EN

The data paper: a mechanism to incentivize data publishing in biodiversity science

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Background

Free and open access to primary biodiversity data is essential for informed decision-making to achieve conservation of biodiversity and sustainable development. However, primary biodiversity data are neither easily accessible nor discoverable.

Among several impediments, one is a lack of incentives to data publishers for publishing of their data resources. One such mechanism currently lacking is recognition through conventional scholarly publication of enriched metadata, which should ensure rapid discovery of ‘fit-for-use’ biodiversity data resources.

Discussion

We review the state of the art of data discovery options and the mechanisms in place for incentivizing data publishers efforts towards easy, efficient and enhanced publishing, dissemination, sharing and re-use of biodiversity data.

We propose the establishment of the ‘biodiversity data paper’ as one possible mechanism to offer scholarly recognition for efforts and investment by data publishers in authoring rich metadata and publishing them as citable academic papers.

While detailing the benefits to data publishers, we describe the objectives, work flow and outcomes of the pilot project commissioned by the Global Biodiversity Information Facility in collaboration with scholarly publishers and pioneered by Pensoft Publishers through its journals Zookeys, PhytoKeys, MycoKeys, BioRisk, NeoBiota, Nature Conservation and the forthcoming Biodiversity Data Journal.

We then debate further enhancements of the data paper beyond the pilot project and attempt to forecast the future uptake of data papers as an incentivization mechanism by the stakeholder communities.

Conclusions

We believe that in addition to recognition for those involved in the data publishing enterprise, data papers will also expedite publishing of fit-for-use biodiversity data resources.

However, uptake and establishment of the data paper as a potential mechanism of scholarly recognition requires a high degree of commitment and investment by the cross-sectional stakeholder communities. »

URL : http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/12/S15/S2

Non classé

Going for Gold The costs and benefits of…

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Going for Gold? The costs and benefits of Gold Open Access for UK research institutions: further economic modelling :

« The purpose of this work is to provide information to UK universities and policy makers on the likely cost impacts of Gold OA, where the costs of peer review, editorial work and other publishing services are covered by fees paid per article. »

URL : http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/610/2/Modelling_Gold_Open_Access_for_institutions_-_final_draft3.pdf

Non classé

On the Citation Advantage of linking to data…

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

On the Citation Advantage of linking to data :

« This paper present some indications of the existence of a Citation Advantage related to linked data, using astrophysics as a case. Using simple measures, I find that the Citation Advantage presently (at the least since 2009) amounts to papers with links to data receiving on the average 50% more citations per paper per year, than the papers without links to data. A similar study by other authors should a cummulative effect after several years amounting to 20%. Hence, a Data Sharing Citation Advantage seems inevitable. »

URL : http://hprints.org/hprints-00714715

EN

A Study of Open Access Journals Using Article Processing Charges

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Article Processing Charges (APCs) are a central mechanism for funding Open Access (OA) scholarly publishing. We studied the APCs charged and article volumes of journals that were listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals as charging APCs.

These included 1,370 journals that published 100,697 articles in 2010. The average APC was 906 US Dollars (USD) calculated over journals and 904 US Dollars USD calculated over articles.

The price range varied between 8 and 3,900 USD, with the lowest prices charged by journals published in developing countries and the highest by journals with high impact factors from major international publishers. Journals in Biomedicine represent 59% of the sample and 58% of the total article volume.

They also had the highest APCs of any discipline. Professionally published journals, both for profit and nonprofit had substantially higher APCs than society, university or scholar/researcher published journals.

These price estimates are lower than some previous studies of OA publishing and much lower than is generally charged by subscription publishers making individual articles open access in what are termed hybrid journals.

URL : http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/apc2/preprint.pdf

EN

Libraries and the network: Some considerations on how libraries are affected by the network

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

While the effects of the internet on libraries was recognized relatively early, few works have addressed network dynamics in terms of library operations.

