Compliance with the first funder open access policy in Australia

Posté le par

Authors : Noreen Kirkman, Gaby Haddow

Introduction

In 2012, the National Health and Medical Research Council introduced Australia’s first national open access policy for funded journal articles. This study investigated the extent of compliance during the first two full years of the mandate.

Method

The funding acknowledgment fields in Web of Science facilitated the identification of the population of funded articles. Google Scholar, the Directory of Open Access Journals, publishers’ Websites, Trove, and Australian institutional repositories were the sources of data about open access.

Analysis

Quantitative analysis performed on the records of 3,190 articles and 1,137 journal titles enabled the calculation of descriptive statistics to present the characteristics of the sample.

Results

Over two-thirds (67.3%) of the articles were open access: 56.24% in journals and 11.06% in repositories. Hybrid open access comprised 25.58%, with 20.85% in fully open access journals and 8.75% in delayed open access journals.

Author accepted manuscripts in Australian institutional repositories (7.24%) and PubMed Central (3.82%) contributed to overall compliance but represented a small proportion of the non-open access articles.

Conclusions

As the first comprehensive study to measure compliance with Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council Open Access Policy, this study found a relatively high level of open access in journals alongside a low level of author accepted manuscripts in repositories.

Recommendations include better guidelines, procedures, and programs for grant recipients and a coordinated approach aimed at improving institutional repository deposit rates to achieve higher levels of open access and increased compliance with funder mandates.

URL : http://www.informationr.net/ir/25-2/paper857.html

Comparing the diffusion and adoption of linked data and research data management services among libraries

Posté le par

Author : Jinfang Niu

Introduction

Libraries face innovations periodically. It is important to identify consistent patterns in the diffusion and adoption of innovations so that libraries and relevant stakeholders will be informed and well-prepared for future innovations.

Method

This paper compares findings from two previous projects, each of which was conducted to investigate the diffusion and adoption of two recent innovations, research data management service and linked data, respectively.

The two projects were conducted using similar methods: collecting and analysing literature about the adoption of these innovations in libraries in the United States. Literature was collected through Google Scholar search, citation chasing, and target search for people or libraries that are involved in their adoption.

Analysis

The gathered articles were then coded and analysed based on diffusion of innovation theories.

Results

Similarities and disparities between the diffusion and adoption of the two innovations were identified.

Conclusions

Findings from this study are informative for the decision-making of libraries, librarians, funders, and professional associations facing future innovations. They also contribute to diffusion of innovation theories through revealing new communication channels and alternative adoption processes, as well as redefining existing concepts.

URL : http://www.informationr.net/ir/25-2/paper855.html

Et si la recherche scientifique ne pouvait pas être neutre?

Posté le par

Auteurs/Authors : Laurence Brière, Mélissa Lieutenant-Gosselin, Florence Piron

Les manières de faire de la science aujourd’hui sont multiples et innovantes. Pourtant, un modèle normatif continue d’écraser les autres : le modèle positiviste.

Il soutient que la science vise l’étude objective de la réalité en s’appuyant sur l’application rigoureuse de la méthode « scientifique » dont la neutralité est un des emblèmes.

Cette vision est vivement contestée dans plusieurs champs de recherche, tels que les études sociales des sciences, l’histoire des sciences et les études féministes et décoloniales. Ces critiques considèrent que les théories scientifiques sont construites et influencées par le contexte social, culturel et politique dans lequel travaillent les scientifiques, ainsi que par les conditions matérielles de leur travail.

Cet ancrage social de la science rend impensable, pour ces critiques, l’idée même de neutralité. Faut-il donc renoncer à cette exigence normative? Par quelle autre norme la remplacer?

Né d’un colloque tenu en 2017 à Montréal, ce livre propose les réflexions et analyses de 25 auteurs et autrices issues de sept pays sur ces questions. Études de cas, analyses réflexives et discussions théoriques s’entrecroisent pour permettre une réflexion collective approfondie sur ces enjeux anciens, mais constamment renouvelés, notamment dans le contexte du nouveau statut précaire de l’expertise scientifique dans l’espace public.

URL : Et si la recherche scientifique ne pouvait pas être neutre?

