The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis

Posté le par

Authors : Daniel G. Kipnis, Lisa A. Palmer, Ramune K. Kubilius

Objective

This study uses survey research methods to gain a deeper understanding of the institutional repository (IR) landscape in medical schools and academic health centers.

Methods

Members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) were surveyed about their IRs. The authors used a mixed-methods approach of a survey and qualitative content analysis to identify common themes.

Results

Survey results indicate that a large majority of responding medical schools and academic health centers have or are implementing an IR (35 out of 50, 70%). Of these, 60% (21 institutions) participate in an institution-wide IR rather than administer their own repositories.

Much of the archived content is grey literature that has not already been published, but the percentage of original content varies greatly among institutions. The majority (57.1%) of respondent institutions are not considering an open access policy or mandate. Most institutions (71.4%) reported that repository staff are depositing materials on behalf of users.

DSpace and bepress Digital Commons are the most popular repository platforms in this community. The planned enhancements that were most frequently reported were implementing a discovery layer and ORCID integration. The majority of respondents (54.3%) do not plan to migrate to a different platform in the foreseeable future.

Analysis of respondent comments identified the following themes: integration, redundancy, and reporting; alternatives and exploration; uniqueness; participation; and funding and operations.

Conclusions

The study results capture a view of the IR landscape in medical schools and academic health centers and help readers understand what services their peers have in place as well as their plans for future developments.

URL : The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis

DOI : https://dx.doi.org/10.5195%2Fjmla.2019.653

From Academia to Software Development: Publication Citations in Source Code Comments

Posté le par

Authors : Akira Inokuchi, Yusuf Sulistyo Nugroho, Fumiaki Konishi, Hideaki Hata, Akito Monden, Kenichi Matsumoto

Academic publications have been evaluated with the impact on research communities based on the number of citations. On the other hand, the impact of academic publications on industry has been rarely studied.

This paper investigates how academic publications contribute to software development by analyzing publication citations in source code comments in open source software repositories.

We propose an automated approach of detecting academic publications based on Named Entity Recognition, and achieve 0.90 in F1 as detection accuracy. We conduct a large-scale study of publication citations with 319,438,977 comments collected from active 25,925 repositories written in seven programming languages.

Our findings indicate that academic publications can be knowledge sources of software development, and there can be potential issues of obsoleting knowledge.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.06932

The NIH Open Citation Collection: A public access, broad coverage resource

Posté le par

Authors : B. Ian Hutchins, Kirk L. Baker, Matthew T. Davis, Mario A. Diwersy, Ehsanul Haque, Robert M. Harriman, Travis A. Hoppe, Stephen A. Leicht, Payam Meyer, George M. Santangelo

Citation data have remained hidden behind proprietary, restrictive licensing agreements, which raises barriers to entry for analysts wishing to use the data, increases the expense of performing large-scale analyses, and reduces the robustness and reproducibility of the conclusions.

For the past several years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Portfolio Analysis (OPA) has been aggregating and enhancing citation data that can be shared publicly. Here, we describe the NIH Open Citation Collection (NIH-OCC), a public access database for biomedical research that is made freely available to the community.

This dataset, which has been carefully generated from unrestricted data sources such as MedLine, PubMed Central (PMC), and CrossRef, now underlies the citation statistics delivered in the NIH iCite analytic platform.

We have also included data from a machine learning pipeline that identifies, extracts, resolves, and disambiguates references from full-text articles available on the internet. Open citation links are available to the public in a major update of iCite (https://icite.od.nih.gov).

URL : The NIH Open Citation Collection: A public access, broad coverage resource

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000385

 

The diverse niches of megajournals: Specialism within generalism

Posté le par

Authors: Kyle Siler, Vincent Larivière, Cassidy R. Sugimoto

Over the past decade, megajournals have expanded in popularity and established a legitimate niche in academic publishing. Leveraging advantages of digital publishing, megajournals are characterized by large publication volume, broad interdisciplinary scope, and peer‐review filters that select primarily for scientific soundness as opposed to novelty or originality.

These publishing innovations are complementary and competitive vis‐à‐vis traditional journals. We analyze how megajournals (PLOS One, Scientific Reports) are represented in different fields relative to prominent generalist journals (Nature, PNAS, Science) and “quasi‐megajournals” (Nature Communications, PeerJ).

Our results show that both megajournals and prominent traditional journals have distinctive niches, despite the similar interdisciplinary scopes of such journals.

These niches—defined by publishing volume and disciplinary diversity—are dynamic and varied over the relatively brief histories of the analyzed megajournals. Although the life sciences are the predominant contributor to megajournals, there is variation in the disciplinary composition of different megajournals.

The growth trajectories and disciplinary composition of generalist journals—including megajournals—reflect changing knowledge dissemination and reward structures in science.

URL : The diverse niches of megajournals: Specialism within generalism

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24299

Cultural obstacles to research data management and sharing at TU Delft

Posté le par

Authors : Esther Plomp, Nicolas Dintzner, Marta Teperek, Alastair Dunning

Research data management (RDM) is increasingly important in scholarship. Many researchers are, however, unaware of the benefits of good RDM and unsure about the practical steps they can take to improve their RDM practices. Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) addresses this cultural barrier by appointing Data Stewards at every faculty.

By providing expert advice and increasing awareness, the Data Stewardship project focuses on incremental improvements in current data and software management and sharing practices.

This cultural change is accelerated by the Data Champions who share best practices in data management with their peers. The Data Stewards and Data Champions build a community that allows a discipline-specific approach to RDM. Nevertheless, cultural change also requires appropriate rewards and incentives.

While local initiatives are important, and we discuss several examples in this paper, systemic changes to the academic rewards system are needed. This will require collaborative efforts of a broad coalition of stakeholders and we will mention several such initiatives.

This article demonstrates that community building is essential in changing the code and data management culture at TU Delft.

URL : Cultural obstacles to research data management and sharing at TU Delft

DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.484

Echoes des publications scientifiques en SHS sur les réseaux sociaux. Le cas des contenus d’Open Édition sur Twitter.

Posté le par

Auteurs/Authors : Lucie Loubère, Fidelia Ibekwe-Sanjuan

Les réseaux sociaux en se diffusant sur l’intégralité de la société sont également entrés dans le monde de la recherche. Ces outils accélèrent la circulation de l’information, et pourraient atteindre une audience différente du circuit universitaire.

Parallèlement les plateformes de savoir ouvert se développent et rendent accessible à tout le monde le savoir scientifique. Notre étude se focalise sur l’étude des tweets émis entre 2013 et 2017 pointant vers un contenu d’OpenEdition. Nous avons analysé les réseaux de retweets ainsi que les contenus textuels des tweets par étude lexicométrique.

Les résultats tendent à montrer une conservation des pratiques institutionnelles avec un cloisonnement linguistique et disciplinaire tant dans les pratiques de retweets que dans les contenus textuels.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02307664

Une classification interdisciplinaire pour l’échange et la médiation des données ouvertes de la recherche

Posté le par

Authors : Marcin Trzmielewski, Claudio Gnoli

Cette réflexion propose une évaluation de l’Integrative Levels Classification (ILC) en vue d’organiser des données ouvertes de la recherche en sciences humaines et sociales. Elle s’appuie sur une analyse des propriétés de l’ILC par rapport aux pratiques, usages et contexte de partage et de médiation des données.

Les résultats obtenus sont satisfaisants et présentent l’ILC comme prometteuse pour la construction d’une science ouverte, dynamique et novatrice.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02307108