Yes! We’re open. Open science and the future of academic practices in translation and interpreting studies

Author : Christian Olalla-Soler

This article offers an overview of open science and open-science practices and their applications to translation and interpreting studies (TIS).

Publications on open science in different disciplines were reviewed in order to define open science, identify academic publishing practices emerging from the core features of open science, and discuss the limitations of such practices in the humanities and the social sciences.

The compiled information was then contextualised within TIS academic publishing practices based on bibliographic and bibliometric data. The results helped to identify what open-science practices have been adopted in TIS, what problems emerge from applying some of these practices, and in what ways such practices could be fostered in our discipline.

This article aims to foster a debate on the future of TIS publishing and the role that open science will play in the discipline in the upcoming years.

URL : Yes! We’re open. Open science and the future of academic practices in translation and interpreting studies

Original location : http://trans-int.org/index.php/transint/article/view/1317

Comment sauver l’ouverture de la science ? l’évaluation

Auteur/Author : Denis Jerome

Les mondes de la recherche et celui des éditeurs encouragent une disponibilité des résultats de la recherche à tous et gratuitement. La transition vers une science ouverte se développe rapidement mais elle n’est pas sans poser de sérieux problèmes qui ne sont pas uniquement d’ordre budgétaire mais peuvent aussi porter atteinte à l’éthique et au bon fonctionnement de la recherche.

Les acteurs incontournables que sont les chercheurs individuellement ou via les sociétés savantes et les académies doivent reprendre le contrôle de cette transition en reconsidérant le rôle de l’évaluation qui est le nœud du problème. C’est la pratique de l’évaluation qu’il faut revoir.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03291013

Total SciComm: A Strategy for Communicating Open Science

Authors : Manh-Toan Ho, Manh-Tung Ho, Quan-Hoang Vuong

This paper seeks to introduce a strategy of science communication: Total SciComm or all-out science communication. We proposed that to maximize the outreach and impact, scientists should use different media to communicate different aspects of science, from core ideas to methods.

The paper uses an example of a debate surrounding a now-retracted article in the Nature journal, in which open data, preprints, social media, and blogs are being used for a meaningful scientific conversation.

The case embodied the central idea of Total SciComm: the scientific community employs every medium to communicate scientific ideas and engages all scientists in the process.

URL : Total SciComm: A Strategy for Communicating Open Science

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9030031

Le partage des données vu par les chercheurs : une approche par la valeur

Auteur/Author : Violaine Rebouillat

Le propos de cet article porte sur la compréhension des logiques qui interviennent dans la définition de la valeur des données de la recherche, celles-ci pouvant avoir une influence sur les critères déterminant leur motivation au partage.

L’approche méthodologique repose sur une enquête qualitative, menée dans le cadre d’une recherche doctorale, qui a déployé 57 entretiens semi-directifs. Alors que les travaux menés autour des données sont focalisés sur les freins et motivations du partage, l’originalité de cette recherche consiste à identifier les différents prismes par lesquels la question de la valeur des données impacte la motivation et la décision de leur partage.

L’analyse des résultats montre que, tous domaines confondus, la valeur des données reste encore cristallisée autour de la publication et de la reconnaissance symbolique du travail du chercheur.

Les résultats permettent de comprendre que la question du partage est confrontée à un impensé : celui du cadre actuel de l’évaluation de la recherche, qui met l’article scientifique au cœur de son dispositif.

Ce travail contribue donc à montrer que l’avenir du partage des données dépend des systèmes alternatifs futurs d’évaluation de la recherche, associés à la science ouverte.

URL : https://lesenjeux.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/2021/varia/03-le-partage-des-donnees-vu-par-les-chercheurs-une-approche-par-la-valeur/

Modes d’évaluation ouverte par les pairs : de la revue à la plateforme

Auteurs/Authors : Evelyne Broudoux, Madjid Ihadjadene

Cet article a pour but de proposer un état de l’art des différentes formes de l’évaluation d’articles ou de communications par les pairs. De l’évaluation « aveugle» à l’évaluation « ouverte », de multiples possibilités existent et sont expérimentées.

