FR

Les désaccords éditoriaux dans Wikipédia comme tensions entre régimes épistémiques

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Auteurs/Authors : Guillaume Carbou, Gilles Sahut

Malgré son architecture normative élaborée, Wikipédia est le lieu de désaccords récurrents entre contributeurs.

Les auteurs montrent, à partir de l’analyse argumentative d’un corpus des pages de discussion d’articles suscitant de forts débats (OGM, 11 septembre, etc.), que ces désaccords sont en partie sous-tendus par l’existence de « régimes épistémiques » concurrents sur Wikipédia.

Ces régimes épistémiques (encyclopédiste, scientifique, scientiste, wiki, critique et doxique) correspondent à autant de conceptions divergentes du « valide » et des modalités pour y aboutir.

URL : https://journals.openedition.org/communication/10788

FR

Repenser les chaînes de publication par l’intégration des pratiques du développement logiciel

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Auteurs/Authors : Antoine Fauchié, Thomas Parisot

La rencontre des univers du livre et du développement logiciel est à l’œuvre dans plusieurs expérimentations de chaînes éditoriales, faisant apparaître de nouvelles approches et de nouvelles pratiques de design.

Les étapes du processus d’édition sont réévaluées, repensées, re-conçues, notamment par l’avènement d’un environnement profondément numérique. Quelles sont les influences des méthodes et des outils du développement web sur les chaînes de publication des livres ?

Nous nous focaliserons ici sur quatre aspects : la modularité des étapes et outils d’édition, l’ouverture des formats, la réduction de la distance entre le contenu et ses usages et l’économie acquise qui concerne principalement l’humain.

Cet article constitue un bref panorama des efforts nécessaires pour envisager une évolution des chaînes d’édition, en sollicitant les pensées d’Ivan Illich et de Gilbert Simondon.

Nous interrogerons des systèmes innovants inspirés de l’agilité chère au monde du développement logiciel.

URL : https://antoinentl.gitlab.io/readme.book/

EN

Bibliodiversity in Practice: Developing Community-Owned, Open Infrastructures to Unleash Open Access Publishing

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Lucy Barnes, Rupert Gatti

Academic publishing is changing. The drive towards open access publishing, which is being powered in the UK by funding bodies (SHERPA Juliet), the requirements of REFs 2021 (UKRI) and 2027 (Hill 2018), and Europe-wide movements such as the recently-announced Plan S (‘About Plan S’), has the potential to shake up established ways of publishing academic research.

Within book publishing, the traditional print formats and the conventional ways of disseminating research, which are protected and promoted by a small number of powerful incumbents, are being challenged.

Academic publishing, and academic book publishing, is at a crossroads: will it find ways to accommodate open access distribution within its existing structures?

Or will new systems of research dissemination be developed? And what might those new systems look like?In this article we look at the main features of the existing monograph publication and distribution ecosystem, and question the suitability of this for open access monographs.

We look specifically at some of the key economic characteristics of the monograph publishing market and consider their implications for new infrastructures designed specifically to support open access titles.

The key observations are that the production of monographs displays constant returns to scale, and so can (and does) support large numbers of publishing initiatives; at the same time the distribution and discovery systems for monographs display increasing returns to scale and so naturally leads to the emergence of a few large providers.

We argue that in order to protect the diversity of players and outputs within the monograph publishing industry in the transition to open access it is important to create open and community-managed infrastructures and revenue flows that both cater for different business models and production workflows and are resistant to take over or control by a single (or small number) of players.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02175276/

 

EN

The advantages of UK Biobank’s open access strategy for health research

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Megan Conroy, Jonathan Sellors, Mark Effingham, Thomas J. Littlejohns, Chris Boultwood, Lorraine Gillions, Cathie L.M. Sudlow, Rory Collins, Naomi E. Allen

Ready access to health research studies is becoming more important as researchers, and their funders, seek to maximise the opportunities for scientific innovation and health improvements.

