Revues scientifiques et droit d’auteur : la rupture de l’open access

Statut

“L’apparition du numérique a constitué pour l’édition scientifique une étape essentielle, comme pour de nombreux autres secteurs des industries dites culturelles. Ici, ce sont les auteurs eux-mêmes, c’est-à-dire les chercheurs dont les articles sont publiés dans les revues scientifiques, qui ont profité de la révolution numérique pour bouleverser les modes de transmission des oeuvres. Il faut dire que ces chercheurs sont doublement concernés par la diffusion des oeuvres scientifiques. Ils en sont les auteurs mais aussi les destinataires principaux : la recherche se nourrit de la recherche, et le chercheur est à la fois le rédacteur d’articles exposant le résultat de ses travaux et le lecteur des publications de ses collègues, qui alimentent ses propres réflexions. C’est ainsi qu’ils ont développé l’idée de l’open access, consistant notamment à assurer un accès gratuit, en ligne, aux articles des revues scientifiques. Il s’agit ici de voir comment l’apparition de ce mouvement en faveur de l’open access a constitué une rupture dans l’évolution de l’édition scientifique et le rôle tenu par le droit d’auteur dans ce contexte.”

URL : http://hal.univ-nantes.fr/halshs-01160567

Exposing the predators. Methods to stop predatory journals

Statut

“The internet is greatly improving the impact of scholarly journals, but also poses new threats to their quality. Publishers have arisen that abuse the Gold Open Access model, in which the author pays a fee to get his article published, to make money with so-called predatory journals. These publishers falsely claim to conduct peer review, which makes them more prone to publish fraudulent and plagiarised research. This thesis looks at three possible methods to stop predatory journals: black- and white-lists, open peer review systems and new metrics. Black- and whitelists have set up rules and regulations that credible publishers and journals should follow. Open peer review systems should make it harder for predatory publishers to make false claims about their peer review process. Metrics should measure more aspects of research impact and become less liable to gaming. The question is, which of these three methods is the best candidate to stop predatory journals. As all three methods have their drawbacks, especially for new but high quality journals, none of them stop predatory journals on its own can. Rather, we need a system in which researchers, publishers and reviewers communicate more openly about the research they create, disseminate and read. But above all, we need to find a way to take away incentives for researchers and publishers to engage in fraudulent practices.”

URL : http://hdl.handle.net/1887/28943

Rise of the Rest: The Growing Impact of Non-Elite Journals

Statut

“In this paper, we examine the evolution of the impact of non-elite journals. We attempt to answer two questions. First, what fraction of the top-cited articles are published in non-elite journals and how has this changed over time. Second, what fraction of the total citations are to non-elite journals and how has this changed over time.
We studied citations to articles published in 1995-2013. We computed the 10 most-cited journals and the 1000 most-cited articles each year for all 261 subject categories in Scholar Metrics. We marked the 10 most-cited journals in a category as the elite journals for the category and the rest as non-elite.
There are two conclusions from our study. First, the fraction of top-cited articles published in non-elite journals increased steadily over 1995-2013. While the elite journals still publish a substantial fraction of high-impact articles, many more authors of well-regarded papers in diverse research fields are choosing other venues.
The number of top-1000 papers published in non-elite journals for the representative subject category went from 149 in 1995 to 245 in 2013, a growth of 64%. Looking at broad research areas, 4 out of 9 areas saw at least one-third of the top-cited articles published in non-elite journals in 2013. For 6 out of 9 areas, the fraction of top-cited papers published in non-elite journals for the representative subject category grew by 45% or more.
Second, now that finding and reading relevant articles in non-elite journals is about as easy as finding and reading articles in elite journals, researchers are increasingly building on and citing work published everywhere. Considering citations to all articles, the percentage of citations to articles in non-elite journals went from 27% in 1995 to 47% in 2013. Six out of nine broad areas had at least 50% of citations going to articles published in non-elite journals in 2013.”

