ORCID growth and field-wise dynamics of adoption: A case study of the Toulouse scientific area

Authors : Marie-Dominique Heusse, Guillaume Cabanac

Research-focused information systems harvest and promote the scientific output of researchers. Disambiguating author identities is key when disentangling homonyms to avoid merging several persons’ records.

ORCID offers an identifier to link one’s identity, affiliations and bibliography. While funding agencies and scholarly publishers promote ORCID, little is known about its adoption rate. We introduce a method to quantify ORCID adoption according to researchers’ discipline and occupation in a higher-education organization.

We semi-automatically matched the 6,607 staff members affiliated to the 145 labs of the Toulouse scientific area with the 7.3 million profiles at orcid.org. The observed ORCID adoption of 41.8% comes with discipline-wise disparities. Unexpectedly, only 48.3% of all profiles listed at least one work and profiles with no works might just have been created to get an identifier.

Those ‘empty’ profiles are of little interest for the entity disambiguation task. To our knowledge, this is the first study of ORCID adoption at the scale of a multidisciplinary scientific metropole. This method is replicable and future studies can target other cases to contrast the dynamics of ORCID adoption worldwide.

URL : ORCID growth and field-wise dynamics of adoption: A case study of the Toulouse scientific area

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1451

Attitudes, behaviours and experiences of authors of COVID-19 preprints

Authors : Narmin Rzayeva, Susana Oliveira Henriques, Stephen Pinfield, Ludo Waltman

The COVID-19 pandemic caused a rise in preprinting, apparently triggered by the need for open and rapid dissemination of research outputs. We surveyed authors of COVID-19 preprints to learn about their experience of preprinting as well as publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.

A key aim was to consider preprints in terms of their effectiveness for authors to receive feedback on their work. We also aimed to compare the impact of feedback on preprints with the impact of comments of editors and reviewers on papers submitted to journals. We observed a high rate of new adopters of preprinting who reported positive intentions regarding preprinting their future work.

This allows us to posit that the boost in preprinting may have a structural effect that will last after the pandemic. We also saw a high rate of feedback on preprints but mainly through “closed” channels – directly to the authors.

This means that preprinting was a useful way to receive feedback on research, but the value of feedback could be increased further by facilitating and promoting “open” channels for preprint feedback. At the same time, almost a quarter of the preprints that received feedback received comments resembling journal peer review.

This shows the potential of preprint feedback to provide valuable detailed comments on research. However, journal peer review resulted in a higher rate of major changes in the papers surveyed, suggesting that the journal peer review process has significant added value compared to preprint feedback.

URL : Attitudes, behaviours and experiences of authors of COVID-19 preprints

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/d96yj

Accelerated Peer Review and Paper Processing Models in Academic Publishing

Authors : Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Yuki Yamada

Some journals and publishers offer a free or paid rapid peer review service. In the latter case, such a service is offered at a premium, i.e., for an additional fee, and authors receive, in return, a privileged service, namely faster peer review.

In the cut-throat world of survival in academia, the difference of a few weeks or months in terms of speed of peer review and publication may bring untold benefits to authors that manage to benefit from accelerated peer review.

We examine the deontological aspects behind this two-tier peer review system, including some positive, but mainly negative, aspects. Some paid accelerated peer review services thrive.

We examine the paid accelerated peer review services by Taylor & Francis, Future Medicine Ltd., Elsevier, and two stand-alone journals that are OASPA members. This suggests that there is a demand, and thus market, for faster peer review.

However, this privilege risks creating a two-tiered system that may divide academics between those who can pay versus those who cannot.

We recommend that those papers that have benefited from accelerated peer review clearly indicate this in the published papers, as either a disclaimer or within the acknowledgements, for maximum transparency of the peer review and publication process.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09891-4

Are patents linked on Twitter? A case study of Google patents

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

This study attempts to analyze patents as cited/mentioned documents to better understand the interest, dissemination and engagement of these documents in social environments, laying the foundations for social media studies of patents (social Patentometrics).

Particularly, this study aims to determine how patents are disseminated on Twitter by analyzing three elements: tweets linking to patents, users linking to patents, and patents linked from Twitter.

To do this, all the tweets containing at least one link to a full-text patent available on Google Patents were collected and analyzed, yielding a total of 126,815 tweets (and 129,001 links) to 86,417 patents. The results evidence an increase of the number of linking tweets over the years, presumably due to the creation of a standardized patent URL ID and the integration of Google Patents and Google Scholar, which took place in 2015.

