Archives des mots-clés : Scholarly Publishing

Megajournal mismanagement: Manuscript decision bias and anomalous editor activity at PLOS ONE

Posté le par

Author : Alexander M. Petersen

Since their emergence just a decade ago, nearly 2% of scientific research is now published by megajournals, representing a major industrial shift in the production of knowledge. Such high-throughput production stresses several aspects of the publication process, including the editorial oversight of peer-review.

As the largest megajournal, PLOS ONE has relied on a single-tier editorial board comprised of ∼7000 active academics, who thereby face conflicts of interest relating to their dual roles as both producers and gatekeepers of peer-reviewed literature.

While such conflicts of interest are also a factor for editorial boards of smaller journals, little is known about how the scalability of megajournals may introduce perverse incentives for editorial service.

To address this issue, we analyzed the activity of PLOS ONE editors over the journal’s inaugural decade (2006–2015) and find highly variable activity levels. We then leverage this variation to model how editorial bias in the manuscript decision process relates to two editor-specific factors: repeated editor-author interactions and shifts in the rates of citations directed at editors – a form of citation remuneration that is analogue to self-citation.

Our results indicate significantly stronger manuscript bias among a relatively small number of extremely active editors, who also feature relatively high self-citation rates coincident in the manuscripts they handle.

These anomalous activity patterns are consistent with the perverse incentives and the temptations they offer at scale, which is theoretically grounded in the “slippery-slope” evolution of apathy and misconduct in power-driven environments.

By applying quantitative evaluation to the gatekeepers of scientific knowledge, we shed light on various ethics issues crucial to science policy – in particular, calling for more transparent and structured management of editor activity in megajournals that rely on active academics.

URL : Megajournal mismanagement: Manuscript decision bias and anomalous editor activity at PLOS ONE

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.100974

Economie et organisation éditoriale des plateformes et des agrégateurs de revues scientifiques françaises : Analyse comparative de huit plateformes étrangères de diffusion de revues scientifiques

Posté le par

Effectuée pour le compte du Comité de suivi de l’édition scientifique (CSES), cette étude présente une analyse comparative de huit plateformes étrangères avec deux objectifs : décrire leurs principales caractéristiques et enrichir l’étude des plateformes et agrégateurs de revues scientifiques françaises par une analyse du potentiel concurrentiel et des complémentarités de ces plateformes et agrégateurs étrangers.

Le panel est composé de huit plateformes, trois acteurs commerciaux (EBSCO, ProQuest, Cambridge University Press) et cinq acteurs publics ou à but non lucratif (JSTOR, Project MUSE, Érudit, SciELO, Open Library of Humanities).

L’étude présente pour chaque plateforme le modèle d’affaires, les services et fonctionnalités, le positionnement par rapport à l’Open Access, les perspectives de développement et la part des contenus français.

Elle décrit également les trajectoires, particularités et futurs développements de plusieurs plateformes dont notamment Project MUSE, JSTOR et Érudit, et s’intéresse à des aspects fonctionnels et techniques intéressants comme le TDM et l’intelligence artificielle.

Toutes ces plateformes ont en commun qu’elles diffusent des revues scientifiques en ligne, avec des technologies du web, suivant le modèle d’affaires biface (avec deux clientèles différentes, éditeurs de revues et lecteurs), et qu’elles proposent des services aux éditeurs (producteurs de contenus) aussi bien qu’aux institutions, bibliothèques et particuliers (consommateurs d’informations scientifiques et techniques).

Cependant, l’étude révèle une grande diversité de modèles économiques (chiffre d’affaires, part des ventes et des subventions, reversement aux éditeurs, open access) et propose une comparaison entre ces plateformes étrangères et le panel français, en soulignant notamment la proximité entre CAIRN, JSTOR et Project MUSE.

L’intérêt pour une revue française d’établir un partenariat avec l’une des plateformes internationales est surtout lié à la diffusion par un agrégateur commercial avec une clientèle internationale et anglophone, mais ouvert à des revues non anglophones.

Ces plateformes représentent une opportunité complémentaire plutôt qu’une alternative à leurs propres moyens de diffusion. L’étude ajoute quelques éléments d’information pour évaluer l’impact de ces plateformes sur le marché français.

Être en mesure de créer des conditions (techniques, financières, organisationnelles) favorables à l’innovation, est peut-être l’un des critères qui fera la différence entre les plateformes dans les cinq à dix ans à venir.

Mais également, la capacité de garantir une conservation (et un accès) à long terme, le degré de standardisation des systèmes et formats, et l’intégration dans les communautés et institutions scientifiques, y compris dans des projets de recherche.

URL : Economie et organisation éditoriale des plateformes et des agrégateurs de revues scientifiques françaises : Analyse comparative de huit plateformes étrangères de diffusion de revues scientifiques

Original location : https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid149053/analyse-comparative-de-huit-plateformes-etrangeres-de-diffusion-de-revues-scientifiques.html

Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals

Posté le par

Authors : Thomas Klebel, Stefan Reichmann, Jessica Polka, Gary McDowell, Naomi Penfold, Samantha Hindle, Tony Ross-Hellauer

Clear and findable publishing policies are important for authors to choose appropriate journals for publication. We investigated the clarity of policies of 171 major academic journals across disciplines regarding peer review and preprinting.