C’est dans le champ des sciences que l’on trouve le plus d’innovations sociotechniques s’appuyant sur des plateformes de publication modélisant des workflows éditoriaux originaux.

L’ouverture de l’évaluation peut se produire entre pairs, en rendant publiques les identités et/ou les rapports des évaluateurs, à différents stades de l’article scientifique : préprint, en cours de rédaction, ou encore après publication.

Cet état de l’art est basé sur un ensemble de publications essentiellement produites par les acteurs de l’évaluation ouverte, issus principalement des disciplines STM.

URL : Modes d’évaluation ouverte par les pairs : de la revue à la plateforme

URL : https://revue-cossi.numerev.com/articles/revue-9/2496-modes-d-evaluation-ouverte-par-les-pairs-de-la-revue-a-la-plateforme

Exploring factors that influence the practice of Open Science by early career health researchers: a mixed methods study

Authors : Ksenija Zečević, Catherine Houghton, Chris Noone, Hopin Lee, Karen Matvienko-Sikar, Elaine Toomey

Background

There is a growing global movement towards open science and ensuring that health research is more transparent. It is vital that the researchers are adequately prepared for this research environment from early in their careers.

However, limited research has been conducted on the barriers and enablers to practicing open science for early career researchers. This study aimed to explore the views, experiences and factors influencing open science practices amongst ECRs working in health research.

Methods

Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of ECRs working in health research. Participants also completed surveys regarding the factors influencing open science practices. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data and descriptive statistical analyses were used to analyse survey data.

Results

14 ECRs participated. Two main themes were identified from interview data; Valuing Open Science and Creating a Culture for Open Science. Within ‘Valuing Open Science’, participants spoke about the conceptualisation of open science to be open across the entire research cycle, and important for producing better and more impactful research for patients and the public.

Within ‘Creating a Culture of Open Science’ participants spoke about a number of factors influencing their practice of open science. These included cultural and academic pressures, the positives and negatives of increased accountability and transparency, and the need for more training and supporting resources to facilitate open science practices.

Conclusion

ECRs see the importance of open science for beneficially impacting patient and public health but many feel that they are not fully supported to practice open science.

Resources and supports including education and training are needed, as are better incentives for open science activities. Crucially, tangible engagement from institutions, funders and researchers is needed to facilitate the development of an open science culture.

URL : Exploring factors that influence the practice of Open Science by early career health researchers: a mixed methods study

Open Research Data and Open Peer Review: Perceptions of a Medical and Health Sciences Community in Greece

Authors : Eirini Delikoura, Dimitrios Kouis

Recently significant initiatives have been launched for the dissemination of Open Access as part of the Open Science movement. Nevertheless, two other major pillars of Open Science such as Open Research Data (ORD) and Open Peer Review (OPR) are still in an early stage of development among the communities of researchers and stakeholders.

The present study sought to unveil the perceptions of a medical and health sciences community about these issues. Through the investigation of researchers‘ attitudes, valuable conclusions can be drawn, especially in the field of medicine and health sciences, where an explosive growth of scientific publishing exists.

A quantitative survey was conducted based on a structured questionnaire, with 179 valid responses. The participants in the survey agreed with the Open Peer Review principles. However, they ignored basic terms like FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and appeared incentivized to permit the exploitation of their data.

Regarding Open Peer Review (OPR), participants expressed their agreement, implying their support for a trustworthy evaluation system.

Conclusively, researchers need to receive proper training for both Open Research Data principles and Open Peer Review processes which combined with a reformed evaluation system will enable them to take full advantage of the opportunities that arise from the new scholarly publishing and communication landscape.

URL : Open Research Data and Open Peer Review: Perceptions of a Medical and Health Sciences Community in Greece

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9020014