Archives des mots-clés : open science

Assessing Open Science Practices in Phytolith Research

Posté le par

Author : Emma Karoune

Open science is an integral part of all scientific research, but the extent of open science practices in phytolith research is unknown. Phytolith analysis examines silica bodies that are initially formed within and between plant cells during the life of the plant but become deposited in sediments once the plant dies.

The use of phytoliths in archaeobotanical and palaeoecological studies has been increasing in recent years resulting in an upsurge in publications. The aims of this article are to assess open science practices in phytolith research by reviewing data and metadata sharing, and open access, in a sample of journal articles containing primary phytolith data from 16 prominent archaeological and palaeoecological journals (341 articles).

This study builds on similar studies conducted for zooarchaeology (Kansa et al. 2020) and macro-botanical remains (Lodwick 2019). This study shows that 53% of papers shared data in any format but only 4% of papers contained reusable data, 74% included some pictures of phytolith morphotypes for identification purposes, 69% had a fully described method, 47% used the International code for phytolith nomenclature (ICPN 1.0) and only 13% of articles were open access.

Steps forward are then proposed, including planning for open projects, making more articles openly accessible and implementing the FAIR data principles, to use as a starting point for discussions in the wider phytolith and archaeological communities to develop guidelines for greater integration of open science practices.

URL : Assessing Open Science Practices in Phytolith Research

DOI : http://doi.org/10.5334/oq.88

La Science Ouverte à l’Université de Lorraine : bilan des actions entreprises et enjeux pour l’avenir

Posté le par

Auteurs.trices/Authors : Laetitia Bracco, Julien Brancher, Nicolas Fressengeas, Lylette Lacôte-Gabrysiak, Andreas Gutsfeld, Rudy Hahusseau, Thomas Jouneau, Celia Lentretien, Jean-François Lutz, Frédéric Villiéras

Le présent document se propose de retracer succinctement les actions entreprises par l’Université de Lorraine dans le cadre de sa politique Science Ouverte, elle-même dans les pas du premier Plan National pour la Science Ouverte de 2018 (PNSO1), puis d’esquisser les grands enjeux en la matière pour l’établissement, s’inspirant pour ce faire du deuxième Plan National pour le Science Ouverte, publié en 2021 (PNSO2), des initiatives de la Commission Européenne et de la récente recommandation de l’Unesco.

La première partie présentera donc le bilan des réalisations, en le structurant via les grands axes du PNSO1 ; tout comme la deuxième partie, qui s’efforcera d’anticiper les grands enjeux pour les années à venir, aidée en cela par le PNSO2 dont elle adopte la structuration.

URL : https://hal.univ-lorraine.fr/hal-03554958

Identify scientific publications country-wide and measure their open access: The case of the French Open Science Barometer (BSO)

Posté le par

Authors : Lauranne Chaignon, Daniel Egret

We use several sources to collect and evaluate academic scientific publication on a country scale, and we apply it to the case of France for the years 2015–2020, while presenting a more detailed analysis focused on the reference year 2019.

These sources are diverse: databases available by subscription (Scopus, Web of Science) or open to the scientific community (Microsoft Academic Graph), the national open archive HAL, and databases serving thematic communities (ADS and PUBMED).

We show the contribution of the different sources to the final corpus. These results are then compared to those obtained with another approach, that of the French Open Science Barometer (Jeangirard, 2019) for monitoring open access at the national level.

We show that both approaches provide a convergent estimate of the open access rate. We also present and discuss the definitions of the concepts used, and list the main difficulties encountered in processing the data.

The results of this study contribute to a better understanding of the respective contributions of the main databases and their complementarity in the broad framework of a country-wide corpus.

They also shed light on the calculation of open access rates and thus contribute to a better understanding of current developments in the field of open science.

URL : Identify scientific publications country-wide and measure their open access: The case of the French Open Science Barometer (BSO)

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00179

Contribution of the Open Access modality to the impact of hybrid journals controlling by field and time effects

Posté le par

Authors : Pablo Dorta-González, María Isabel Dorta-González

Purpose

Researchers are more likely to read and cite papers to which they have access than those that they cannot obtain. Thus, the objective of this work is to analyze the contribution of the Open Access (OA) modality to the impact of hybrid journals.

Design / methodology /approach

The “research articles” in the year 2017 from 200 hybrid journals in four subject areas, and the citations received by such articles in the period 2017-2020 in the Scopus database, were analyzed. The hybrid OA papers were compared with the paywalled ones.

The journals were randomly selected from those with share of OA papers higher than some minimal value. More than 60 thousand research articles were analyzed in the sample, of which 24% under the OA modality.

Findings

We obtain at journal level that cites per article in both hybrid modalities (OA and paywalled) strongly correlate. However, there is no correlation between the OA prevalence and cites per article.

There is OA citation advantage in 80% of hybrid journals. Moreover, the OA citation advantage is consistent across fields and held in time. We obtain an OA citation advantage of 50% in average, and higher than 37% in half of the hybrid journals. Finally, the OA citation advantage is higher in Humanities than in Science and Social Science.

Research limitations

Some of the citation advantage is likely due to more access allows more people to read and hence cite articles they otherwise would not. However, causation is difficult to establish and there are many possible bias.

Several factors can affect the observed differences in citation rates. Funder mandates can be one of them. Funders are likely to have OA requirement, and well-funded studies are more likely to receive more citations than poorly funded studies.

