Plasticité du billet de recherche en SHS. À propos des co-publications du blog Carnets de Terrain et du site The Conversation

Auteur/Author : Ingrid Mayeur

Le présent article aborde la question de la plasticité du document numérique à partir d’un cas concret, celui d’une démarche de publication menée conjointement dans deux espaces médiatiques liés à des domaines d’activités distincts : scientifique pour le premier (la plateforme de blogging en SHS Hypotheses.org, et plus spécifiquement le blog de la revue d’anthropologie et de sciences humaines Terrain), informationnel pour le second (le site collaboratif The Conversation).

Si ces publications conjointes ne constituent pas une remédiation au sens où un document se trouverait énoncé à nouveau au sein d’un dispositif numérique et porterait les marques liées à ce nouveau contexte d’énonciation (Colas-Blaise 2018), les variantes textuelles résultant des choix énonciatifs effectués dans l’un et l’autre de ces dispositifs médiatiques s’avèrent signifiantes au regard du projet communicationnel qu’ils soutiennent.

Mobilisant l’approche heuristique des espaces de communication (Odin 2011), nous tenterons de les identifier et d’en proposer une lecture, en portant l’attention sur la temporalité des dispositifs comme source de variation médiatique (Bonaccorsi et Flon 2014).

DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/semen.14710

Investigating the Blind Spot of a Monitoring System for Article Processing Charges

Authors : Andre Bruns, Niels Taubert

The Open Access (OA) publishing model that is based on article processing charges (APC) is often associated with the potential for more transparency regarding the expenditures for publications.

However, the extent to which transparency can be achieved depends not least on the completeness of data in APC monitoring systems. This article investigates two blind spots of the largest collection of APC payment information, OpenAPC. It aims to identify likely APC-liable publications for German universities that contribute to this system and for those that do not provide data to it.

The calculation combines data from Web of Science, the ISSN-Gold-OA-list and OpenAPC. The results show that for the group of universities contributing to the monitoring system, more than half of the APC payments are not covered by it and the average payments for non-covered APCs is higher than for APCs covered by the system.

In addition, the group of universities that do not contribute to OpenAPC accounts for two thirds of the number of APC-liable publications recorded for contributing universities. Regarding the size of these blind spots, the value of the monitoring system is limited at present.

URL : Investigating the Blind Spot of a Monitoring System for Article Processing Charges

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9030041

Réfléchir l’interdisciplinarité à INRAE

Authors : Patrice Garin, Isabelle Arpin, Olivier Barreteau, Carole Caranta, Christian Ducrot, Mourad Hannachi, Isabelle Maillet

Quels sont les pratiques de recherche, les savoir-être et savoir-faire, les environnements de travail et les cadres institutionnels propices à l’interdisciplinarité ? Tel était le fil conducteur d’un séminaire tenu en janvier 2020, mettant en débat les expériences de scientifiques d’INRAE.

Les dispositifs conçus pour la recherche disciplinaire ont été questionnés sur leur capacité à favoriser sur la durée la prise de risque de l’interdisciplinarité, à accompagner les scientifiques qui s’y engagent, et à reconnaître cet engagement dans leur carrière.

Il en ressort un besoin de souplesse dans la mobilisation d’arènes, de temps et de moyens permettant les échanges.

URL : Réfléchir l’interdisciplinarité à INRAE

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2021034

Publishing bibliographical data on open-access literature in Ancient Greek and Latin: challenges, constraints, progression

Authors : Julie Giovacchini, Laurent Capron

We present here both some of our thoughts on methodology in relation to the specific constraints that complexify the ways of structuring and accessing bibliographical data in the Sciences of Antiquity, and the solutions adopted by the IPhiS-CIRIS project for dealing with these constraints.

The project began in 2014 in a general scientific environment that was still being standardised and structured, with digital bibliographical resources in this disciplinary field becoming increasingly numerous, although of uneven quality and hard to access and/or private.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03242823

Do authors of research funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research comply with its open access mandate?: A meta-epidemiologic study

Authors : Michael A. Scaffidi, Karam Elsolh, Juana Li, Yash Verma, Rishi Bansal, Nikko Gimpaya, Vincent Larivière, Rishad Khan, Samir C. Grover

Background

Since 2008, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has mandated that studies it funds either in whole or in part are required to publish their results as open access (OA) within 12 months of publication using either online repositories and/or OA journals.

