EN

Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Björn Brembs

In which journal a scientist publishes is considered one of the most crucial factors determining their career. The underlying common assumption is that only the best scientists manage to publish in a highly selective tier of the most prestigious journals.

However, data from several lines of evidence suggest that the methodological quality of scientific experiments does not increase with increasing rank of the journal. On the contrary, an accumulating body of evidence suggests the inverse: methodological quality and, consequently, reliability of published research works in several fields may be decreasing with increasing journal rank.

The data supporting these conclusions circumvent confounding factors such as increased readership and scrutiny for these journals, focusing instead on quantifiable indicators of methodological soundness in the published literature, relying on, in part, semi-automated data extraction from often thousands of publications at a time.

With the accumulating evidence over the last decade grew the realization that the very existence of scholarly journals, due to their inherent hierarchy, constitutes one of the major threats to publicly funded science: hiring, promoting and funding scientists who publish unreliable science eventually erodes public trust in science.

URL : Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037

EN

Moving up the ladder: heterogeneity influencing academic careers through research orientation, gender, and mentors

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Ward Ooms, Claudia Werker, Christian Hopp

We look into the question whether heterogeneity stemming from research orientation, gender, or disciplinary and cultural differences with their PhD supervisors helps or hampers academics’ careers.

Based on a sample of 248 academics at two leading European universities of technology, we combine multinomial logit models and sequential logit models to understand career advancement. Our results show that heterogeneity stemming from research orientation is helpful. Academics who bridge between the quest for fundamental understanding and socio-economic relevance attain career success.

Yet heterogeneity stemming from gender hinders careers: female academics face problems securing
tenured positions and full professorships. Mentor–mentee heterogeneity only helps in early career transitions, but hampers advancement later on.

Our insights offer suggestions to policymakers, university managers, and academics, because they help to identify promising academics, the right support for sitting staff members, measures correcting for gender imbalances, and can inform strategic choices regarding research orientation and PhD supervisors.

URL : Moving up the ladder: heterogeneity influencing academic careers through research orientation, gender, and mentors

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1434617

EN

Authorial and institutional stratification in open access publishing: the case of global health research

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Kyle Siler, Stefanie Haustein, Elise Smith, Vincent Larivière, Juan Pablo Alperin

Using a database of recent articles published in the field of Global Health research, we examine institutional sources of stratification in publishing access outcomes. Traditionally, the focus on inequality in scientific publishing has focused on prestige hierarchies in established print journals.

This project examines stratification in contemporary publishing with a particular focus on subscription vs. various Open Access (OA) publishing options.

Findings show that authors working at lower-ranked universities are more likely to publish in closed/paywalled outlets, and less likely to choose outlets that involve some sort of Article Processing Charge (APCs; gold or hybrid OA).

We also analyze institutional differences and stratification in the APC costs paid in various journals. Authors affiliated with higher-ranked institutions, as well as hospitals and non-profit organizations pay relatively higher APCs for gold and hybrid OA publications.

Results suggest that authors affiliated with high-ranked universities and well-funded institutions tend to have more resources to choose pay options with publishing. Our research suggests new professional hierarchies developing in contemporary publishing, where various OA publishing options are becoming increasingly prominent.

Just as there is stratification in institutional representation between different types of publishing access, there is also inequality within access types.

URL : Authorial and institutional stratification in open access publishing: the case of global health research

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4269

EN

Open access, data capitalism and academic publishing

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Michael Hagner

Open Access (OA) is widely considered a breakthrough in the history of academic publishing, rendering the knowledge produced by the worldwide scientific community accessible to all. In numerous countries, national governments, funding institutions and research organisations have undertaken enormous efforts to establish OA as the new publishing standard.

The benefits and new perspectives, however, cause various challenges. This essay addresses several issues, including that OA is deeply embedded in the logic and practices of data capitalism.

Given that OA has proven an attractive business model for commercial publishers, the key predictions of OA-advocates, namely that OA would liberate both scientists and tax payers from the chains of global publishing companies, have not become true. In its conclusion, the paper discusses the opportunities and pitfalls of non-commercial publishing.

