EN

A Reflection on the Applicability of Google Scholar as a Tool for Comprehensive Retrieval in Bibliometric Research and Systematic Reviews

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Mojgan Houshyar, Hajar Sotudeh

Google Scholar has recently attracted great attentions as an open access multidisciplinary citation database, and a tool for retrieving scientific works for scientometricians and researchers.

The present research intended to highlight the limitations brought about by efficiency policies of the search engine and its impact on the results available to users. To do so, it examined the accessibility of the retrieval results, through conducting 54 searches in this database.

The results showed that the estimation of the results on the top of the first page returned by Google Scholar did not match that of the accessible results. Therefore, these statistics could not be accounted for to precisely determine the number of documents on a topic.

Moreover, the results showed that although the subjects selected for the searches were very specific, the number of results for each search was very wide and exceeded the upper limit of 1,000 records authorized in Google Scholar for display.

By limiting the searches to the title field, the number of the results was dramatically reduced. Since title is one of the most important representations of document contents in scientific and technical fields, this strategy can increase the precision of the results and thus the effectiveness of the retrievals.

The investigation of the accessibility of the search results for the title field also showed that some documents, though scarce in number, were still inaccessible despite the fact that they were within the 1000-record limits.

In addition, in title field search, some rare cases of duplicate records, incompatibilities between queries and documents were observed regarding the language of the documents and exact phrase search.

The lack of automatic truncation in field searches was one of the most important issues necessitating the use of sophisticated search strategies.

URL : A Reflection on the Applicability of Google Scholar as a Tool for Comprehensive Retrieval in Bibliometric Research and Systematic Reviews

Alternative location : https://ijism.ricest.ac.ir/index.php/ijism/article/view/1267

EN

Open Access E-Books in the Field of Health Sciences: A Scientometric Study

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Fayaz Ahmad Loan, Ufaira Yaseen Shah

The Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) is a discovery service for open access e-books. It provides a searchable index to peer-reviewed e-books published under an open access business model.

The present study aims to assess the scientometric trends of the open access e-books in the field of the Health Sciences available through the Directory of Open Access Books. In order to fulfil the set objectives, the relevant details of the Health Sciences e-books were collected.

The results reveal that 916 e-books are available in the field of the Health Sciences through the Directory of Open Access. The highest number of e-books is contributed in General Medicine (40.61%, 372) and in the English language (83.84%, 768). These e-books also contain current information as the majority (88.32%, 809) of these are published from 2011 onwards by the reputed publishers like Frontiers Media, SciELO, Springer, Palgrave Macmillan, and Oxford University Press etc.

The Directory of Open Access Books was selected as a source for data collection whereas the Health Sciences was selected as the field of study. Therefore, the finding can’t be generalised across directories and subjects.

URL : Open Access E-Books in the Field of Health Sciences: A Scientometric Study

Alternative location : https://ijism.ricest.ac.ir/index.php/ijism/article/view/1272

EN

The Cost of Astronomy Publishing fees in astronomy: Is something rotten in the case of Denmark?

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Bertil F. Dorch

Using Scopus and national sources, I have investigated the evolution of the cost of publishing in Danish astronomy on a fine scale over a number of years.

I find that the number of publications per year from Danish astronomers increased by a factor of four during 15 years: naturally, the corresponding potential cost of publishing must have increased similarly.

The actual realized cost of publishing in core journals are investigated for a high profile Danish astronomy research institutions. I argue that the situation is highly unstable if the current cost scenario continues, and I speculate that Danish astronomy is risking a scholarly communication collapse due to the combination of increasing subscription cost, increased research output, and increased direct publishing costs related to Open Access and other page charges.

URL : The Cost of Astronomy Publishing fees in astronomy: Is something rotten in the case of Denmark?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/201818612005

EN

How are we Measuring Up? Evaluating Research Data Services in Academic Libraries

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Heather L. Coates, Jake Carlson, Ryan Clement, Margaret Henderson, Lisa R Johnston, Yasmeen Shorish

INTRODUCTION

In the years since the emergence of federal funding agency data management and sharing requirements (http://datasharing.sparcopen.org/data), research data services (RDS) have expanded to dozens of academic libraries in the United States.

