Archives des mots-clés : Michael Taylor

Les archives de la recherche : enjeux et perspectives pour les bibliothèques universitaires

Posté le par

Auteur/Author : Cédric Mercier

Entre archives privées et publiques, archives scientifiques et administratives, les archives de la recherche recouvrent une variété de documents conservés dans le but de témoigner de l’activité scientifique des universités et les grandes écoles.

Diversement réparties dans les collections des bibliothèques universitaires, leur gestion, à l’heure du numérique, ne va pas sans poser question aux bibliothécaires. Pourquoi et comment penser en BU une offre documentaire s’élargissant aux archives ?

Dans un contexte de développement des services à la recherche, le sujet invite à mener une réflexion sur le rôle et le positionnement des bibliothèques au sein de l’université, alors que les collections d’archives stimulent les projets de recherche et connectent la bibliothèque à un vaste réseau d’acteurs.

URL : Les archives de la recherche : enjeux et perspectives pour les bibliothèques universitaires

Original location : https://www.enssib.fr/bibliotheque-numerique/notices/69638-les-archives-de-la-recherche-enjeux-et-perspectives-pour-les-bibliotheques-universitaires

Open Access Books in the Humanities and Social Sciences: an Open Access Altmetric Advantage

Posté le par

Author : Michael Taylor

The last decade has seen two significant phenomena emerge in research communication: the rise of open access (OA) publishing, and evidence of online sharing in the form of altmetrics. There has been limited examination of the effect of OA on online sharing for journal articles, and little for books.

This paper examines the altmetrics of a set of 32,222 books (of which 5% are OA) and a set of 220,527 chapters (of which 7% are OA) indexed by the scholarly database Dimensions in the Social Sciences and Humanities.

Both OA books and chapters have significantly higher use on social networks, higher coverage in the mass media and blogs, and evidence of higher rates of social impact in policy documents. OA chapters have higher rates of coverage on Wikipedia than their non-OA equivalents, and are more likely to be shared on Mendeley.

Even within the Humanities and Social Sciences, disciplinary differences in altmetric activity are evident. The effect is confirmed for chapters, although sampling issues prevent the strong conclusion that OA facilitates extra attention at whole book level, the apparent OA altmetrics advantage suggests that the move towards OA is increasing social sharing and broader impact.

URL  : https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.10442

Novel processes and metrics for a scientific evaluation rooted in the principles of science

Posté le par

Authors : Michaël Bon, Michael Taylor, Gary S McDowell

Scientific evaluation is a determinant of how scientists, institutions and funders behave, and as such is a key element in the making of science. In this article, we propose an alternative to the current norm of evaluating research with journal rank.

Following a well-defined notion of scientific value, we introduce qualitative processes that can also be quantified and give rise to meaningful and easy-to-use article-level metrics.

In our approach, the goal of a scientist is transformed from convincing an editorial board through a vertical process to convincing peers through an horizontal one. We argue that such an evaluation system naturally provides the incentives and logic needed to constantly promote quality, reproducibility, openness and collaboration in science.

The system is legally and technically feasible and can gradually lead to the self-organized reappropriation of the scientific process by the scholarly community and its institutions. We propose an implementation of our evaluation system with the platform “the Self-Journals of Science” (www.sjscience.org).

URL : Novel processes and metrics for a scientific evaluation rooted in the principles of science

Alternative location : http://www.sjscience.org/article?id=580