Veille dédiée aux Sciences de l'Information et des Bibliothèques // Collecting and Sharing research papers in Library and Information science ISSN 2429-3938
Authors : Fabian Cremer, Katrin Neumann
The service portfolio of the institutional publishing platform perspectivia.net is built on partnerships, cooperations, and community networks. The paper discusses context, preconditions, best practices and challenges of an institutional service concept relying on services outside the institution.
Authors : Maria Manuel Borges, António Tavares Lopes
Changes brought about by the Internet to Scholarly Communication and the spread of Open Access movement, have made it possible to increase the number of potential readers of published research dramatically.
This two-phase study aims, at first, to assert the satisfaction of the potential for increased open access to articles published by authors at the University of Coimbra, in a context when there was no stimulus for the openness of published science other than an institutional mandate set by the University policy on Open Access (“Acesso Livre”).
The satisfaction of the access openness was measured by observing the actual archiving behavior of researchers (either directly or through their agents). We started by selecting the top journal titles used to publish the STEM research of the University of Coimbra (2004-2013) by using Thomson Reuters’ Science Citation Index (SCI). These titles were available at the University libraries or through online subscriptions, some of them in open access (21%).
By checking the journals’ policy at the time regarding self-archiving at the SHERPA/RoMEO service, we found that the percentage of articles in Open Access (OA) could rise to 80% if deposited at Estudo Geral, the Institutional Repository of the University of Coimbra, as prescribed by the Open Access Policy of the University.
As we concluded by verifying the deposit status of every single paper of researchers of the University that published in those journals, this potential was far from being fulfilled, despite the existence of the institutional mandate and favorable editorial conditions.
We concluded, therefore, that an institutional mandate was not sufficient by itself to fully implement an open access policy and to close the gap between publication and access.
The second phase of the study, to follow, will rescan the status of published papers in a context where the Portuguese public funding agency, the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, introduced in 2014 a new significant stimulus for open access in science.
The FCT Open Access Policy stipulates that publicly funded published research must be available as soon as possible in a repository of the Portuguese network of scientific repositories, RCAAP, which integrates the Estudo Geral.
URL : Narrowing the Gap Between Publication and Access: Is a Mandate Enough to Get Us Closer?
DOI : 10.20944/preprints201906.0154.v1
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, an effect which has been empirically observed for preprints in physics, astronomy and mathematics deposited to arXiv. 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 behaviour of bioRxiv preprints, their related journal articles, and non-deposited articles published in the same journals.
We found that bioRxiv-deposited journal articles received a sizeable citation and altmetric advantage over non-deposited articles. Regression analysis reveals that this advantage is not explained by multiple explanatory variables related to the article and its authorship.
bioRxiv preprints themselves are being directly cited in journal articles, regardless of whether the preprint has been subsequently 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.
Auteur/Author : Mélissa Defond
L’intégrité scientifique est au coeur de la validité et de la qualité des productions scientifiques. Il s’agit d’un enjeu majeur du monde de la recherche, et un nombre croissant de dispositifs sont en place dans les universités françaises pour répondre aux défis qu’il pose.
Quelle est la place des bibliothèques universitaires dans ce monde de l’intégrité, qui semble si lié aux opérateurs de la recherche ? Que peuvent-elles apporter à la question de l’intégrité scientifique, et quelles sont les limites de leur intervention ?
Nous sommes actuellement à un moment crucial, avec de nombreuses occasions à saisir pour les bibliothèques universitaires afin de se faire une place dans une culture de l’intégrité.
URL : Bibliothèques universitaires et intégrité scientifique : quels apports, quelles limites ?
Alternative location : https://www.enssib.fr/bibliotheque-numerique/notices/68906-bibliotheques-universitaires-et-integrite-scientifique-quels-apports-quelles-limites
Author : Paul Villa
Depuis octobre 2018, la loi pour une République numérique a inscrit dans le marbre une politique d’open data. L’open data est fondé sur trois pilier : la citoyenneté, l’économie et l’innovation technologique.
Or, les pratiques et les initiatives autour de l’ouverture des données possèdent une proximité certaine avec la philosophie des Communs. Réfléchir à l’open data à la lumière des Communs, c’est mettre en avant les points de convergence entre ces deux concepts et montrer comment les enjeux concernant les données, qu’elles soient publiques ou de recherche, sont impactés.
De plus, l’open data transforme radicalement l’éthique et les missions de la fonction publique. Les bibliothèques, tant publiques qu’universitaires, possèdent une expertise et une expérience concernant les données : elles peuvent donc être l’un des acteurs principaux de ce changement.
Ces questions permettent de réfléchir aux enjeux stratégiques, aux nouveaux services et aux nouvelles compétences professionnelles des bibliothécaires.
URL : L’open data au prisme des Communs : enjeux éthiques et professionnels en bibliothèque
Alternative location : https://www.enssib.fr/bibliotheque-numerique/notices/68915-l-open-data-au-prisme-des-communs-enjeux-ethiques-et-professionnels-en-bibliotheque
Authors : Clarissa F. D. Carneiro, Victor G. S. Queiroz, Thiago C. Moulin, Carlos A. M. Carvalho, Clarissa B. Haas, Danielle Rayêe, David E. Henshall, Evandro A. De-Souza, Felippe Espinelli, Flávia Z. Boos, Gerson D. Guercio, Igor R. Costa, Karina L. Hajdu, Martin Modrák, Pedro B. Tan, Steven J. Burgess, Sylvia F. S. Guerra, Vanessa T. Bortoluzzi, Olavo B. Amara
Preprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader’s ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings.
In this observational study, we compared random samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. We found that peer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although this difference was small.
We found larger differences favoring PubMed in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information.
Interestingly, an exploratory analysis showed that preprints with figures and legends embedded within text had reporting scores similar to PubMed articles.
These differences cannot be directly attributed to peer review or editorial processes, as manuscripts might already differ before submission due to greater uptake of preprints by particular research communities.
Nevertheless, our results show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions.
An ongoing second phase of the project is comparing preprints to their own published versions in order to more directly assess the effects of peer review.
Authors : Nikolai Klitzing, Rink Hoekstra, Jan-Willem Strijbos
Purpose
Literature practices represent the process leading up to the citation of a source, and consist of the selection, reading and citing of sources. The purpose of this paper is to explore possible factors that might influence researchers during this process and discover possible consequences of researchers’ citation behaviours.
Design/methodology/approach
In this exploratory study, various factors which could influence literature practices were explored via a questionnaire amongst 112 researchers. Participants were first authors of articles published in 2016 in one of five different journals within the disciplines of experimental psychology, educational sciences and social psychology. Academic positions of the participants ranged from PhD student to full professor.
Findings
Frequencies and percentages showed that researchers seemed to be influenced in their literature practices by various factors, such as editors suggesting articles and motivation to cite.
Additionally, a high percentage of researchers reported taking shortcuts when citing articles (e.g. using secondary citations and reading selectively). Logistic regression did not reveal a clear relationship between academic work experience and research practices.
Practical implications
Seeing that researchers seem to be influenced by a variety of factors in their literature practices, the scientific community might benefit from better citation practices and guidelines in order to provide more structure to the process of literature practices.
Originality/value
This paper provides first insights into researchers’ literature practices. Possible reasons for problems with citation accuracy and replicating research findings are highlighted. Opportunities for further research on the topic of citation behaviours are presented.
URL : https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/73871130/JD_03_2018_0047.pdf