Archives des mots-clés : Scholarly Publishing

Transitioning to Open Access: An Evaluation of the UK Springer Compact Agreement Pilot 2016–2018

Posté le par

Authors : Mafalda Marques, Graham Stone

This article analyzes the UK’s first “read and publish” journals agreement. The Springer Compact Agreement pilot ran from 2016 to 2018. The authors outline the methodology and data sources used to undertake a detailed analysis of the agreement.

This includes the number of open access articles published, the number of author opt-outs and rejected articles. Institutional savings (or cost avoidance), and the financial implications resulting from the number of opt-outs and rejected articles are also discussed.

The value of articles published and cost per download for non-OA content are also covered. The agreement, at the consortia level, has constrained the total cost of publication—during the three years, the HE sector has avoided paying additional costs of €20,000,800 ($22,761,688) for publishing OA by paying the single combined fee that capped publication costs at 2014 rates.

All institutions taking part in the Springer Compact agreement published OA articles equivalent to or in excess of their total 2014 APC spend between 2016 and 2018. By 2018, 30 percent of institutions published OA articles to the value of or in excess of the combined fee paid to Springer. The article concludes with a number of recommendations for future agreements and considers compliance with Plan S guidelines.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.81.6.913

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

La prédation dans le champ de la publication scientifique : un objet de recherche révélateur des mutations de la communication scientifique ouverte

Posté le par

Autueurs/Authors : Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Sarah Rakotoary, Pascal Bador

L’article présente un état de l’art critique du phénomène des revues prédatrices qui touche le champ de la communication scientifique et en fait une de ses actualités les plus médiatisées. Il rend compte des débats en cours, des recherches menées et de leurs méthodologies.

L’article discute la définition de la revue prédatrice et propose une analyse du nouveau marché de listes de revues « légitimes » et « illégitimes ». Il identifie les principaux enjeux éthiques et scientifiques que les revues prédatrices font peser sur la publication en Libre Accès et rend compte des contextes qui conduisent des chercheurs (jeunes et seniors) à y publier.

En rattachant les revues prédatrices au champ de la communication scientifique, l’article en pointe les principales problématiques et les érige en objet de recherche. L’article conclut sur des pistes de recherches contribuant à l’analyse des mutations de la communication scientifique numérique.

URL : La prédation dans le champ de la publication scientifique : un objet de recherche révélateur des mutations de la communication scientifique ouverte

Original location : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02941731

Theoretical Aspects of Scholarly Publishing about the Internet in Spanish Communication Journals

Posté le par

Authors : Rainer Rubira-García, Silvia Margarita Baldiris-Navarro, Jacqueline Venet-Gutiérrez, Silvia Magro-Vela

Theoretical aspects of scholarly publishing about the Internet in communication sciences in Spain have received little attention. The present text analyses scientific framework, categories, concepts and keywords used in research, collected from the most relevant specialized Spanish journals in the field, as well as research objectives that are pursued in connection to communication levels of study and types of data.

A content analysis of a representative sample of 227 scientific articles was done in the five leading Spanish journals in communication in the period 1995–2015, in which the academic interesting on Internet as an object of study was consolidated.

The results show a predominance of descriptive theoretical frameworks and a hegemony of journalism as an academic reference. Nevertheless, there is an increase complexity out of the mass media field.

The research on the Internet in the communication field is presented as a reflexive opportunity to understand interdisciplinarity and the way this acquires epistemological consistence in the scientific discourse.

URL : Theoretical Aspects of Scholarly Publishing about the Internet in Spanish Communication Journals

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8030042

PRINCIPIA: a Decentralized Peer-Review Ecosystem

Posté le par

Authors : Andrea Mambrini, Andrea Baronchelli, Michele Starnini, Daniele Marinazzo, Manlio De Domenico

Peer review is a cornerstone of modern scientific endeavor. However, there is growing consensus that several limitations of the current peer review system, from lack of incentives to reviewers to lack of transparency, risks to undermine its benefits.

Here, we introduce the PRINCIPIA (http://www.principia.network/) framework for peer-review of scientific outputs (e.g., papers, grant proposals or patents).