Large‐scale population‐based prospective studies are particularly useful for multidisciplinary research into the causes, treatment and prevention of many different diseases. UK Biobank has been established as an open‐access resource for public health research, with the intention of making the data as widely available as possible in an equitable and transparent manner.

Access to UK Biobank’s unique breadth of phenotypic and genetic data has attracted researchers worldwide from across academia and industry. As a consequence, it has enabled scientists to perform world‐leading collaborative research.

Moreover, open access to an already deeply characterized cohort has encouraged both public and private sector investment in further enhancements to make UK Biobank an unparalleled resource for public health research and an exemplar for the development of open access approaches for other studies.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12955

EN

The Definition of Reuse

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Stephanie van de Sandt, Sünje Dallmeier-Tiessen, Artemis Lavasa, Vivien Petras

The ability to reuse research data is now considered a key benefit for the wider research community. Researchers of all disciplines are confronted with the pressure to share their research data so that it can be reused.

The demand for data use and reuse has implications on how we document, publish and share research in the first place, and, perhaps most importantly, it affects how we measure the impact of research, which is commonly a measurement of its use and reuse.

It is surprising that research communities, policy makers, etc. have not clearly defined what use and reuse is yet.

We postulate that a clear definition of use and reuse is needed to establish better metrics for a comprehensive scholarly record of individuals, institutions, organizations, etc.

Hence, this article presents a first definition of reuse of research data. Characteristics of reuse are identified by examining the etymology of the term and the analysis of the current discourse, leading to a range of reuse scenarios that show the complexity of today’s research landscape, which has been moving towards a data-driven approach.

The analysis underlines that there is no reason to distinguish use and reuse. We discuss what that means for possible new metrics that attempt to cover Open Science practices more comprehensively.

We hope that the resulting definition will enable a better and more refined strategy for Open Science.

URL : The Definition of Reuse

DOI : http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2019-022

EN

Establishing, Developing, and Sustaining a Community of Data Champions

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : James L. Savage, Lauren Cadwallader

Supporting good practice in Research Data Management (RDM) is challenging for higher education institutions, in part because of the diversity of research practices and data types across disciplines.

While centralised research data support units now exist in many universities, these typically possess neither the discipline-specific expertise nor the resources to offer appropriate targeted training and support within every academic unit.

One solution to this problem is to identify suitable individuals with discipline-specific expertise that are already embedded within each unit, and empower these individuals to advocate for good RDM and to deliver support locally.

This article focuses on an ongoing example of this approach: the Data Champion Programme at the University of Cambridge, UK.

We describe how the Data Champion programme was established; the programme’s reach, impact, strengths and weaknesses after two years of operation; and our anticipated challenges and planned strategies for maintaining the programme over the medium- and long-term.

URL : Establishing, Developing, and Sustaining a Community of Data Champions

DOI : http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2019-023

EN

Data Sharing Practices among Researchers at South African Universities

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Siviwe Bangani, Mathew Moyo

Research data management practices have gained momentum the world over. This is due to increased demands by governments and other funding agencies to have research data archived and shared as widely as possible.

This paper sought to establish the data sharing practices of researchers in South Africa. The study further sought to establish the level of collaboration among researchers in sharing research data at the university level.

The outcomes of the survey will help the researchers to develop appropriate data literacy awareness programmes meant to stimulate growth in data sharing practices for the benefit of research, not only in South Africa, but the world at large.

A survey research method was used to gather data from willing public universities in South Africa. A similar study was conducted in other countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Turkey but the Researchers believe that circumstances in the developed world may differ with the South African research environment, hence the current study.

The major finding of this study was that most researchers preferred to use data produced by others but less keen on sharing their own data.

This study is the first of its kind in South Africa which investigates data sharing practices of researchers from multi-disciplinary fields at the university level and will contribute immensely to the growing body of literature in the area of research data management.

URL : Data Sharing Practices among Researchers at South African Universities

DOI : http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2019-028