Achieving human and machine accessibility of cited data in scholarly publications

Reproducibility and reusability of research results is an important concern in scientific communication and science policy. A foundational element of reproducibility and reusability is the open and persistently available presentation of research data.

However, many common approaches for primary data publication in use today do not achieve sufficient long-term robustness, openness, accessibility or uniformity. Nor do they permit comprehensive exploitation by modern Web technologies.

This has led to several authoritative studies recommending uniform direct citation of data archived in persistent repositories. Data are to be considered as first-class scholarly objects, and treated similarly in many ways to cited and archived scientific and scholarly literature.

Here we briefly review the most current and widely agreed set of principle-based recommendations for scholarly data citation, the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles (JDDCP).

We then present a framework for operationalizing the JDDCP; and a set of initial recommendations on identifier schemes, identifier resolution behavior, required metadata elements, and best practices for realizing programmatic machine actionability of cited data.

The main target audience for the common implementation guidelines in this article consists of publishers, scholarly organizations, and persistent data repositories, including technical staff members in these organizations.

But ordinary researchers can also benefit from these recommendations. The guidance provided here is intended to help achieve widespread, uniform human and machine accessibility of deposited data, in support of significantly improved verification, validation, reproducibility and re-use of scholarly/scientific data.

URL : Achieving human and machine accessibility of cited data in scholarly publications

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1

How Readers Discover Content in Scholarly Publications

This report is the output of a large-scale survey of readers of scholarly publications (n=40439) and their behaviour in the discovery of journal articles and online books. The survey was conducted during October, November, and December of 2015.

While usage statistics and analytics gathered by publishers, libraries and intermediaries can give us a partial view of discovery behaviour, there are many gaps in the knowledge that these can provide which we have endeavoured to fill by asking readers what tools they use in discovery.

This survey builds upon previous surveys conducted by the authors in 2005, 2008 and 2012.

URL : How Readers Discover Content in Scholarly Publications

Alternative location : http://www.simoningerconsulting.com/papers/How%20Readers%20Discover%20Content%20in%20Scholarly%20Publications.pdf

Anatomie et nouvelle organologie de l’édition ouverte

Cet article réinterroge le concept d’édition ouverte en proposant plusieurs pistes pour dépasser les habituels débats sur les modèles économiques. Nous voulons montrer l’intérêt d’examiner quelles sont les conditions d’ouverture désirées afin d’envisager une nouvelle organologie du système de publication scientifique.

L’objectif étant de penser le chercheur non pas comme un simple lecteur de documents, mais davantage comme un légiste qui puisse procéder à une ouverture et un examen approfondi.

URL : http://rfsic.revues.org/1871

Open access en bibliothèque universitaire : de nouveaux enjeux de médiations

En partant d’une expérience concrète de mobilisation dans le cadre de l’Open Access Week au sein du Service Commun de la Documentation de l’Université Bordeaux Montaigne, nous nous interrogerons sur la place des professionnels de l’information face aux enjeux de la documentation en libre accès et du mouvement de l’Open Access.

Les bibliothèques universitaires doivent-elles se positionner dans ces débats qui agitent le monde universitaire ? Pourquoi et comment le faire ?

URL : http://rfsic.revues.org/1854

Stratégie, politique et reformulation de l’open access

Auteur/Author : Ghislaine Chartron

Depuis 25 ans, le mouvement open access se déploie progressivement au croisement de revendications pour une circulation plus ouverte des résultats de la recherche et d’opportunités inédites introduites par l’Internet et le Web.

Les reformulations du mouvement furent nombreuses, portées par des acteurs différents, ne projetant pas les mêmes enjeux sur cette transformation. À l’appui d’une observation participante, l’article s’attache à retracer l’évolution des différentes modalités opératoires de l’open access à la fois dans une dimension diachronique et une dimension comparée pour les politiques nationales de différents pays.

Un tournant particulier semble s’amorcer, marqué par des négociations globales entre éditeurs, pouvoirs publics et financeurs de la recherche. Le contexte français est analysé, en particulier par l’intégration récente d’éléments réglementaires dans la loi Lemaire de 2016 et par les tensions croissantes avec les acteurs de l’édition nationale, majoritairement en sciences humaines et sociales.

URL : https://rfsic.revues.org/1836

Altmetrics of « altmetrics » using Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook, Google-plus, CiteULike, Blogs and Wiki

We measure the impact of « altmetrics » field by deploying altmetrics indicators using the data from Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook, Google-plus, CiteULike, Blogs and Wiki during 2010- 2014.

To capture the social impact of scientific publications, we propose an index called alt-index, analogues to h-index. Across the deployed indices, our results have shown high correlation among the indicators that capture social impact.

While we observe medium Pearson’s correlation (\r{ho}= .247) among the alt-index and h-index, a relatively high correlation is observed between social citations and scholarly citations (\r{ho}= .646). Interestingly, we find high turnover of social citations in the field compared with the traditional scholarly citations, i.e. social citations are 42.2 % more than traditional citations.

The social mediums such as Twitter and Mendeley appear to be the most effective channels of social impact followed by Facebook and Google-plus. Overall, altmetrics appears to be working well in the field of « altmetrics ».

URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07992

Towards a (De)centralization-Based Typology of Peer Production

Online peer-production platforms facilitate the coordination of creative work and services. Generally considered as empowering participatory tools and a source of common good, they can also be, however, alienating instruments of digital labour.

This paper proposes a typology of peer-production platforms, based on the centralization/decentralization levels of several of their design features. Between commons-based peer-production and crowdsourced, user-generated content “enclosed” by corporations, a wide range of models combine different social, political, technical and economic arrangements.

This combined analysis of the level of (de)centralization of platform features provides information on emancipation capabilities in a more granular way than a market-based qualification of platforms, based on the nature of ownership or business models only.

The five selected features of the proposed typology are: ownership of means of production, technical architecture/design, social organization/governance of work patterns, ownership of the peer-produced resource, and value of the output.

URL : Towards a (De)centralization-Based Typology of Peer Production

Alternative location : http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/728