Do researchers use open research data? Exploring the relationships between usage trends and metadata quality across scientific disciplines from the Figshare case

Authors : Alfonso Quarati, Juliana E Raffaghelli

Open research data (ORD) have been considered a driver of scientific transparency. However, data friction, as the phenomenon of data underutilisation for several causes, has also been pointed out.

A factor often called into question for ORD low usage is the quality of the ORD and associated metadata. This work aims to illustrate the use of ORD, published by the Figshare scientific repository, concerning their scientific discipline, their type and compared with the quality of their metadata.

Considering all the Figshare resources and carrying out a programmatic quality assessment of their metadata, our analysis highlighted two aspects. First, irrespective of the scientific domain considered, most ORD are under-used, but with exceptional cases which concentrate most researchers’ attention.

Second, there was no evidence that the use of ORD is associated with good metadata publishing practices. These two findings opened to a reflection about the potential causes of such data friction.

URL : Do researchers use open research data? Exploring the relationships between usage trends and metadata quality across scientific disciplines from the Figshare case

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520961048

La vulgarisation des recherches sur le phénomène de harcèlement dans The Conversation France : analyse du traitement thématique et discursif d’une question de société

Auteur/Author : Bérengère Stassin

The Conversation France (TCF) est un média indépendant en ligne à but non lucratif. Il résulte d’une collaboration entre chercheurs et journalistes. Les premiers écrivent des articles en lien avec l’actualité, mais dans une perspective de vulgarisation scientifique.

Les seconds, qui jouent un rôle d’éditeurs, en assurent la publication et la mise en visibilité. Le média aborde différents sujets de société parmi lesquels le harcèlement. Cette étude s’intéresse à la manière dont ce sujet est traité dans les articles, tant sur le plan thématique que discursif.

En appui sur un corpus de 73 articles qui ont tous été indexés « harcèlement » par les éditeurs, l’étude met en exergue qu’il est abordé sous trois angles (harcèlement scolaire, harcèlement moral au travail et cyberharcèlement) et principalement dans trois types d’articles (la présentation d’une recherche, l’analyse scientifique d’un fait d’actualité et l’exposé de mise au point).

Elle montre cependant que 42,5 % des articles portant le tag « harcèlement » ne l’abordent que de manière périphérique. Ce tag a donc été choisi dans une logique d’accroche et d’optimisation pour les moteurs de recherche.

URL : https://journals.openedition.org/rfsic/9437

Who Does What? – Research Data Management at ETH Zurich

Authors: Matthias Töwe, Caterina Barillari

We present the approach to Research Data Management (RDM) support for researchers taken at ETH Zurich. Overall requirements are governed by institutional guidelines for Research Integrity, funders’ regulations, and legal obligations. The ETH approach is based on the distinction of three phases along the research data life-cycle: 1. Data Management Planning; 2. Active RDM; 3. Data Publication and Preservation. Two ETH units, namely the Scientific IT Services and the ETH Library, provide support for different aspects of these phases, building on their respective competencies. They jointly offer trainings, consulting, information, and materials for the first phase.

The second phase deals with data which is in current use in active research projects. Scientific IT Services provide their own platform, openBIS, for keeping track of raw, processed and analysed data, in addition to organising samples, materials, and scientific procedures.

ETH Library operates solutions for the third phase within the infrastructure of ETH Zurich’s central IT Services. The Research Collection is the institutional repository for research output including Research Data, Open Access publications, and ETH Zurich’s bibliography.

URL : Who Does What? – Research Data Management at ETH Zurich

DOI : http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-036

Copyright life hacks for librarians

Authors: Claire Sewell, John Clarke, Amy Theobald

Librarians are continuously looking for new ways to make the training they offer accessible and engaging to both colleagues and users. One area where this is especially important is copyright – a topic many librarians identify as vital to their role, but they often find it hard to attend training.

Cambridge University Libraries has introduced a range of methods to reach out to even the most reluctant copyright learner and improve the overall copyright literacy of its staff. This article showcases these methods in the form of ‘life hacks’ – simple measures which can be implemented with little or no cost and using existing resources.

Methods outlined include making the best use of knowledge already present within your organisation, using visual methods to attract a new audience and creating interactive online resources. Also discussed is the importance of making copyright training accessible, both to users with disabilities and those who may have constraints on their time and technological ability.

The article concludes with a reflection about the challenges faced whilst creating new resources. The techniques outlined in this case study can be adapted for use by a range of libraries no matter the target audience.

URL : Copyright life hacks for librarians

DOI : http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.519

Open Access Perceptions, Strategies, and Digital Literacies: A Case Study of a Scholarly-Led Journal

Authors : Noella Edelmann, Judith Schoßböck

Open access (OA) publications play an important role for academia, policy-makers, and practitioners. Universities and research institutions set up OA policies and provide authors different types of support for engaging in OA activities. This paper presents a case study on OA publishing in a scholarly community, drawing on qualitative and quantitative data gained from workshops and a survey.

As the authors are the managing editors of the OA eJournal for eDemocracy and Open Government (JeDEM), the aim was to collect data and insights on the publication choices of authors interested in OA publishing and other crucial factors such as personal attitudes to publishing, institutional context, and digital literacy in order to improve the journal.

In the first phase, two workshops with different stakeholders were held at the Conference for e-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM) held in Austria and in South Korea in 2016. In the second phase, an online survey was sent to all the users of the e-journal JeDEM in October 2019.

From the workshops, key differences regarding OA perception and strategies between the stakeholder groups were derived. Participants strongly perceived OA publishing as a highly individualist matter embedded within a publishing culture emphasizing reputation and rankings.

The survey results, however, showed that institutional support differs considerably for authors. Factors such as visibility, reputation, and impact play the biggest role for the motivation to publish OA.

The results from both inquiries provide a better understanding of OA publishing attitudes and the relevant digital literacies but also suggest the need to investigate further the enablers or difficulties of scholarship, particularly in a digital context.

They clearly point to the potential of regularly addressing the users of the journal as well as communicating with them the more nuanced aspects of OA publishing, non-traditional metrics, or respective digital literacies, in order to reduce misconceptions about OA and to support critical stances.

URL : Open Access Perceptions, Strategies, and Digital Literacies: A Case Study of a Scholarly-Led Journal

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8030044

Our Study is Published, But the Journey is Not Finished!

Authors : Olivier Pourret, Katsuhiko Suzuki, Yoshio Takahashi

Each June, we receive e-mails from publishers welcoming the evolution of their journals’ journal impact factor (JIF). The JIF is a controversial metric (Callaway 2016), and it is worth asking, “What’s behind it?”

In this age of “publish or perish” (Harzing 2007), we take much time and effort to write our papers and get them published. But how much time and effort do we put into finding readers or ensuring that we are reaching the right audience? Are metrics, such as the JIF, good guides for how well we are doing at reaching our target audience?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2138/gselements.16.4.229