Yet, there is evidence that authors are poorly compliant with this mandate. Specifically, there has been an apparent decrease in OA publication after 2015, which coincides with a change in the OA policy during the same year.

One particular policy change that may have contributed to this decline was lifting the requirement that authors deposit their article in an OA repository immediately upon publication.

We investigated the proportion of OA compliance of CIHR-funded studies in the period before and after the policy change of 2015 with manual confirmation of both CIHR funding and OA status.

Methods and findings

We identified CIHR-funded studies published between the years 2014 to 2017 using a comprehensive search in the Web of Science (WoS). We took a stratified random sample from all four years (i.e. 2014 to 2017), with 250 studies from each year.

Two authors independently reviewed the final full-text publications retrieved from the journal web page to determine to confirm CIHR funding, as indicated in the acknowledgements or elsewhere in the paper.

For each study, we also collected bibliometric data that included citation count and Altmetric attention score Statistical analyses were conducted using two-tailed Fisher’s exact test with relative risk (RR). Among the 851 receiving CIHR funding published from 2014 to 2017, the percentage of CIHR-funded studies published as OA significantly decreased from 79.6% in 2014 to 70.3% in 2017 (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79–0.99, P = 0.028).

When considering all four years, there was no significant difference in the percentage of CIHR-funded studies published as OA in both 2014 and 2015 compared to both 2016 and 2017 (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.90–1.05, P = 0.493). Additionally, OA publications had significantly higher citation count (both in year of publication and in total) and higher attention scores (P<0.05).

Conclusions

Overall, we found that there was a significant decrease in the proportion of CIHR funded studies published as OA from 2014 compared to 2017, though this difference did not persist when comparing both 2014–2015 to 2016–2017.

The primary limitation was the reliance of self-reported data from authors on CIHR funding status. We posit that this decrease may be attributable to CIHR’s OA policy change in 2015.

Further exploration is warranted to both validate these studies using a larger dataset and, if valid, investigate the effects of potential interventions to improve the OA compliance, such as use of a CIHR publication database, and reinstatement of a policy for authors to immediately submit their findings to OA repositories upon publication.

URL : Do authors of research funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research comply with its open access mandate?: A meta-epidemiologic study

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256577

Association between productivity and journal impact across disciplines and career age

Authors : Andre S. Sunahara, Matjaz Perc, Haroldo V. Ribeiro

The association between productivity and impact of scientific production is a long-standing debate in science that remains controversial and poorly understood. Here we present a large-scale analysis of the association between yearly publication numbers and average journal-impact metrics for the Brazilian scientific elite.

We find this association to be discipline-specific, career-age dependent, and similar among researchers with outlier and non-outlier performance. Outlier researchers either outperform in productivity or journal prestige, but they rarely do so in both categories.

Non-outliers also follow this trend and display negative correlations between productivity and journal prestige but with discipline-dependent intensity. Our research indicates that academics are averse to simultaneous changes in their productivity and journal-prestige levels over consecutive career years.

We also find that career patterns concerning productivity and journal prestige are discipline-specific, having in common a raise of productivity with career age for most disciplines and a higher chance of outperforming in journal impact during early career stages.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.02920

Impacts of genre and access on science discussions: ‘The New Reddit Journal of Science’

Authors : Ehren Helmut Pflugfelder, Alexander Mahmou-Werndli

Which genre of science writing contributes most to public understanding, and how does that understanding happen? Working within a science in society approach, this paper examines public engagement with science as it occurs in the comments and discussion boards of r/science.

Researchers use content analysis to identify relevant concept categories and code comments for interaction with science content.

The resulting data are analyzed by genre (scientific news journalism, press release, and research article) and open access status, revealing differences in public engagement with implications for science communicators and scholars seeking to understand how the public interacts with science news.

URL : Impacts of genre and access on science discussions: ‘The New Reddit Journal of Science’

DOI : https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20050204