Open Access and the Graduate Author: A Dissertation Anxiety Manual

Authors : Jill Cirasella, Polly Thistlethwaite

The process of completing a dissertation is stressful—deadlines are scary, editing is hard, formatting is tricky, and defending is terrifying. (And, of course, postgraduate employment is often uncertain.)

Now that dissertations are deposited and distributed electronically, students must perform yet another anxiety-inducing task: deciding whether they want to make their dissertations immediately open access (OA) or, at universities that require OA, coming to terms with openness.

For some students, mostly in the humanities and some of the social sciences, who hope to transform their dissertations into books, OA has become a bogeyman, a supposed saboteur of book contracts and destroyer of careers.

This chapter examines the various access-related anxieties that plague graduate students. It is a kind of diagnostic and statistical manual of dissertation anxieties—a « Dissertation Anxiety Manual, » if you will—describing anxieties surrounding book contracts, book sales, plagiarism, juvenilia, the ambiguity of the term online, and changes in scholarly research and production.

URL : http://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_pubs/286/

Fairness in scientific publishing

Author : Philippa C. Matthews

Major changes are afoot in the world of academic publishing, exemplified by innovations in publishing platforms, new approaches to metrics, improvements in our approach to peer review, and a focus on developing and encouraging open access to scientific literature and data.

The FAIR acronym recommends that authors and publishers should aim to make their output Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. In this opinion article, I explore the parallel view that we should take a collective stance on making the dissemination of scientific data fair in the conventional sense, by being mindful of equity and justice for patients, clinicians, academics, publishers, funders and academic institutions.

The views I represent are founded on oral and written dialogue with clinicians, academics and the publishing industry. Further progress is needed to improve collaboration and dialogue between these groups, to reduce misinterpretation of metrics, to minimise inequity that arises as a consequence of geographic setting, to improve economic sustainability, and to broaden the spectrum, scope, and diversity of scientific publication.

URL : Fairness in scientific publishing

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10318.2

Au-delà des big data : Les sciences sociales et la multiplication des données numériques

Auteurs/Authors : Étienne Ollion, Julien Boelaert

Dans le débat public comme dans le monde académique, l’enthousiasme pour les big data n’a eu d’égal que les critiques que ce phénomène a suscité. « Opportunité empirique inouïe » vs « données pauvres » ; « révolution méthodologique » vs « fascination pour le nombre » ; « révolution scientifique » vs « dégradation du savoir produit » : les positions sont tranchées.

À partir d’une lecture de ces débats et des travaux en sciences sociales souvent regroupés sous ce label, l’article soutient que cette situation polarisée a de fortes chances de perdurer tant que la discussion s’organise autour du concept mal défini de big data. Il propose de distinguer différents types de données souvent regroupées sous ce terme.

Il montre ce faisant que les big data souvent évoquées ne sont qu’un aspect limité d’une transformation bien plus importante : la disponibilité croissante et massive de données numériques, qui pose des questions nouvelles à nos disciplines.

Quatre aspects sont plus particulièrement explorés : les réorganisations disciplinaires, les transformations des méthodes quantitatives, l’accès et la gestion des données, les objets des sciences sociales et leur rapport à la théorie.

URL : https://sociologie.revues.org/2613

Novel processes and metrics for a scientific evaluation rooted in the principles of science

Authors : Michaël Bon, Michael Taylor, Gary S McDowell

Scientific evaluation is a determinant of how scientists, institutions and funders behave, and as such is a key element in the making of science. In this article, we propose an alternative to the current norm of evaluating research with journal rank.

Following a well-defined notion of scientific value, we introduce qualitative processes that can also be quantified and give rise to meaningful and easy-to-use article-level metrics.

In our approach, the goal of a scientist is transformed from convincing an editorial board through a vertical process to convincing peers through an horizontal one. We argue that such an evaluation system naturally provides the incentives and logic needed to constantly promote quality, reproducibility, openness and collaboration in science.

The system is legally and technically feasible and can gradually lead to the self-organized reappropriation of the scientific process by the scholarly community and its institutions. We propose an implementation of our evaluation system with the platform “the Self-Journals of Science” (www.sjscience.org).

URL : Novel processes and metrics for a scientific evaluation rooted in the principles of science

Alternative location : http://www.sjscience.org/article?id=580

E-Journals and the Big Deal: A Review of the Literature

Author : Cindy Sjoberg

Faced with shrinking budgets and increased subscription prices, many academic libraries are seeking ways to reduce the cost of e-journal access. A common target for cuts is the “Big Deal,” or large bundled subscription model, a term coined by Kenneth Frazier in a 2001 paper criticizing the effects of the Big Deal on the academic community.

The purpose of this literature review is to examine issues related to reducing e-journal costs, including criteria for subscription retention or cancellation, decision-making strategies, impacts of cancellations, and other options for e-journal content provision. Commonly used criteria for decision-making include usage statistics, overlap analysis, and input from subject specialists.

The most commonly used strategy for guiding the process and aggregating data is the rubric or decision grid. While the e-journal landscape supports several access models, such as Pay-Per-View, cloud access, and interlibrary loan, the Big Deal continues to dominate. Trends over the past several years point to dwindling support for the Big Deal however, due largely to significant annual rate increases and loss of content control.

URL : http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/slissrj/vol6/iss2/3/

Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices

Authors : Adam B. Jaffe, Gaétan de Rassenfosse

The last 2 decades have witnessed a dramatic increase in the use of patent citation data in social science research. Facilitated by digitization of the patent data and increasing computing power, a community of practice has grown up that has developed methods for using these data to: measure attributes of innovations such as impact and originality; to trace flows of knowledge across individuals, institutions and regions; and to map innovation networks.

The objective of this article is threefold. First, it takes stock of these main uses. Second, it discusses 4 pitfalls associated with patent citation data, related to office, time and technology, examiner, and strategic effects. Third, it highlights gaps in our understanding and offers directions for future research.

URL : Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices

Alternative location : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23731/full