EN

Assessing Readiness for Open Access Policy Implementation across Europe

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

This report presents a European-wide case study for assessing EU Member State’s readiness for Open Access (OA) policy implementation – and specifically for the European Commission H2020 policy. Aspects like the availability of OA infrastructure, the awareness of OA and the availability of harmonised working procedures and coordination mechanisms are analysed, providing the means to assess the situation of specific countries.

URL : Assessing Readiness for Open Access Policy Implementation across Europe

Alternative location : http://www.pasteur4oa.eu/sites/pasteur4oa/files/resource/PASTEUR4OA%20EuroCRIS%20Case%20Study.pdf

EN

Knowledge Infrastructures in Science: Data, Diversity, and Digital Libraries

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Digital libraries can be deployed at many points throughout the life cycles of scientific research projects from their inception through data collection, analysis, documentation, publication, curation, preservation, and stewardship. Requirements for digital libraries to manage research data vary along many dimensions, including life cycle, scale, research domain, and types and degrees of openness.

This article addresses the role of digital libraries in knowledge infrastructures for science, presenting evidence from long-term studies of four research sites. Findings are based on interviews (n=208), ethnographic fieldwork, document analysis, and historical archival research about scientific data practices, conducted over the course of more than a decade.

The Transformation of Knowledge, Culture, and Practice in Data-Driven Science: A Knowledge Infrastructures Perspective project is based on a 2×2 design, comparing two “big science” astronomy sites with two “little science” sites that span physical sciences, life sciences, and engineering, and on dimensions of project scale and temporal stage of life cycle.

The two astronomy sites invested in digital libraries for data management as part of their initial research design, whereas the smaller sites made smaller investments at later stages. Role specialization varies along the same lines, with the larger projects investing in information professionals, and smaller teams carrying out their own activities internally. Sites making the largest investments in digital libraries appear to view their datasets as their primary scientific legacy, while other sites stake their legacy elsewhere. Those investing in digital libraries are more concerned with the release and reuse of data; types and degrees of openness vary accordingly.

The need for expertise in digital libraries, data science, and data stewardship is apparent throughout all four sites. Examples are presented of the challenges in designing digital libraries and knowledge infrastructures to manage and steward research data.

URL : http://works.bepress.com/borgman/371/

EN

Review times in peer review: quantitative analysis of editorial workflows

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

We examine selected aspects of peer review and suggest possible improvements. To this end, we analyse a dataset containing information about 300 papers submitted to the Biochemistry and Biotechnology section of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. After separating the peer review process into stages that each review has to go through, we use a weighted directed graph to describe it in a probabilistic manner and test the impact of some modifications of the editorial policy on the efficiency of the whole process.

URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01134

EN

Content Volatility of Scientific Topics in Wikipedia: A Cautionary Tale

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Wikipedia has quickly become one of the most frequently accessed encyclopedic references, despite the ease with which content can be changed and the potential for ‘edit wars’ surrounding controversial topics. Little is known about how this potential for controversy affects the accuracy and stability of information on scientific topics, especially those with associated political controversy. Here we present an analysis of the Wikipedia edit histories for seven scientific articles and show that topics we consider politically but not scientifically “controversial” (such as evolution and global warming) experience more frequent edits with more words changed per day than pages we consider “noncontroversial” (such as the standard model in physics or heliocentrism).

For example, over the period we analyzed, the global warming page was edited on average (geometric mean ±SD) 1.9±2.7 times resulting in 110.9±10.3 words changed per day, while the standard model in physics was only edited 0.2±1.4 times resulting in 9.4±5.0 words changed per day. The high rate of change observed in these pages makes it difficult for experts to monitor accuracy and contribute time-consuming corrections, to the possible detriment of scientific accuracy. As our society turns to Wikipedia as a primary source of scientific information, it is vital we read it critically and with the understanding that the content is dynamic and vulnerable to vandalism and other shenanigans.

URL : Content Volatility of Scientific Topics in Wikipedia: A Cautionary Tale

DOI : 10.1371/journal.pone.0134454

EN

Open Access Indicators and Scholarly Communications in Latin America

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

This book is the result of a joint research and development project supported by UNESCO and undertaken in 2013 by UNESCO in partnership with the Public Knowledge Project (PKP), the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), the Network of Scientific Journals of Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal (RedALyC), Africa Journals Online (AJOL), the Latin America Social Sciences SchoolBrazil (FLACSO-Brazil), and the Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO). This book aims to contribute to the understanding of scholarly production, use and reach through measures that are open and inclusive. The present book is divided into two sections.

The first section presents a narrative summary of Open Access in Latin America, including a description of the major regional initiatives that are collecting and systematizing data related to Open Access scholarship, and of available data that can be used to understand the (i) growth, (ii) reach, and (iii) impact of Open Access in developing regions. The first section ends with recommendations for future activities. The second section includes in-depth case-studies with the descriptions of indicators and methodologies of peer-review journal portals SciELO and Redalyc, and a case of subject digital repository maintained by CLACSO.

URL : https://microblogging.infodocs.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/alperin2014.pdf

Alternative location : http://hdl.handle.net/10760/25122

Non classé

Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Objective

This study gathered information about the retraction policies of the top 200 scientific journals, ranked by impact factor.

Methods

Editors of the top 200 science journals for the year 2012 were contacted by email.

Results

One hundred forty-seven journals (74%) responded to a request for information. Of these, 95 (65%) had a retraction policy. Of journals with a retraction policy, 94% had a policy that allows the editors to retract articles without authors’ consent.

Conclusions

The majority of journals in this sample had a retraction policy, and almost all of them would retract an article without the authors’ permission.

URL : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4511053/

Non classé

Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts
Publishing scholarly articles in traditional and newly-launched journals is a responsible task, requiring diligence from authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers. The current generation of scientific authors has ample opportunities for publicizing their research. However, they have to selectively target journals and publish in compliance with the established norms of publishing ethics. Over the past few years, numerous illegitimate or predatory journals have emerged in most fields of science. By exploiting gold Open Access publishing, these journals paved the way for low-quality articles that threatened to change the landscape of evidence-based science.

 

Authors, reviewers, editors, established publishers, and learned associations should be informed about predatory publishing practices and contribute to the trustworthiness of scholarly publications. In line with this, there have been several attempts to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate journals by blacklisting unethical journals (the Jeffrey Beall’s list), issuing a statement on transparency and best publishing practices (the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association’s and other global organizations’ draft document), and tightening the indexing criteria by the Directory of Open Access Journals. None of these measures alone turned to be sufficient. All stakeholders of science communication should be aware of multiple facets of unethical practices and publish well-checked and evidence-based articles.