Another discussed factor is the selection bias postulate, which suggests that authors choose only their most impactful studies to be open access.

Practical implications

For hybrid journals, the open access modality is positive, in the sense that it provides a  greater number of potential readers. This in turn translates into a greater number of citations and an improvement in the position of the journal in the rankings by impact factor.

For researchers it is also positive because it increases the potential number of readers and citationsreceived.

Originality /value

Our study refines previous results by comparing documents more similar to each other. Although it does not examine the cause of the observed citation advantage, we find that it exists in a very large sample.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.09284

Barriers to Full Participation in the Open Science Life Cycle among Early Career Researchers

Posté le par

Authors : Natasha J. Gownaris, Koen Vermeir, Martin-Immanuel Bittner, Lasith Gunawardena, Sandeep Kaur-Ghumaan, Robert Lepenies, Godswill Ntsomboh Ntsefong, Ibrahim Sidi Zakari

Open science (OS) is currently dominated by a small subset of practices that occur late in the scientific process. Early career researchers (ECRs) will play a key role in transitioning the scientific community to more widespread use of OS from pre-registration to publication, but they also face unique challenges in adopting these practices. Here, we discuss these challenges across the OS life cycle.

Our essay relies on the published literature, an informal survey of 32 ECRs from 14 countries, and discussions among members of the Global Working Group on Open Science (Global Young Academy and National Young Academies).

We break the OS life cycle into four stages—study design and tracking (pre-registration, open processes), data collection (citizen science, open hardware, open software, open data), publication (open access publishing, open peer review, open data), and outreach (open educational resources, citizen science)—and map potential barriers at each stage.

The most frequently discussed barriers across the OS life cycle were a lack of awareness and training, prohibitively high time commitments, and restrictions and/or a lack of incentives by supervisors.

We found that OS practices are highly fragmented and that awareness is particularly low for OS practices that occur during the study design and tracking stage, possibly creating ‘path-dependencies’ that reduce the likelihood of OS practices at later stages.

We note that, because ECRs face unique barriers to adopting OS, there is a need for specifically targeted policies such as mandatory training at the graduate level and promotion incentives.

URL : Barriers to Full Participation in the Open Science Life Cycle among Early Career Researchers

DOI : http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2022-002

We Can Make a Better Use of ORCID: Five Observed Misapplications

Posté le par

Authors : Miriam Baglioni, Paolo Manghi, Andrea Mannocci, Alessia Bardi

Since 2012, the “Open Researcher and Contributor ID” organisation (ORCID) has been successfully running a worldwide registry, with the aim of “providing a unique, persistent identifier for individuals to use as they engage in research, scholarship, and innovation activities”.

Any service in the scholarly communication ecosystem (e.g., publishers, repositories, CRIS systems, etc.) can contribute to a non-ambiguous scholarly record by including, during metadata deposition, referrals to iDs in the ORCID registry.

The OpenAIRE Research Graph is a scholarly knowledge graph that aggregates both records from the ORCID registry and publication records with ORCID referrals from publishers and repositories worldwide to yield research impact monitoring and Open Science statistics.

Graph data analytics revealed “anomalies” due to ORCID registry “misapplications”, caused by wrong ORCID referrals and misexploitation of the ORCID registry. Albeit these affect just a minority of ORCID records, they inevitably affect the quality of the ORCID infrastructure and may fuel the rise of detractors and scepticism about the service.

In this paper, we classify and qualitatively document such misapplications, identifying five ORCID registrant-related and ORCID referral-related anomalies to raise awareness among ORCID users.

We describe the current countermeasures taken by ORCID and, where applicable, provide recommendations. Finally, we elaborate on the importance of a community-steered Open Science infrastructure and the benefits this approach has brought and may bring to ORCID.

URL : We Can Make a Better Use of ORCID: Five Observed Misapplications

DOI : http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2021-038

Perspectives on Open Science and The Future of Scholarly Communication: Internet Trackers and Algorithmic Persuasion

Posté le par

Authors : Tiberius Ignat, Paul Ayris, Beatrice Gini, Olga Stepankova, Deniz Özdemir, Damla Bal, Yordanka Deyanov

The current digital content industry is heavily oriented towards building platforms that track users’ behaviour and seek to convince them to stay longer and come back sooner onto the platform. Similarly, authors are incentivised to publish more and to become champions of dissemination.

Arguably, these incentive systems are built around public reputation supported by a system of metrics, hard to be assessed. Generally, the digital content industry is permeable to non-human contributors (algorithms that are able to generate content and reactions), anonymity and identity fraud. It is pertinent to present a perspective paper about early signs of track and persuasion in scholarly communication.

Building our views, we have run a pilot study to determine the opportunity for conducting research about the use of “track and persuade” technologies in scholarly communication. We collected observations on a sample of 148 relevant websites and we interviewed 15 that are experts related to the field.

Through this work, we tried to identify 1) the essential questions that could inspire proper research, 2) good practices to be recommended for future research, and 3) whether citizen science is a suitable approach to further research in this field.

The findings could contribute to determining a broader solution for building trust and infrastructure in scholarly communication. The principles of Open Science will be used as a framework to see if they offer insights into this work going forward.

URL : Perspectives on Open Science and The Future of Scholarly Communication: Internet Trackers and Algorithmic Persuasion

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.748095