URL : Open access, data capitalism and academic publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2018.14600

EN

Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published in The BMJ and PLOS Medicine

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Florian Naudet, Charlotte Sakarovitch, Perrine Janiaud, Ioana Cristea, Daniele Fanelli, David Moher, John P A Ioannidis

Objectives

To explore the effectiveness of data sharing by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in journals with a full data sharing policy and to describe potential difficulties encountered in the process of performing reanalyses of the primary outcomes.

Design

Survey of published RCTs.

Setting

PubMed/Medline.

Eligibility criteria

RCTs that had been submitted and published by The BMJ and PLOS Medicine subsequent to the adoption of data sharing policies by these journals.

Main outcome measure

The primary outcome was data availability, defined as the eventual receipt of complete data with clear labelling. Primary outcomes were reanalyzed to assess to what extent studies were reproduced. Difficulties encountered were described.

Results

37 RCTs (21 from The BMJ and 16 from PLOS Medicine) published between 2013 and 2016 met the eligibility criteria. 17/37 (46%, 95% confidence interval 30% to 62%) satisfied the definition of data availability and 14 of the 17 (82%, 59% to 94%) were fully reproduced on all their primary outcomes. Of the remaining RCTs, errors were identified in two but reached similar conclusions and one paper did not provide enough information in the Methods section to reproduce the analyses. Difficulties identified included problems in contacting corresponding authors and lack of resources on their behalf in preparing the datasets. In addition, there was a range of different data sharing practices across study groups.

Conclusions

Data availability was not optimal in two journals with a strong policy for data sharing. When investigators shared data, most reanalyses largely reproduced the original results. Data sharing practices need to become more widespread and streamlined to allow meaningful reanalyses and reuse of data.

 

EN

Documentation and Dissemination of Indigenous Knowledge by Library Personnel in Selected Research Institutes in Nigeria

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Adebola Aderemi Adeyemo, John Oluwaseye Adebayo

Indigenous Knowledge (IK) and practices are usually unwritten; relying on oral transmission and human memory. As a result, this study investigated the documentation and dissemination of Indigenous Knowledge by library personnel at five selected research institutes in Ibadan, Nigeria.

Using the descriptive survey design, six (6) questions raised to achieve the stated objectives. Structured questionnaire and interview were used for data collection. The population comprised of professionals and para-professionals library staff at Nigeria Institute of Social and Economic Research (NISER), Institute of African Studies (IFRA), Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria (FRIN), Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN), and International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA).

Purposive sampling method was used to select samples considering the resources to be expended and time involved for the study. Data were analyzed with the use of Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS 16) while simple frequency count of percentage distribution was used to present the results of findings in table.

Some of the findings of the study revealed that Indigenous Knowledge documented at the research institutes were on: Agriculture; kingship system in different towns; traditional medicine; general traditional culture; as well as traditional politics and governance. In addition, Indigenous

Knowledge practices were documented with recordings and visual documentation among other methods, and these are being done by all the library personnel. Meanwhile, Indigenous Knowledge practices are being disseminated through: video, library website, print media, direct mail, public lectures, exhibitions and displays, and exchange. Certain recommendations were made based on the findings of this study.

URL : https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1628/

EN

Impact of Institutional Repositories’ on Scholarly Practices of Scientists

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Prachi Shukla, Naved Ahmad

Institutional Repositories (IRs) are established mainly to provide access to information resources which are otherwise not easily accessible in digital format. Many institutions across the world and particularly in India have successfully developed their own IRs but have not attempted to assess their importance and impact on the Users.

This study conveys the findings of the survey conducted at research centric CSIR (Council of Scientific and Industrial Research) laboratories of India to determine the scientists’ and research scholars’ preference for publishing their research materials; to measure the impact of IRs on their scholarly practices and to recommend future changes for inviting more participation in an IR.

The study deduced that ‘Peer- Review scholarly Journals’ are preferred medium for publishing research content and ‘Increase in the access to grey literature’ is the most significant impact of IR on respondents.

The findings of this research paper provide insight to the IR managers and administrators of low-deposit and low-usage repositories about the contributors’ apprehensions. The study will also help them to define and adopt policies that will eventually enhance their IRs visibility and impact.

URL : https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1631/