EN

How Can We Use Social Media Data Related to OA Monographs

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Alkim Ozaygen, Lucy Montgomery, Cameron Neylon, Katie Wilson, RichardHosking, Karl Huang

This paper reports on a study of social media events relating to 28 Open Access (OA) monographs, published between 2014 and 2015. As with citations (Cronin 1981) social media events represent the frozen footprints of the journey that monographs take as they move through digital landscapes.

The study captured mentions of the study-set of monographs via Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia and online blogs; as well as user ratings on Google Books, Amazon and Goodreads.

Information relating to the ways in which the books were bookmarked and cited was captured via the online reference managing platform Mendeley. The benefits and limitations of different altmetrics approaches to capturing and analyzing this data are discussed.

Practical suggestions for researchers interested in the application of Altmetrics approaches to studies of monographs are also provided.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02544911

Non classé

SPI-Hub™: a gateway to scholarly publishing information

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Taneya Y. Koonce, Mallory N. Blasingame, Jerry Zhao, Annette M. Williams, Jing Su, Spencer J. DesAutels, Dario A. Giuse, John D. Clark, Zachary E. Fox, Nunzia Bettinsoli Giuse

Background

Advances in the health sciences rely on sharing research and data through publication. As information professionals are often asked to contribute their knowledge to assist clinicians and researchers in selecting journals for publication, the authors recognized an opportunity to build a decision support tool, SPI-Hub: Scholarly Publishing Information Hub™, to capture the team’s collective publishing industry knowledge, while carefully retaining the quality of service.

Case Presentation

SPI-Hub’s decision support functionality relies on a data framework that describes journal publication policies and practices through a newly designed metadata structure, the Knowledge Management Journal Record™.

Metadata fields are populated through a semi-automated process that uses custom programming to access content from multiple sources. Each record includes 25 metadata fields representing best publishing practices. Currently, the database includes more than 24,000 health sciences journal records.

To correctly capture the resources needed for both completion and future maintenance of the project, the team conducted an internal study to assess time requirements for completing records through different stages of automation.

Conclusions

The journal decision support tool, SPI-Hub, provides an opportunity to assess publication practices by compiling data from a variety of sources in a single location.

Automated and semi-automated approaches have effectively reduced the time needed for data collection.

Through a comprehensive knowledge management framework and the incorporation of multiple quality points specific to each journal, SPI-Hub provides prospective users with both recommendations for publication and holistic assessment of the trustworthiness of journals in which to publish research and acquire trusted knowledge.

URL : SPI-Hub™: a gateway to scholarly publishing information

Original location : http://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/815

Non classé

The impact of institutional repositories: a systematic review

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Michelle R. Demetres, Diana Delgado, Drew N. Wright

Objective

Institutional repositories are platforms for presenting and publicizing scholarly output that might not be suitable to publish in a peer-reviewed journal or that must meet open access requirements.

However, there are many challenges associated with their launch and up-keep. The objective of this systematic review was to define the impacts of institutional repositories (IRs) on an academic institution, thus justifying their implementation and/or maintenance.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (Wiley), ERIC (ProQuest), Web of Science (Core Collection), Scopus (Elsevier), and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (EBSCO). A total of 6,593 citations were screened against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Results

Thirteen included studies were divided into 3 areas of impact: citation count, exposure or presence, and administrative impact. Those focusing on citation count (n=5) and exposure or presence (n=7) demonstrated positive impacts of IRs on institutions and researchers.

One study focusing on administrative benefit demonstrated the utility of IRs in automated population of ORCID profiles.

Conclusion

Based on the available literature, IRs appear to have a positive impact on citation count, exposure or presence, and administrative burden. To draw stronger conclusions, more and higher-quality studies are needed.

URL : The impact of institutional repositories: a systematic review

Original location : http://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/856

EN

Did awarding badges increase data sharing in BMJ Open? A randomized controlled trial

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Anisa Rowhani-Farid, Adrian Aldcroft, Adrian G. Barnett

Sharing data and code are important components of reproducible research. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there are no well-established evidence-based incentives that reward data sharing, nor randomized studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of data sharing policies at increasing data sharing.