As these services have matured, service providers have begun to assess them. Given a lack of practical guidance in the literature, we seek to begin the discussion with several case studies and an exploration of four approaches suitable to assessing these emerging services.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

This article examines five case studies that vary by staffing, drivers, and institutional context in order to begin a practice-oriented conversation about how to evaluate and assess research data services in academic libraries.

The case studies highlight some commonly discussed challenges, including insufficient training and resources, competing demands for evaluation efforts, and the tension between evidence that can be easily gathered and that which addresses our most important questions.

We explore reflective practice, formative evaluation, developmental evaluation, and evidence-based library and information practice for ideas to advance practice.

NEXT STEPS

Data specialists engaged in providing research data services need strategies and tools with which to make decisions about their services. These range from identifying stakeholder needs to refining existing services to determining when to extend and discontinue declining services.

While the landscape of research data services is broad and diverse, there are common needs that we can address as a community. To that end, we have created a community-owned space to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and existing resources.

URL : How are we Measuring Up? Evaluating Research Data Services in Academic Libraries

DOI : http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2226

EN

Science created by crowds: a case study of science crowdfunding in Japan

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Yuko Ikkatai, Euan McKay, Hiromi M. Yokoyama

“Science crowdfunding” is a research funding system in which members of the public make small financial contributions towards a research project via the Internet. We compared the more common research process involving public research funding with science crowdfunding.

In the former, academic-peer communities review the research carried out whereas the Crowd Community, an aggregation of backers, carries out this function in the latter. In this paper, we propose that science crowdfunding can be successfully used to generate “crowd-supported science” by means of this Crowd Community.

URL : Science created by crowds: a case study of science crowdfunding in Japan

Alternative location : https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/17/03/JCOM_1703_2018_A06

FR

Les Sciences Humaines et Sociales, moteurs de l’accès ouvert : la preuve par Cybergeo

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Auteurs/Authors : Christine Kosmopoulos, Denise Pumain

En mai 2016 Cybergeo : Revue européenne de géographie fêtait à l’Auditorium Marie Curie (CNRS, Paris) ses 20 années d’existence. Première revue nativement numérique en sciences sociales, Cybergeo s’inscrit en pionnière de la diffusion scientifique en libre accès.

Forte de ses 20 ans d’expérience, elle apporte la preuve qu’un modèle alternatif de diffusion de l’information scientifique est possible, ouvert et contrôlé par la communauté scientifique mondiale. Elle témoigne également du très fort impact de l’accès ouvert en sciences lorsqu’il s’accompagne d’une attention soutenue à l’innovation.

URL : https://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/29209

EN

Post-publication peer review in biomedical journals: overcoming obstacles and disincentives to knowledge sharing

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Valerie Matarese, Karen Shashok

The importance of post-publication peer review (PPPR) as a type of knowledge exchange has been emphasized by several authorities in research publishing, yet biomedical journals do not always facilitate this type of publication.

Here we report our experience publishing a commentary intended to offer constructive feedback on a previously published article. We found that publishing our comment required more time and effort than foreseen, because of obstacles encountered at some journals.

Using our professional experience as authors’ editors and our knowledge of publication policies as a starting point, we reflect on the probable reasons behind these obstacles, and suggest ways in which journals could make PPPR easier. In addition, we argue that PPPR should be more explicitly valued and rewarded in biomedical disciplines, and suggest how these publications could be included in research evaluations.

Eliminating obstacles and disincentives to PPPR is essential in light of the key roles of post-publication analysis and commentary in drawing attention to shortcomings in published articles that were overlooked during pre-publication peer review.

URL : Post-publication peer review in biomedical journals: overcoming obstacles and disincentives to knowledge sharing

DOI : https://dx.doi.org/10.31229/osf.io/8kxyz