The engagement achieved by these tweets is limited (80.2% of tweets did not attract likes) but increasing notably since 2018. Two super-publisher twitter bot accounts (dailypatent and uspatentbot) are responsible of 53.3% of all the linking tweets, while most accounts are sporadic users linking to patent as part of a conversation.

The patents most tweeted are, by far, from United States (87.5% of all links to Google Patents), mainly due to the effect of the two super-publishers. The impact of patents in terms of the number of tweets linking to them is unrelated to their year of publication, status or number of patent citations received, while controversial and media topics might be more determinant factors.

However, further research is needed to better understand the topics discussed around patents on Twitter, the users involved, and the metrics attained. Given the increasing number of linking users and linked patents, this study finds Twitter as a relevant source to measure patent-level metrics, shedding light on the impact and interest of patents by the broad public.

URL : Are patents linked on Twitter? A case study of Google patents

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04519-y

COVID‑19 and the scientific publishing system: growth, open access and scientific fields

Authors : Gabriela F. Nane, Nicolas Robinson‑Garcia, François van Schalkwyk, Daniel Torres‑Salinas

We model the growth of scientific literature related to COVID-19 and forecast the expected growth from 1 June 2021. Considering the significant scientific and financial efforts made by the research community to find solutions to end the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented volume of scientific outputs is being produced.

This questions the capacity of scientists, politicians and citizens to maintain infrastructure, digest content and take scientifically informed decisions. A crucial aspect is to make predictions to prepare for such a large corpus of scientific literature.

Here we base our predictions on the Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) and exponential smoothing models using the Dimensions database. This source has the particularity of including in the metadata information on the date in which papers were indexed.

We present global predictions, plus predictions in three specific settings: by type of access (Open Access), by domain-specific repository (SSRN and MedRxiv) and by several research fields. We conclude by discussing our findings.

URL : COVID‑19 and the scientific publishing system: growth, open access and scientific fields

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04536-x

Forecasting the publication and citation outcomes of COVID-19 preprints

Authors : Michael Gordon, Michael Bishop, Yiling Chen, Anna Dreber, Brandon Goldfedder, Felix Holzmeister, Magnus Johannesson, Yang Liu, Louisa Tran, Charles Twardy, Juntao Wang, Thomas Pfeiffer

Many publications on COVID-19 were released on preprint servers such as medRxiv and bioRxiv. It is unknown how reliable these preprints are, and which ones will eventually be published in scientific journals.

In this study, we use crowdsourced human forecasts to predict publication outcomes and future citation counts for a sample of 400 preprints with high Altmetric score. Most of these preprints were published within 1 year of upload on a preprint server (70%), with a considerable fraction (45%) appearing in a high-impact journal with a journal impact factor of at least 10.

On average, the preprints received 162 citations within the first year. We found that forecasters can predict if preprints will be published after 1 year and if the publishing journal has high impact. Forecasts are also informative with respect to Google Scholar citations within 1 year of upload on a preprint server.

For both types of assessment, we found statistically significant positive correlations between forecasts and observed outcomes. While the forecasts can help to provide a preliminary assessment of preprints at a faster pace than traditional peer-review, it remains to be investigated if such an assessment is suited to identify methodological problems in preprints.

URL : Forecasting the publication and citation outcomes of COVID-19 preprints

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220440

FAIREST: A Framework for Assessing Research Repositories

Authors : Mathieu d’Aquin, Fabian Kirstein, Daniela Oliveira, Sonja Schimmler, Sebastian Urbanek

The open science movement has gained significant momentum within the last few years. This comes along with the need to store and share research artefacts, such as publications and research data. For this purpose, research repositories need to be established.

A variety of solutions exist for implementing such repositories, covering diverse features, ranging from custom depositing workflows to social media-like functions.

In this article, we introduce the FAIREST principles, a framework inspired by the well- known FAIR principles, but designed to provide a set of metrics for assessing and selecting solutions for creating digital repositories for research artefacts. The goal is to support decision makers in choosing such a solution when planning for a repository, especially at an institutional level.

The metrics included are therefore based on two pillars: (1) an analysis of established features and functionalities, drawn from existing dedicated, general purpose and commonly used solutions, and (2) a literature review on general requirements for digital repositories for research artefacts and related systems.

We further describe an assessment of 11 widespread solutions, with the goal to provide an overview of the current landscape of research data repository solutions, identifying gaps and research challenges to be addressed.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00159