URL : http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1410.2217

The impact factors of open access and subscription journals across fields

Statut

“We have compared the 2-year and 5-year impact factors (IFs), normalized impact factors (NIFs) and rank normalized impact factors (RNIFs) of open access (OA) and subscription journals across the 22 major fields delineated in Essential Science Indicators. Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2012 has assigned 2-year IF to 1,073 OA and 7,290 subscription journals and 5-year IF to 811 OA and 6,705 subscription journals. Overall 12.8% of journals listed in JCR are OA, but a higher percentage of journals are OA in 9 fields, including multidisciplinary (31%), agriculture (19.1%) and microbiology (19.1). Overall 2-year IF is higher than 5-year IF in a bout 31.5% journals in both OA and subscription journals. But among physics journals , two-thirds of OA journals and 58% of sub-scription journals have a higher 2-year IF. For multidisciplinary journals the mean RNIF is higher for OA journals than subscription journals. Higher proportion of subscription journals had mean
RNIF above 0.5: 361 of 1,073 OA journals (33.6%) and 3,857 of 7,280 subscription journals (52.9%) had a 2-year mean RNIF above 0.5 and 277 of 811 OA journals (34.2%) and 3,453 of 6705 (51.5%) subscription journals had a 5-year mean RINF above 0.5. Moving to OA has proven to be advantageous to developing country journals; it has helped a large number of Latin American and many Indian journals improve their IF.”

URL : http://www.currentscience.ac.in/cs/Volumes/107/03/0380.pdf

Building a Bridge Between Journal Articles and Research Data: The PKP-Dataverse Integration Project

Statut

“A growing number of funding agencies and international scholarly organizations are requesting that research data be made more openly available to help validate and advance scientific research. Thus, this is an opportune moment for research data repositories to partner with journal editors and publishers in order to simplify and improve data curation and publishing practices. One practical example of this type of cooperation is currently being facilitated by a two year (2012-2014) one million dollar Sloan Foundation grant, integrating two well-established open source systems: the Public Knowledge Project’s (PKP) Open Journal Systems (OJS), developed by Stanford University and Simon Fraser University; and Harvard University’s Dataverse Network web application, developed by the Institute for Quantitative Social Science (IQSS). To help make this interoperability possible, an OJS Dataverse plugin and Data Deposit API are being developed, which together will allow authors to submit their articles and datasets through an existing journal management interface, while the underlying data are seamlessly deposited into a research data repository, such as the Harvard Dataverse. This practice paper will provide an overview of the project, and a brief exploration of some of the specific challenges to and advantages of this integration.”

URL : Building a Bridge Between Journal Articles and Research Data

Alternative URL : http://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/9.1.176

Cross-Linking Between Journal Publications and Data Repositories: A Selection of Examples

Statut

“This article provides a selection of examples of the many ways that a link can be made between a journal article (whether in a data journal or otherwise) and a dataset held in a data repository. In some cases the method of linking is well established, while in others, they have yet to be rolled out uniformly across the journal landscape. We explore ways in which these examples might be implemented in a data journal, such as Geoscience Data Journal, as explored by the PREPARDE project.”

URL :  Cross-Linking Between Journal Publications and Data Repositories

Alternative URL : http://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/9.1.164

Quality of author guidelines of journals in the biomedical and physical sciences

Statut

“To assess quantitatively the completeness and clarity of author guidelines of international English-language journals in the biomedical and physical sciences, we randomly sampled 80 journals for which author guidelines were available online in English. The guidelines were reviewed for completeness and clarity in addressing ‘aims and scope,’ ‘submission and post-submission processes,’ ‘formatting instructions,’ ‘ethical requirements,’ and ‘authorship,’ and were subjectively assessed as being complete (score, 1) or incomplete (0), and clear (1) or unclear (0). Scores were represented as mean percentages. No journal scored 100% for completeness and clarity. ‘Formatting instructions’ was the most complete and clear category, and ‘authorship,’ the least complete and clear category. Biomedical science journals were more complete and clear in all categories, except ‘authorship,’ compared to physical science journals. While author guidelines of many English-language journals of biomedical and physical sciences adequately address some essential aspects, they currently do not provide all necessary information as clearly as possible. ”

URL : http://www.editage.com/insights/quality-of-author-guidelines-of-journals-in-the-biomedical-and-physical-sciences