Original location : https://scienceetbiencommun.pressbooks.pub/neutralite/

Why You Need Soft and Non-Technical Skills for Successful Data Librarianship

Posté le par

Author : Margaret Henderson

There are many courses available to teach research data management to librarians and researchers. While these courses can help with technical skills, like programming or statistics, and practical knowledge of data life cycles or data sharing policies, there are “soft skills” and non-technical skills that are needed to successfully start and run data services.

While there are many important characteristics of a good data librarian, reference skills, relationship building, collaboration, listening, and facilitation are some of the most important. Giving consideration to these skills will help any data librarian with their multifaceted job.

URL : Skills for Data Librarianship

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2020.1183

“You Need to Make it as Easy as Possible for Me”: Creating Scholarly Communication Reports for Liaison Librarians

Posté le par

Authors : Jessica Lange, Carrie Hanson

INTRODUCTION

The typical trifecta of liaison librarian positions (collections, reference, and teaching) is shifting to include additional skillsets and competencies, particularly scholarly communications.

While liaison librarians adapt to these changing roles, the question of how to upskill and train liaison librarians in scholarly communications is timely and still in flux. The lack of time required to improve these competencies and skills is an oft-cited challenge.

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT

To address the challenge of lack of time, this article describes a pilot project undertaken with the aid of a Master of Information Studies practicum student to create scholarly communications reports for liaison librarians.

These reports provide background knowledge and discipline-specific information about the scholarly communications landscape, particularly within the institutional context.

The goal of the reports is to provide liaison librarians with greater contextual knowledge of their disciplines and the publishing patterns within their departments.

This article will discuss the methodology behind creating these reports as well as feedback from liaison librarians on their relevance and potential use.

NEXT STEPS

The initial pilot was promising, however using a practicum student to create such reports may not be sustainable. Other possibilities include holding “research report retreats” for liaison librarians to complete their own reports with a scholarly communications expert on hand.

Additionally, institutions without a master’s program in library and information studies could consider the creation and updating of such reports as a backup project for existing fulltime or student staff.

URL : “You Need to Make it as Easy as Possible for Me”: Creating Scholarly Communication Reports for Liaison Librarians

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2329

A validation of coauthorship credit models with empirical data from the contributions of PhD candidates

Posté le par

Author : Paul Donner

A perennial problem in bibliometrics is the appropriate distribution of authorship credit for coauthored publications. Several credit allocation methods and formulas have been introduced, but there has been little empirical validation as to which method best reflects the typical contributions of coauthors.

This paper presents a validation of credit allocation methods using a new data set of author-provided percentage contribution figures obtained from the coauthored publications in cumulative PhD theses by authors from three countries that contain contribution statements.

The comparison of allocation schemes shows that harmonic counting performs best and arithmetic and geometric counting also perform well, while fractional counting and first author counting perform relatively poorly.

URL : https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/qss_a_00048?af=R

The relationship between bioRxiv preprints, citations and altmetrics

Posté le par

Authors : Nicholas Fraser, Fakhri Momeni, Philipp Mayr, Isabella Peters

A potential motivation for scientists to deposit their scientific work as preprints is to enhance its citation or social impact. In this study we assessed the citation and altmetric advantage of bioRxiv, a preprint server for the biological sciences.

We retrieved metadata of all bioRxiv preprints deposited between November 2013 and December 2017, and matched them to articles that were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals.

Citation data from Scopus and altmetric data from Altmetric.com were used to compare citation and online sharing behavior of bioRxiv preprints, their related journal articles, and nondeposited articles published in the same journals. We found that bioRxiv-deposited journal articles had sizably higher citation and altmetric counts compared to nondeposited articles.

Regression analysis reveals that this advantage is not explained by multiple explanatory variables related to the articles’ publication venues and authorship. Further research will be required to establish whether such an effect is causal in nature.

bioRxiv preprints themselves are being directly cited in journal articles, regardless of whether the preprint has subsequently been published in a journal. bioRxiv preprints are also shared widely on Twitter and in blogs, but remain relatively scarce in mainstream media and Wikipedia articles, in comparison to peer-reviewed journal articles.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00043