Archives des mots-clés : open access

An analysis of the factors affecting open access to research output in institutional repositories in selected universities in East Africa

Posté le par

Author : Miriam Kakai

INTRODUCTION

Institutional repositories (IRs) present universities with an opportunity to provide global open access (OA) to their scholarship, however, this avenue was underutilised in two of the three universities in this study.

This study aimed at proposing interventions to improve access to research output in IRs in universities in East Africa, and it adds to the depth of knowledge on IRs by pointing out the factors that limit OA in IRs, some of which include lack of government and funder support for OA and mediated content collection workflows that hardly involved seeking author permission to self-archive.

METHODS

A mixed methods approach, following a concurrent strategy was used to investigate the low level of OA in IRs. Data was collected from three purposively selected IRs in universities in East Africa, using self-administered questionnaires from 183 researchers and face-to-face interviews from six librarians.

RESULTS

The findings revealed that content was collected on a voluntary basis, with most of the research output deposited in the IR without the authors’ knowledge. The respondents in this study were, however, supportive of the activities of the IR, and would participate in providing research output in the IR as OA if required to do so.

CONCLUSION

The low level of OA in IRs in universities in East Africa could be increased by improving the IR workflow, collection development, and marketing processes. Self-archiving could be improved by increasing the researchers’ awareness and knowledge of OA and importance of IRs, while addressing their concerns about copyright infringement.

URL : An analysis of the factors affecting open access to research output in institutional repositories in selected universities in East Africa

DOI : http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2276

Open access analytics with open access repository data: A Multi-level perspective

Posté le par

Author : Ibraheem Mohammed Sultan Al Sadi

Within nearly two decades after the open access movement emerged, its community has drawn attention to understanding its development, coverage, obstacles and motivations. To do so, they depend on data-centric analytics of open access publishing activities, using Web information space as their data sources for these analytical activities.

Open access repositories are one such data source that nurtures open access publishing activities and are a valuable source for analytics. Therefore, the open access community utilises open access repository infrastructure to develop and operate analytics, harnessing the widely adopted Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) interoperability layer to develop value-added services with an analytics agenda.

However,this layer presents its limitations and challenges regarding the support of analytical value-added services. To address these practices, this research has taken the step to consolidate these practices into the ‘open access analytics’ notion of drawing attention to its significance and bridge it with data analytics literature.

As part of this, an explanatory case study demonstrate show the OAI-PMH service provider approach supports open access analytics and also presents its limitations using Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR) analytics as a case study.

The case study reflects the limitation of open access registries to enable a single point of discovery due to the quality of their records and complexity of open access repositories taxonomy, the complexity of operationalising the unit of analysis in particular analytics due to the limitations in the OAI-PMH metadata schemes, the complex and resource-intensive harvesting process due to the large volume of data and the low quality of OAI-PMH standards adoptions and the issue of service provider suitability due to a single point of failure.

Also, this doctoral thesis proposes the use of Open Access Analytics using Open Access Repository Data with a Social Machine (OAA-OARD-SM) as a conceptual frame work to deliver open access analytics by using the open access repository infrastructure in acollaborative manner with social machines.

Furthermore, it takes advantage of the web observatory infrastructure as a form of web-based mediated technology to coordinate the open access analytics process. The conceptual framework re-frames the open access analytics process into four layers: the open access repository layer, the open access registry layer, the data analytics layer and open access analytics layer.

It also conceptualises analytics practices carried out within individual repository boundaries as core practices for the realisation of open access analytics and examines how the repository management team can participate in the open access analytics process.

To understand this, expert interviews were carried out to investigate and understand the analytics practices within the repository boundaries and the repository management teams’ interactions with analytics applications that are fed by the open access repository or used by repository management to operate open access analytics.

The interviews provide insight into the variations in the types of analytic practices and highlight the active role played by the repository management team in these practices. Thus, it provides an understanding of the analytics practices within open access repositories by classifying them into two main categories: the distributed analytical applications and locally operated analytics.

The distributed analytics application includes cross repository OAI-based analytics, cross-repository usage data aggregators, solo-repository content-centric analytics and solo-repository centric analytics.

On the other hand, the locally operated analytics take forms of Current Research Information System (CRIS),repository embedded functionalities and in-house developed analytics. It also classifies the repository management interactions with analytics into four roles: data analyst, administrative, data and system management, and system development and support.

Lastly, it raises concerns associated with the application of analytics on open access repositories, including data-related, cost-related and analytical concerns.

URL : http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/447464

Working with publication technology to make open access journals sustainable

Posté le par

Authors : Marcel Wrzesinski, Patrick Urs Riechert, Frédéric Dubois, Christian Katzenbach

Over the last 25 years, scholars around the world have used electronic publishing to open up their work, share it with interested publics instantly or even become publishers themselves.

This white paper explores in what ways advances in publication technology in the journal sector (e.g. the widespread use of content management and editorial systems) contributes to a more inclusive and sustainable open access ecosystem.

Drawing on a study we did in Germany in 2019-2021, and for which we tested technical solutions together with the international, peer-reviewed diamond open access journal Internet Policy Review, we present and discuss publishing solutions based on software, workflows, and collaborations with regard to their practicability and scalability.

The paper finds that scholar-led publishing is a force to be reckoned with when it comes to technical solutions tending towards increased bibliodiversity (i.e., variety of content, publication formats and publishing institutions).

URL : Working with publication technology to make open access journals sustainable

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4558781

Open Access and Academic Freedom: Teasing Out Some Important Nuances

Posté le par

Author : Rick Anderson

Discussion of the ways in which open access (OA) and academic freedom interact is fraught for a number of reasons, not least of which is the unwillingness of some participants in the discussion to acknowledge that OA might have any implications for academic freedom at all. Thus, any treatment of such implications must begin with foundational questions.