The framework allows key players of the scientific ecosystem — including existing publishing groups — to create and manage peer-reviewed journals, by building a free market for reviews and publications. PRINCIPIA’s referees are transparently rewarded according to their efforts and the quality of their reviews.

PRINCIPIA also naturally allows to recognize the prestige of users and journals, with an intrinsic reputation system that does not depend on third-parties. PRINCIPIA re-balances the power between researchers and publishers, stimulates valuable assessments from referees, favors a fair competition between journals, and reduces the costs to access research output and to publish.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.09011

Research methodology and characteristics of journal articles with original data, preprint articles and registered clinical trial protocols about COVID-19

Posté le par

Authors : Mahir Fidahic, Danijela Nujic, Renata Runjic, Marta Civljak, Zvjezdana Lovric Makaric, Livia Puljak

Background

The research community reacted rapidly to the emergence of COVID-19. We aimed to assess characteristics of journal articles, preprint articles, and registered trial protocols about COVID-19 and its causal agent SARS-CoV-2.

Methods

We analyzed characteristics of journal articles with original data indexed by March 19, 2020, in World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 collection, articles published on preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv by April 3, 2010.

Additionally, we assessed characteristics of clinical trials indexed in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) by April 7, 2020.

Results

Among the first 2118 articles on COVID-19 published in scholarly journals, 533 (25%) contained original data. The majority was published by authors from China (75%) and funded by Chinese sponsors (75%); a quarter was published in the Chinese language.

Among 312 articles that self-reported study design, the most frequent were retrospective studies (N = 88; 28%) and case reports (N = 86; 28%), analyzing patients’ characteristics (38%). Median Journal Impact Factor of journals where articles were published was 5.099.

Among 1088 analyzed preprint articles, the majority came from authors affiliated in China (51%) and were funded by sources in China (46%). Less than half reported study design; the majority were modeling studies (62%), and analyzed transmission/risk/prevalence (43%).

Of the 927 analyzed registered trials, the majority were interventional (58%). Half were already recruiting participants. The location for the conduct of the trial in the majority was China (N = 522; 63%).

The median number of planned participants was 140 (range: 1 to 15,000,000). Registered intervention trials used highly heterogeneous primary outcomes and tested highly heterogeneous interventions; the most frequently studied interventions were hydroxychloroquine (N = 39; 7.2%) and chloroquine (N = 16; 3%).

Conclusions

Early articles on COVID-19 were predominantly retrospective case reports and modeling studies. The diversity of outcomes used in intervention trial protocols indicates the urgent need for defining a core outcome set for COVID-19 research.

Chinese scholars had a head start in reporting about the new disease, but publishing articles in Chinese may limit their global reach. Mapping publications with original data can help finding gaps that will help us respond better to the new public health emergency.

URL : Research methodology and characteristics of journal articles with original data, preprint articles and registered clinical trial protocols about COVID-19

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01047-2

Problematizing ‘predatory publishing’: A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions, and experiences

Posté le par

Authors : David Mills, K. Inouye

This article systematically reviews recent empirical research on the factors shaping academics’ knowledge about, and motivations to publish work in, so‐called ‘predatory’ journals. Growing scholarly evidence suggests that the concept of ‘predatory’ publishing’ – used to describe deceptive journals exploiting vulnerable researchers – is inadequate for understanding the complex range of institutional and contextual factors that shape the publication decisions of individual academics.

This review identifies relevant empirical studies on academics who have published in ‘predatory’ journals, and carries out a detailed comparison of 16 papers that meet the inclusion criteria. While most start from Beall’s framing of ‘predatory’ publishing, their empirical findings move the debate beyond normative assumptions about academic vulnerability.

They offer particular insights into the academic pressures on scholars at the periphery of a global research economy. This systematic review shows the value of a holistic approach to studying individual publishing decisions within specific institutional, economic and political contexts.

Rather than assume that scholars publishing in ‘questionable’ journals are naïve, gullible or lacking in understanding, fine‐grained empirical research provides a more nuanced conceptualization of the pressures and incentives shaping their decisions. The review suggests areas for further research, especially in emerging research systems in the global South.

URL : Problematizing ‘predatory publishing’: A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions, and experiences

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1325