FR

Préservation des données de recherche : proposer des services de soutien aux chercheurs du site Uni Arve de l’université de Genève

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Auteur/Author : Manuela Bezzi

Ce travail porte sur les pratiques des chercheurs du site Uni Arve (faculté des sciences) de l’université de Genève concernant la préservation et la réutilisation des données de recherche, et son objectif est d’évaluer les besoins des chercheurs afin de leur proposer des services de soutien appropriés.

La préservation des données de recherche s’inscrit dans le mouvement de l’Open Data dont l’objectif est de rendre les données de recherche publiquement accessibles, intelligibles et réutilisables, en particulier lorsque ces données ont été produites grâce à des recherches financées par des fonds publics.

Pour ce faire, le FNS demande aux chercheurs de déposer leurs données dans des archives publiques répondant aux principes FAIR. Or, depuis juin 2019, l’université de Genève met à disposition de ses chercheurs une archive institutionnelle, Yareta, répondant aux critères du FNS.

Afin de répondre aux mieux aux besoins des chercheurs, une approche en deux temps a été adoptée : (1) une analyse des jeux de données déposés sur Yareta a permis d’identifier les problématiques faisant obstacle à la réutilisation des données. (2) Puis, des entretiens menés avec des chercheurs ont permis d’analyser leurs pratiques de préservation et leurs besoins.

Les informations récoltées par ces deux approches ont permis de faire les propositions suivantes: un guide d’archivage portant sur quatre activités permettant de garantir une bonne préservation : format, contexte, métadonnées, licence, la mise en place de ressources additionnelles (page web ou formation) couvrant des notions peu comprises par les chercheurs, la modification de pages web existantes pour des raisons de cohérence, l’ajout d’information dans l’outil Yareta.

Ces propositions sont des solutions concrètes, basées sur les ressources existantes de l’université de Genève afin de pouvoir être complémentaires aux services de soutien et aux ressources déjà proposés par l’université de Genève.

De plus, ces propositions pourront bénéficier à toute la communauté de l’université de Genève et pas uniquement aux chercheurs du site Uni Arve.

DOI : https://doc.rero.ch/record/329678

FR

Quand le discours de savoir se fait technodiscours. Hypertextualité, commentaires et unité textuelle du billet scientifique

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Auteur/Author : Ingrid Mayeur

Le présent article propose des pistes pour déterminer par quels moyens le discours scientifique sur blog fait texte. Nous nous intéressons plus spécifiquement à l’enrichissement hypertextuel des énoncés et aux commentaires qui interrogent les contours du billet scientifique comme forme textuelle cohérente.

À partir de l’analyse d’un corpus de 87 billets extraits de la Une d’Hypothèses, plateforme de carnets de recherche en sciences humaines et sociales, nous identifions les fonctions cognitives assurées par ces deux composantes des écrits de blogs scientifiques ainsi que leur incidence sur le jugement de textualité (Adam 2011) susceptible d’être porté sur les billets.

Nous proposons enfin une lecture de l’enrichissement hypertextuel et des commentaires comme gestes discursifs du savoir (Lttr13 2016) jouant un rôle dans les opérations de textualisation des billets scientifiques.

URL : Quand le discours de savoir se fait technodiscours. Hypertextualité, commentaires et unité textuelle du billet scientifique

DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/corela.11876

EN

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

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

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

EN

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

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

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

EN

Software must be recognised as an important output of scholarly research

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

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

EN

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

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

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

EN

Connecting the Knowledge Commons — From Projects to Sustainable Infrastructure

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

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