Open access publications drive few visits from Google Search results to institutional repositories

Posté le par

Authors : Enrique Orduña‑Malea, Cristina I. Font‑Julián

Given the importance of Google Search in generating visits to institutional repositories (IR), a lack of visibility in search engine results pages can hinder the possibility of their publications being found, read, downloaded, and, eventually, cited.

To address this, institutions need to evaluate the visibility of their repositories to determine what actions might be implemented to enhance them. However, measuring the search engine optimization (SEO) visibility of IRs requires a highly accurate, technically feasible method. This study constitutes the first attempt to design such a method, specifically applied here to measuring the IR visibility of Spain’s national university system in Google Search based on a set of SEO-based metrics derived from the Ubersuggest SEO tool.

A comprehensive dataset spanning three months and comprising 217,589 bibliographic records and 316,899 organic keywords is used as a baseline. Our findings show that many records deposited in these repositories are not ranked among the top positions in Google Search results, and that the most visible records are mainly academic works (theses and dissertations) written in Spanish in the Humanities and Social Sciences.

However, most visits are generated by a small number of records. All in all, our results call into question the role played by IRs in attracting readers via Google Search to the institutions’ scientific heritage and serve to underscore the prevailing emphasis within IRs on preservation as opposed to online dissemination.

Potential improvements might be achieved using enhanced metadata schemes and normalized description practices, as well as by adopting other actionable insights that can strengthen the online visibility of IRs.

This study increases understanding of the role played by web indicators in assessing the web-based impact of research outputs deposited in IRs, and should be of particular interest for a range of stakeholders, including open access and open science advocates, research agencies, library practitioners, repository developers, and website administrators.

URL : Open access publications drive few visits from Google Search results to institutional repositories

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05175-0

The use of ChatGPT for identifying disruptive papers in science: a first exploration

Posté le par

Authors : Lutz Bornmann, Lingfei Wu, Christoph Ettl

ChatGPT has arrived in quantitative research evaluation. With the exploration in this Letter to the Editor, we would like to widen the spectrum of the possible use of ChatGPT in bibliometrics by applying it to identify disruptive papers.

The identification of disruptive papers using publication and citation counts has become a popular topic in scientometrics. The disadvantage of the quantitative approach is its complexity in the computation. The use of ChatGPT might be an easy to use alternative.

URL : The use of ChatGPT for identifying disruptive papers in science: a first exploration

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05176-z

Open access improves the dissemination of science: insights from Wikipedia

Posté le par

Authors : Puyu Yang, Ahad Shoaib, Robert West, Giovanni Colavizza

Wikipedia is a well-known platform for disseminating knowledge, and scientific sources, such as journal articles, play a critical role in supporting its mission. The open access movement aims to make scientific knowledge openly available, and we might intuitively expect open access to help further Wikipedia’s mission. However, the extent of this relationship remains largely unknown.

To fill this gap, we analyse a large dataset of citations from the English Wikipedia and model the role of open access in Wikipedia’s citation patterns. Our findings reveal that Wikipedia relies on open access articles at a higher overall rate (44.1%) compared to their availability in the Web of Science (23.6%) and OpenAlex (22.6%). Furthermore, both the accessibility (open access status) and academic impact (citation count) significantly increase the probability of an article being cited on Wikipedia.

Specifically, open access articles are extensively and increasingly more cited in Wikipedia, as they show an approximately 64.7% higher likelihood of being cited in Wikipedia when compared to paywalled articles, after controlling for confounding factors. This open access citation effect is particularly strong for articles with high citation counts or published in recent years.

Our findings highlight the pivotal role of open access in facilitating the dissemination of scientific knowledge, thereby increasing the likelihood of open access articles reaching a more diverse audience through platforms such as Wikipedia. Simultaneously, open access articles contribute to the reliability of Wikipedia as a source by affording editors timely access to novel results.

