Collaboration scientifique et citations des articles Quelles pratiques…

Statut

Collaboration scientifique et citations des articles : Quelles pratiques dans les revues médicales ? :

“Objectifs : La meilleure façon de caractériser la collaboration scientifique est d’étudier la co-signature des articles. Deux indicateurs sont intéressants : le nombre d’auteurs et son caractère international. L’objectif est d’étudier la corrélation entre ces deux indicateurs et le nombre de citations.

Méthodes : Nous avons sélectionné deux journaux de pharmacie et médecine afin de comparer les pratiques. Nous avons utilisé un échantillon d’environ 800 articles publiés entre 2002 et 2005 dont nous avons collecté les citations jusqu’en 2010. Nous avons transformé nos variables numériques, nombre d’auteurs et nombre de citations, en variables qualitatives.

Résultats : Les variables «auteurs» et «citations» ne sont pas indépendantes.

Conclusions. Les articles les moins cités sont souvent publiés par un seul auteur ou par une équipe très réduite alors que le caractère international des articles est un facteur qui en général augmente le nombre de citations. Cette micro-analyse a permis également de mieux appréhender certaines pratiques éditoriales.”

URL : http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00775307

Institutional Repositories Exploration of Costs and Value …

Statut

Institutional Repositories: Exploration of Costs and Value :

“Little is known about the costs academic libraries incur to implement and manage institutional repositories and the value these institutional repositories offer to their communities. To address this, the authors report the findings of their 29 question survey of academic libraries with institutional repositories. We received 49 usable responses. Thirty-four of these responses completed the entire survey. While meant to be exploratory, results are varied and depend on the context of the institution. This context includes, among other things, the size of the repositories and of the institutions, the software used to operate the repositories, such as open source or proprietary, and whether librarians mediate content archiving, or content producers directly deposit their own material. The highlights of our findings, based on median values, suggest that institutions that mediate submissions incur less expense than institutions that allow self-archiving, institutions that offer additional services incur greater annual operating costs than those who do not, and institutions that use open source applications have lower implementation costs but comparable annual operating costs with institutions that use proprietary solutions. Furthermore, changes in budgeting, from special initiative to absorption into the regular budget, suggest a trend in sustainable support for institutional repositories. Our findings are exploratory but suggest that future inquiry into costs and the value of institutional repositories should be directed at specific types of institutions, such as by Carnegie Classification category.”

URL : http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january13/burns/01burns.html

Cost-effectiveness of open access publications

Posté le par

Open access publishing has been proposed as one possible solution to the serials crisis – the rapidly growing subscription prices in scholarly journal publishing.

However, open access publishing can present economic pitfalls as well, such as excessive publication charges.

We discuss the decision that an author faces when choosing to submit to an open access journal.

We develop an interactive tool to help authors compare among alternative open access venues and thereby get the most for their publication fees.

URL : http://www.eigenfactor.org/openaccess/CostEffectiveness.pdf

Science 3.0: Corrections to the “Science 2.0” paradigm

Posté le par

The concept of “Science 2.0” was introduced almost a decade ago to describe the new generation of online-based tools for researchers allowing easier data sharing, collaboration and publishing.

Although technically sound, the concept still does not work as expected. Here we provide a systematic line of arguments to modify the concept of Science 2.0, making it more consistent with the spirit and traditions of science and Internet.

Our first correction to the Science 2.0 paradigm concerns the open-access publication models charging fees to the authors. As discussed elsewhere, we reiterate that the monopoly of such publishing models increases biases and inequalities in the representation of scientific ideas based on the author’s income.

Our second correction concerns post-publication comments online, which are all essentially non-anonymous in the current Science 2.0 paradigm.

We conclude that scientific post-publication discussions require special anonymization systems.

We further analyze the reasons of the failure of the current post-publication peer-review models and suggest what needs to be changed in “Science 3.0” to convert Internet into a large “journal club”.”

URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.2522