Most basic among them are: first, what do we mean by ‘open access’; second, what do we mean by ‘academic freedom’? The answers to these questions are not as obvious as one might expect (or hope), but when they are answered it becomes much easier to address a third, also very important, question: in what ways might OA and academic freedom interact?

With every new OA mandate imposed by a government agency, institution of higher education, or funding organization, careful analysis of this issue becomes more urgent. This article attempts to sort out some of these issues, controversies and confusions.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12636

Publication rate and citation counts for preprints released during the COVID-19 pandemic: the good, the bad and the ugly

Posté le par

Authors : Diego Añazco, Bryan Nicolalde, Isabel Espinosa, Jose Camacho , Mariam Mushtaq, Jimena Gimenez, Enrique Teran

Background

Preprints are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. In December 2019, a novel coronavirus appeared in China, and since then, scientific production, including preprints, has drastically increased. In this study, we intend to evaluate how often preprints about COVID-19 were published in scholarly journals and cited.

Methods

We searched the iSearch COVID-19 portfolio to identify all preprints related to COVID-19 posted on bioRxiv, medRxiv, and Research Square from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. We used a custom-designed program to obtain metadata using the Crossref public API.

After that, we determined the publication rate and made comparisons based on citation counts using non-parametric methods. Also, we compared the publication rate, citation counts, and time interval from posting on a preprint server to publication in a scholarly journal among the three different preprint servers.

Results

Our sample included 5,061 preprints, out of which 288 were published in scholarly journals and 4,773 remained unpublished (publication rate of 5.7%). We found that articles published in scholarly journals had a significantly higher total citation count than unpublished preprints within our sample (p < 0.001), and that preprints that were eventually published had a higher citation count as preprints when compared to unpublished preprints (p < 0.001).

As well, we found that published preprints had a significantly higher citation count after publication in a scholarly journal compared to as a preprint (p < 0.001). Our results also show that medRxiv had the highest publication rate, while bioRxiv had the highest citation count and shortest time interval from posting on a preprint server to publication in a scholarly journal.

Conclusions

We found a remarkably low publication rate for preprints within our sample, despite accelerated time to publication by multiple scholarly journals. These findings could be partially attributed to the unprecedented surge in scientific production observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which might saturate reviewing and editing processes in scholarly journals.

However, our findings show that preprints had a significantly lower scientific impact, which might suggest that some preprints have lower quality and will not be able to endure peer-reviewing processes to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

URL : Publication rate and citation counts for preprints released during the COVID-19 pandemic: the good, the bad and the ugly

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10927

Is preprint the future of science? A thirty year journey of online preprint services

Posté le par

Authors : Boya Xie, Zhihong Shen, Kuansan Wang

Preprint is a version of a scientific paper that is publicly distributed preceding formal peer review. Since the launch of arXiv in 1991, preprints have been increasingly distributed over the Internet as opposed to paper copies.

It allows open online access to disseminate the original research within a few days, often at a very low operating cost. This work overviews how preprint has been evolving and impacting the research community over the past thirty years alongside the growth of the Web.

In this work, we first report that the number of preprints has exponentially increased 63 times in 30 years, although it only accounts for 4% of research articles. Second, we quantify the benefits that preprints bring to authors: preprints reach an audience 14 months earlier on average and associate with five times more citations compared with a non-preprint counterpart. Last, to address the quality concern of preprints, we discover that 41% of preprints are ultimately published at a peer-reviewed destination, and the published venues are as influential as papers without a preprint version.

Additionally, we discuss the unprecedented role of preprints in communicating the latest research data during recent public health emergencies. In conclusion, we provide quantitative evidence to unveil the positive impact of preprints on individual researchers and the community.

Preprints make scholarly communication more efficient by disseminating scientific discoveries more rapidly and widely with the aid of Web technologies. The measurements we present in this study can help researchers and policymakers make informed decisions about how to effectively use and responsibly embrace a preprint culture.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.09066

Linguistic Analysis of the bioRxiv Preprint Landscape

Posté le par

Authors : David N. Nicholson, Vincent Rubinetti, Dongbo Hu, Marvin Thielk, Lawrence E. Hunter, Casey S. Greene

Preprints allow researchers to make their findings available to the scientific community before they have undergone peer review. Studies on preprints within bioRxiv have been largely focused on article metadata and how often these preprints are downloaded, cited, published, and discussed online.

A missing element that has yet to be examined is the language contained within the bioRxiv preprint repository. We sought to compare and contrast linguistic features within bioRxiv preprints to published biomedical text as a whole as this is an excellent opportunity to examine how peer review changes these documents.

The most prevalent features that changed appear to be associated with typesetting and mentions of supplementary sections or additional files. In addition to text comparison, we created document embeddings derived from a preprint-trained word2vec model.

We found that these embeddings are able to parse out different scientific approaches and concepts, link unannotated preprint-peer reviewed article pairs, and identify journals that publish linguistically similar papers to a given preprint.

We also used these embeddings to examine factors associated with the time elapsed between the posting of a first preprint and the appearance of a peer reviewed publication. We found that preprints with more versions posted and more textual changes took longer to publish.

Lastly, we constructed a web application (https://greenelab.github.io/preprint-similarity-search/) that allows users to identify which journals and articles that are most linguistically similar to a bioRxiv or medRxiv preprint as well as observe where the preprint would be positioned within a published article landscape.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.04.433874