31.6% of journals surveyed do not provide information on the type of peer review they use. Information on whether preprints can be posted or not is unclear in 39.2% of journals. 58.5% of journals offer no clear information on whether reviewer identities are revealed to authors.

Around 75% of journals have no clear policy on coreviewing, citation of preprints, and publication of reviewer identities. Information regarding practices of Open Peer Review is even more scarce, with <20% of journals providing clear information.

Having found a lack of clear information, we conclude by examining the implications this has for researchers (especially early career) and the spread of open research practices.

URL : Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.24.918995

Altmetrics data providers: A meta-analysis review of the coverage of metrics and publication

Posté le par

Author : José-Luis Ortega

The aim of this paper is to review the current and most relevant literature on the use of altmetric providers since 2012. This review is supported by a meta-analysis of the coverage and metric counts obtained by more than 100 publications that have used these bibliographic platforms for altmetric studies.

The article is the most comprehensive analysis of altmetric data providers (Lagotto, Altmetric.com, ImpactStory, Mendeley, PlumX, Crossref Event Data) and explores the coverage of publications, social media and events from a longitudinal view. Disciplinary differences were also analysed.

The results show that most of the studies are based on Altmetric.com data. This provider is the service that captures most mentions from social media sites, blogs and news outlets. PlumX has better coverage, counting more Mendeley readers, but capturing fewer events.

CED has a special coverage of mentions from Wikipedia, while Lagotto and ImpactStory are becoming disused products because of their limited reach.

URL : Altmetrics data providers: A meta-analysis review of the coverage of metrics and publication

Original location : https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/EPI/article/view/epi.2020.ene.07

Altmetrics and societal impact measurements: Match or mismatch? A literature review

Posté le par

Authors : Iman Tahamtan, Lutz Bornmann

Can alternative metrics (altmetrics) data be used to measure societal impact? We wrote this literature overview of empirical studies in order to find an answer to this question. The overview includes two parts.

The first part, “societal impact measurements”, explains possible methods and problems in measuring the societal impact of research, case studies for societal impact measurement, societal impact considerations at funding organizations, and the societal problems that should be solved by science.

The second part of the review, “altmetrics”, addresses a major question in research evaluation, which is whether altmetrics are proper indicators for measuring the societal impact of research. In the second part we explain the data sources used for altmetrics studies and the importance of field-normalized indicators for impact measurements.

This review indicates that it should be relevant for impact measurements to be oriented towards pressing societal problems. Case studies in which societal impact of certain pieces of research is explained seem to provide a legitimate method for measuring societal impact.

In the use of altmetrics, field-specific differences should be considered by applying field normalization (in cross-field comparisons). Altmetrics data such as social media counts might mainly reflect the public interest and discussion of scholarly works rather than their societal impact.

Altmetrics (Twitter data) might be especially fruitfully employed for research evaluation purposes, if they are used in the context of network approaches. Conclusions based on altmetrics data in research evaluation should be drawn with caution.

URL : Altmetrics and societal impact measurements: Match or mismatch? A literature review

Original location : https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/EPI/article/view/epi.2020.ene.02

How society publishers can accelerate their transition to open access and align with Plan S

Posté le par

Authors : Alicia Wise, Lorraine Estelle

Wellcome, UK Research and Innovation, and the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers commissioned Information Power Ltd. to undertake a project to support society publishers to accelerate their transition to open access (OA) in alignment with Plan S and the wider move to accelerate immediate OA.

This project is part of a range of activities that cOAlition S partners are taking forward to support the implementation of Plan S principles. The objective of this project was to explore with learned societies a range of potential strategies and business models through which they could adapt and thrive under Plan S.

We consulted with society publishers through interviews, surveys, and workshops about the 27 business models and strategies identified during the project.

We also surveyed library consortia about their willingness to support society publishers to make the transition to OA. Our key finding is that transformative agreements emerge as the most promising model because they offer a predictable, steady funding stream.

We also facilitated pilot transformative agreement negotiations between several society publishers and library consortia. These pilots and a workshop of consortium representatives and society publishers informed the development of an OA transformative agreement toolkit.

Our conclusion is that society publishers should consider all the business models this project has developed and should not automatically equate OA with article publication charges.

URL : How society publishers can accelerate their transition to open access and align with Plan S

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1272

The role of learned societies in national scholarly publishing

Posté le par

Authors : Elina Late, Laura Korkeamäki, Janne Pölönen, Sami Syrjämäki

This study examines the role of learned societies as publishers in Finland based on bibliographic information from two Finnish databases. We studied the share of learned societies’ peer‐reviewed publication channels (serials with ISSNs and book publishers with distinct ISBN roots) and outputs (journal articles, conference articles, book articles, and monographs) in Finland.

We also studied the share of learned societies’ open access (OA) publications. In 2018, there were 402 peer‐reviewed publication channels in Finland. In 2011–2017, the number of peer‐reviewed publications from scholars working in Finnish universities and published in Finland was 17,724.

Learned societies publish around 70% of these channels and publications, mostly in the fields of humanities and social sciences. Learned societies in Finland focus on journal publishing, whereas university presses and commercial publishers focus on book publishing. In 2016–2017, 38.4% of the learned societies’ outputs were OA.

This study concludes that Finnish learned societies play an integral part in national scholarly publishing. They play an especially important role in journal publishing, as commercial publishers produce only 2.6% of Finnish journals and book series, and only 1.4% of the journal articles from scholars working in Finnish universities.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1270