This essay identifies some implications of the shift to a networked environment and its effects on library operations, with the express aim of initiating a dialog within the profession about its broader significance.

Understanding this shift, with its threats and opportunities, is critical for planning the future of libraries.

URL : http://eprints.rclis.org/17278/

Non classé

Cooperation between Referees and Authors Increases Peer Review…

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Cooperation between Referees and Authors Increases Peer Review Accuracy :

« Peer review is fundamentally a cooperative process between scientists in a community who agree to review each other’s work in an unbiased fashion. Peer review is the foundation for decisions concerning publication in journals, awarding of grants, and academic promotion. Here we perform a laboratory study of open and closed peer review based on an online game. We show that when reviewer behavior was made public under open review, reviewers were rewarded for refereeing and formed significantly more cooperative interactions (13% increase in cooperation, P = 0.018). We also show that referees and authors who participated in cooperative interactions had an 11% higher reviewing accuracy rate (P = 0.016). Our results suggest that increasing cooperation in the peer review process can lead to a decreased risk of reviewing errors. »

URL : http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0026895

Non classé

Analyzing the Performance of an Institutional Scientific Repository…

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Analyzing the Performance of an Institutional Scientific Repository – A Case Study :

« Scientific knowledge evolution is mainly based on an effective dissemination of research results. The concept of Open Access gives us the theoretical foundation of a model for accessing scientific knowledge, free from the constraints of traditional publishing and technologically supported by the Internet.

Institutional Repositories are information systems that allow preserving, storing and disseminating scientific knowledge produced in higher education and scientific research institutions.

They increase the visibility and the citation level of the documents. They also contribute to minimizing negative aspects like plagiarism of content because documents are exposed to peers in real time.

As an alternative way to the traditional system of publishing scientific research content, repositories are developed in a cultural climate of great visibility leading to an immediate critical evaluation by peers.

The Scientific Repository of the Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco – Portugal (RCIPCB) was created in 2009 but its official presentation took place in January 2010. Its main purposes are promoting Open Access (OA), and preserving and disseminating the scientific knowledge produced at the Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco (IPCB). Using DSpace as a technological platform, RCIPCB is an institutional project supported by the president of the IPCB.

Therefore, the present study was developed with the aim of analyzing the performance of RCIPCB considering the evolution and growth in terms of users, archiving and self-archiving, the number of published documents (scientific) versus deposited documents in 2010 and the heterogeneity among communities/collections and its causes.

Data were collected in RCIPCB, in the 2010 scientific publication list of the institute and through a questionnaire survey distributed among the members of the community with most documents deposited and those of the community with the fewest documents.

For data collected in RCIPCB and in the publication list, average, standard deviation and counts were calculated. Data collected from questionnaires were analyzed with SPSS.

The results show that RCIPCB indicates an asymmetric growing dynamics. Nevertheless, it reflects the institutional organization, in the sense that the communities related to the older schools possess more documents than the communities related to more recent schools. Communities having higher numbers of deposited documents seem to have also higher levels of searches and downloads. Therefore, it increases significantly the visibility of the institution and its researchers.

Concerning the 2010 scientific production when compared with the deposit level of the corresponding community, the results show that the number of documents deposited is much lower than the number of published documents.

Data obtained from the questionnaire answers from the communities The School of Agriculture (ESACB) and The School of Applied Arts (ESART) suggest that the strategy of communication used by RCIPCB is correct because everybody knows about the Repository. However, that is not related to the number of documents deposited. They also suggest that the strategy is not efficient and it needs some improvements in order to become effective.

Considering the results it is clear that RCIPCB needs to have a mandatory depositing policy that might also be extended to user registration. Those factors would minimize both the heterogeneity and the asymmetric growth of communities and collections. Moreover, it would also decrease the difference between scientific production and the corresponding deposit in RCIPCB. »

URL : http://www.rivista-incontri.nl/index.php/lq/article/view/8047/8436