A simple incentive, such as an Open Data Badge, might provide the change needed to increase data sharing in health and medical research. This study was a parallel group randomized controlled trial (protocol registration: doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/PXWZQ) with two groups, control and intervention, with 80 research articles published in BMJ Open per group, with a total of 160 research articles.

The intervention group received an email offer for an Open Data Badge if they shared their data along with their final publication and the control group received an email with no offer of a badge if they shared their data with their final publication.

The primary outcome was the data sharing rate. Badges did not noticeably motivate researchers who published in BMJ Open to share their data; the odds of awarding badges were nearly equal in the intervention and control groups (odds ratio = 0.9, 95% CI [0.1, 9.0]). Data sharing rates were low in both groups, with just two datasets shared in each of the intervention and control groups.

The global movement towards open science has made significant gains with the development of numerous data sharing policies and tools.

What remains to be established is an effective incentive that motivates researchers to take up such tools to share their data.

URL : Did awarding badges increase data sharing in BMJ Open? A randomized controlled trial

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191818

EN

Faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory open access journals: a needs assessment study

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Stephanie M. Swanberg, Joanna Thielen, Nancy Bulgarelli

Objective

The purpose of predatory open access (OA) journals is primarily to make a profit rather than to disseminate quality, peer-reviewed research.

Publishing in these journals could negatively impact faculty reputation, promotion, and tenure, yet many still choose to do so. Therefore, the authors investigated faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory OA journals.

Methods

A twenty-item questionnaire containing both quantitative and qualitative items was developed and piloted. All university and medical school faculty were invited to participate.

The survey included knowledge questions that assessed respondents’ ability to identify predatory OA journals and attitudinal questions about such journals. Chi-square tests were used to detect differences between university and medical faculty.

Results

A total of 183 faculty completed the survey: 63% were university and 37% were medical faculty. Nearly one-quarter (23%) had not previously heard of the term “predatory OA journal.”

Most (87%) reported feeling very confident or confident in their ability to assess journal quality, but only 60% correctly identified a journal as predatory, when given a journal in their field to assess.

Chi-square tests revealed that university faculty were more likely to correctly identify a predatory OA journal (p=0.0006) and have higher self-reported confidence in assessing journal quality, compared with medical faculty (p=0.0391).

Conclusions

Survey results show that faculty recognize predatory OA journals as a problem. These attitudes plus the knowledge gaps identified in this study will be used to develop targeted educational interventions for faculty in all disciplines at our university.

URL : Faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory open access journals: a needs assessment study

Original location : http://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/849

EN

FAIR Digital Objects for Science: From Data Pieces to Actionable Knowledge Units

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Koenraad De Smedt, Dimitris Koureas, Peter Wittenburg

Data science is facing the following major challenges: (1) developing scalable cross-disciplinary capabilities, (2) dealing with the increasing data volumes and their inherent complexity, (3) building tools that help to build trust, (4) creating mechanisms to efficiently operate in the domain of scientific assertions, (5) turning data into actionable knowledge units and (6) promoting data interoperability.

As a way to overcome these challenges, we further develop the proposals by early Internet pioneers for Digital Objects as encapsulations of data and metadata made accessible by persistent identifiers.

In the past decade, this concept was revisited by various groups within the Research Data Alliance and put in the context of the FAIR Guiding Principles for findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable data.

The basic components of a FAIR Digital Object (FDO) as a self-contained, typed, machine-actionable data package are explained. A survey of use cases has indicated the growing interest of research communities in FDO solutions.

We conclude that the FDO concept has the potential to act as the interoperable federative core of a hyperinfrastructure initiative such as the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC).

URL : FAIR Digital Objects for Science: From Data Pieces to Actionable Knowledge Units

Alternative location : https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/8/2/21

FR

Environnement d’édition scientifique en XML-TEI utilisé dans le cadre du programme Ichtya pour encoder les compilations médiévales

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Marie Bisson, Brigitte Gauvin, Barbara Jacob

Ce document récapitule la méthodologie adoptée pour constituer un corpus de textes thématique consacré à l’ichtyologie, en utilisant l’environnement Ichtya créé pour le programme de recherche du même nom.

C’est en constituant cette méthodologie et en la respectant pour tous les textes du corpus que le corpus Ichtya a pu être publié et exploité.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02536882