URL : Open access improves the dissemination of science: insights from Wikipedia

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05163-4

When researchers pay to publish: Results from a survey on APCs in four countries

Posté le par

Authors : Osvaldo Gallardo, Matías Milia, André Luiz Appel, Grip-APC Team, François van Schalkwyk

This paper provides an empirical overview of the impact and practices of paying Article Processing Charges (APCs) by four nationally categorized groups of researchers in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa.

The data was collected from 13,577 researchers through an online questionnaire. The analysis compares the practice of publishing in journals that charge APCs across different dimensions, including country, discipline, gender, and age of the researchers.

The paper also focuses on the maximum amount APC paid and the methods and strategies researchers use to cover APC payments, such as waivers, research project funds, payment by coauthors, and the option to publish in closed access, where possible. Different tendencies were identified among the different disciplines and the national systems examined.

Findings show that Argentine researchers apply for waivers most frequently and often use personal funds or international coauthors for APCs, with younger researchers less involved in APC payments. In contrast, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico have more older researchers, yet younger researchers still publish more in APC journals. South African researchers lead in APC publications, likely due to better funding access and read and publish agreements.

This study lays the groundwork for further analysis of gender asymmetries, funding access, and views on the commercial Open Access model of scientific dissemination.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12144

Altmetric.com or PlumX: Does it matter?

Posté le par

Authors : Behrooz Rasuli, Majid Nabavi

Facing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, medical publishers rose to the occasion, moving to make their full portfolio of COVID-19–related research available to read for free and expediting peer review and production processes. With such a rapid transition from paper submission to publication, however, concerns also arose regarding whether the quality of the research publication process was being affected. This article seeks to document the transformation of medical publishers’ practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and briefly discuss where they may go from here. For this goal, a literature search was performed in PubMed at several points to identify papers that reported early trends in how medical publishers handled COVID-19 research.

URL : Altmetric.com or PlumX: Does it matter?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1625

When data sharing is an answer and when (often) it is not: Acknowledging data-driven, non-data, and data-decentered cultures

Posté le par

Authors : Isto Huvila, Luanne S. Sinnamon

Contemporary research and innovation policies and advocates of data-intensive research paradigms continue to urge increased sharing of research data. Such paradigms are underpinned by a pro-data, normative data culture that has become dominant in the contemporary discourse. Earlier research on research data sharing has directed little attention to its alternatives as more than a deficit. The present study aims to provide insights into researchers’ perspectives, rationales and practices of (non-)sharing of research data in relation to their research practices.

We address two research questions, (RQ1) what underpinning patterns can be identified in researchers’ (non-)sharing of research data, and (RQ2) how are attitudes and data-sharing linked to researchers’ general practices of conducting their research. We identify and describe data-decentered culture and non-data culture as alternatives and parallels to the data-driven culture, and describe researchers de-inscriptions of how they resist and appropriate predominant notions of data in their data practices by problematizing the notion of data, asserting exceptions to the general case of data sharing, and resisting or opting out from data sharing.

URL : When data sharing is an answer and when (often) it is not: Acknowledging data-driven, non-data, and data-decentered cultures

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24957

Academic writing in the age of AI: Comparing the reliability of ChatGPT and Bard with Scopus and Web of Science

Posté le par

Authors : Swati Garg, Asad Ahmad, Dag Øivind Madsen

ChatGPT and Bard (now known as Gemini) are becoming indispensable resources for researchers, academicians and diverse stakeholders within the academic landscape. At the same time, traditional digital tools such as scholarly databases continue to be widely used. Web of Science and Scopus are the most extensive academic databases and are generally regarded as consistently reliable scholarly research resources. With the increasing acceptance of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writing, this study focuses on understanding the reliability of the new AI models compared to Scopus and Web of Science.

The study includes a bibliometric analysis of green, sustainable and ecological buying behaviour, covering the period from 1 January 2011 to 21 May 2023. These results are used to compare the results from the AI and the traditional scholarly databases on several parameters. Overall, the findings suggest that AI models like ChatGPT and Bard are not yet reliable for academic writing tasks. It appears to be too early to depend on AI for such tasks.

URL : Academic writing in the age of AI: Comparing the reliability of ChatGPT and Bard with Scopus and Web of Science

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100563