Original location : https://openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis/article/view/1139

The Science of Citizen Science

Posté le par

Authors : Katrin Vohland, Anne Land-Zandstra, Luigi Ceccaroni, Rob Lemmens, Josep Perelló, Marisa Ponti, Roeland Samson, Katherin Wagenknecht

This open access book discusses how the involvement of citizens into scientific endeavors is expected to contribute to solve the big challenges of our time, such as climate change and the loss of biodiversity, growing inequalities within and between societies, and the sustainability turn. The field of citizen science has been growing in recent decades.

Many different stakeholders from scientists to citizens and from policy makers to environmental organisations have been involved in its practice. In addition, many scientists also study citizen science as a research approach and as a way for science and society to interact and collaborate.

This book provides a representation of the practices as well as scientific and societal outcomes in different disciplines. It reflects the contribution of citizen science to societal development, education, or innovation and provides and overview of the field of actors as well as on tools and guidelines.

It serves as an introduction for anyone who wants to get involved in and learn more about the science of citizen science.

URL : The Science of Citizen Science

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4

‘Communists of Knowledge’? A case for the implementation of ‘radical open access’ in the humanities and social sciences

Posté le par

Author : Eleanor Masterman

Open access (OA) has widely been touted as a ‘radical’ alternative to the traditional scholarly publishing system, which has faced heavy criticism in the last twenty years for its oligopolistic market and high profit margins.

Yet, this dissertation argues that – especially in scientific, technical and medical (STM) publishing – OA under the ‘author-pays’ model has largely become part of that system, as another revenue stream for the largest commercial publishers.

My study contributes to a growing body of literature that seeks instead to re-politicise OA for the humanities and social sciences (HSS), a sector where the topic is still marked by discussion and debate, by critiquing its subordinance to market logic.

Adopting an explicitly political definition of ‘radical’, this study attempts to answer the question ‘Could open access facilitate a radical approach to academic publishing in the humanities and social sciences?’.

By performing a landscape study of the not-for-profit Radical Open Access Collective (Collective), this dissertation assesses and evaluates the radicalism of various different routes to OA in HSS.

It promotes the benefits of a self-reflexive approach to OA and the Collective’s networked model of smaller presses, while noting that low levels of marketing and indexing are detrimental to its research’s discoverability.

It also highlights that OA practice, even in the Collective, remains unduly influenced by harmful vestiges of the competitive market, notably prestige and academic colonialism.

Finally, this work proposes distinguishing ‘radical open access’ as a specific subsection of the wider OA movement and offers recommendations for a more radical future of HSS publishing.

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/t5n3-x550

Research Culture: A survey of early-career researchers in Australia

Posté le par

Authors : Katherine Christian, Carolyn Johnstone, Jo-ann Larkins, Wendy Wright, Michael R Doran

Early-career researchers (ECRs) make up a large portion of the academic workforce and their experiences often reflect the wider culture of the research system. Here we surveyed 658 ECRs working in Australia to better understand the needs and challenges faced by this community.

Although most respondents indicated a ‘love of science’, many also expressed an intention to leave their research position. The responses highlight how job insecurity, workplace culture, mentorship and ‘questionable research practices’ are impacting the job satisfaction of ECRs and potentially compromising science in Australia.

We also make recommendations for addressing some of these concerns.

URL : Research Culture: A survey of early-career researchers in Australia

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60613

The Pandemic as a Portal: Reimagining Psychological Science as Truly Open and Inclusive

Posté le par

Authors : Alison Ledgerwood, Sa-kiera Hudson, Neil Lewis, Keith Maddox, Cynthia Pickett, Jessica Remedios, Sapna Cheryan, Amanda Diekman, Jin Goh, Stephanie Goodwin, Yuko Munakata, Danielle Navarro, Ivuoma Onyeador, Sanjay Srivastava, Clara Wilkins

Psychological science is at an inflection point: The COVID-19 pandemic has already begun to exacerbate inequalities that stem from our historically closed and exclusive culture. Meanwhile, reform efforts to change the future of our science are too narrow in focus to fully succeed.

In this paper, we call on psychological scientists—focusing specifically on those who use quantitative methods in the United States as one context in which such a conversation can begin—to reimagine our discipline as fundamentally open and inclusive.

First, we discuss who our discipline was designed to serve and how this history produced the inequitable reward and support systems we see today.

Second, we highlight how current institutional responses to address worsening inequalities are inadequate, as well as how our disciplinary perspective may both help and hinder our ability to craft effective solutions.

Third, we take a hard look in the mirror at the disconnect between what we ostensibly value as a field and what we actually practice. Fourth and finally, we lead readers through a roadmap for reimagining psychological science in whatever roles and spaces they occupy, from an informal discussion group in a department to a formal strategic planning retreat at a scientific society.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gdzue

Science Communication in the Context of Reproducibility and Replicability: How Nonscientists Navigate Scientific Uncertainty

Posté le par

Author : Emily L. Howell

Scientists stand to gain in obvious ways from recent efforts to develop robust standards for and mechanisms of reproducibility and replicability. Demonstrations of reproducibility and replicability may provide clarity with respect to areas of uncertainty in scientific findings and translate into greater impact for the research.

But when it comes to public perceptions of science, it is less clear what gains might come from recent efforts to improve reproducibility and replicability. For example, could such efforts improve public understandings of scientific uncertainty?

To gain insight into this issue, we would need to know how those views are shaped by media coverage of it, but none of the emergent research on public views of reproducibility and replicability in science considers that question.

We do, however, have the recent report on Reproducibility and Replicability in Science issued by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which provides an overview of public perceptions of uncertainty in science.

Here, I adapt that report to begin a conversation between researchers and practitioners, with the aim of expanding research on public perceptions of scientific uncertainty. This overview draws upon research on risk perception and science communication to describe how the media influences the communication and perception of uncertainty in science.

It ends by presenting recommendations for communicating scientific uncertainty as it pertains to issues of reproducibility and replicability.

URL : Science Communication in the Context of Reproducibility and Replicability: How Nonscientists Navigate Scientific Uncertainty

Original location : https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/3g7u601s/release/2