Archives des mots-clés : scientific communication

Open scholarship and bibliodiversity

Posté le par

Authors : Maureen P. Walsh, Nataliia Kaliuzhna, Nokuthula Mchunu, Mohamad Mostafa, Katherine Witzig, Tony Alves

This paper is based on the Open Scholarship and Bibliodiversity panel presented at the 2024 NISO Plus conference in Baltimore, Maryland on February 13, 2024, and brings together five perspectives on the interdependency of open scholarship and bibliodiversity. Bibliodiversity in the context of open scholarship refers to the diversity of publishing models, platforms, and formats that are available for scholarly communication.

It emphasizes the importance of a varied and inclusive ecosystem for acquiring academic knowledge and for the dissemination of research. An important part of bibliodiversity is the inclusion and the promotion of a diversity of scholarly voices.

The authors explore how to ensure that a scholarly infrastructure includes a multitude of voices, is accessible to everyone, and can be expressed in a variety of ways.

URL : Open scholarship and bibliodiversity

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1177/18758789241296760

Fundamental problems in the peer-review process and stakeholders’ perceptions of potential suggestions for improvement

Posté le par

Authors : Cigdem Kadaifci, Erkan Isikli, Y. Ilker Topcu

Academic papers are essential for researchers to communicate their work to their peers and industry experts. Quality research is published in prestigious scientific journals, and is considered as part of the hiring and promotion criteria at leading universities. Scientific journals conduct impartial and anonymous peer reviews of submitted manuscripts; however, individuals involved in this process may encounter issues related to the duration, impartiality, and transparency of these reviews.

To explore these concerns, we created a questionnaire based on a comprehensive review of related literature and expert opinions, which was distributed to all stakeholders (authors, reviewers, and editors) who participated in the peer-review process from a variety of countries and disciplines. Their opinions on the primary issues during the process and suggestions for improvement were collected. The data were then analysed based on various groups, such as gender, country of residence, and contribution type, using appropriate multivariate statistical techniques to determine the perceptions and experiences of participants in the peer-review process.

The results showed that unethical behaviour was not uncommon and that editors and experienced reviewers encountered it more frequently. Women and academics from Türkiye were more likely to experience ethical violations and perceived them as more ethically severe. Incentives and stakeholder involvement were seen as ways to enhance the quality and impartiality of peer review. The scale developed can serve as a useful tool for addressing difficulties in the peer-review process and improving its effectiveness and performance.

URL : Fundamental problems in the peer-review process and stakeholders’ perceptions of potential suggestions for improvement

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1637

Adoption and use of author identifier services: A French national survey

Posté le par

Authors : Christophe Boudry, Aline Bouchard

This paper studies awareness and use of author identifier services (AIDs) in the French academic community and explores needs and forms of support required for these tools, using a national questionnaire survey. ArXivID, IdHAL, ORCID, ResearcherID and Scopus Author ID were investigated. A total of 6125 people completed the questionnaire in full. The results of this survey show that discipline and age play an important role in French researchers’ familiarity with AIDs.

IdHAL and ORCID were by far the two best known AIDs, probably because they have been promoted by institutions in France for several years. French researchers use AIDs mainly to respond to external requests (e.g., to submit an article or a research project), while, surprisingly, few use them to ‘facilitate their work’.

When French researchers were asked about their needs and the form of support required for AIDs, more than 30% of them said they either required an introduction to or practical training in these tools. The results of this national survey should help stakeholders to adapt their policies and to guide and support researchers more efficiently in the use of these tools.

URL : Adoption and use of author identifier services: A French national survey

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1640

Two scholarly publishing cultures? Open access drives a divergence in European academic publishing practices

Posté le par

Authors : Leon Kopitar, Nejc Plohl, Mojca Tancer Verboten, Gregor Štiglic, Roger Watson, Dean Korošak

The current system of scholarly publishing is often criticized for being slow, expensive, and not transparent. The rise of open access publishing as part of open science tenets, promoting transparency and collaboration, together with calls for research assesment reforms are the results of these criticisms. The emergence of new open access publishers presents a unique opportunity to empirically test how universities and countries respond to shifts in the academic publishing landscape. These new actors challenge traditional publishing models, offering faster review times and broader accessibility, which could influence strategic publishing decisions.

Our findings reveal a clear division in European publishing practices, with countries clustering into two groups distinguished by the ratio of publications in new open access journals with accelerated review times versus legacy journals. This divide underscores a broader shift in academic culture, highlighting new open access publishing venues as a strategic factor influencing national and institutional publishing practices, with significant implications for research accessibility and collaboration across Europe.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.06282

Diamond open access and open infrastructures have shaped the Canadian scholarly journal landscape since the start of the digital era

Posté le par

Authors : Simon van Bellen, Lucía Céspedes

Scholarly publishing involves multiple stakeholders having various types of interest. In Canada, the implication of universities, the presence of societies and the availability of governmental support for periodicals seem to have contributed to a rather diverse ecosystem of journals. This study presents in detail the current state of these journals, in addition to past trends and transformations during the 20th century and, in particular, the digital era.

To this effect, we created a new dataset, including a total of 1256 journals, 944 of which appeared to be active today, specifically focusing on the supporting organizations behind the journals, the types of (open) access, disciplines, geographic origins, languages of publication and hosting platforms and tools. The main overarching traits across Canadian scholarly journals are an important presence of Diamond open access, which has been adopted by 62% of the journals, a predominance of the Social Sciences and Humanities disciplines and a scarce presence of the major commercial publishers.

The digital era allowed for the development of open infrastructures, which contributed to the creation of a new generation of journals that massively adopted Diamond open access, often supported by university libraries. However, journal cessation also increased, especially among the recently founded journals. These results provide valuable insights for the design of tailored practices and policies that cater to the needs of different types of periodicals and that take into account the evolving practices across the Canadian scholarly journal landscape.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.05942

Global insights: ChatGPT’s influence on academic and research writing, creativity, and plagiarism policies

Posté le par

Authors : Muhammad Abid Malik, Amjad Islam Amjad, Sarfraz Aslam, Abdulnaser Fakhrou

Introduction: The current study explored the influence of Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) on the concepts, parameters, policies, and practices of creativity and plagiarism in academic and research writing.

Methods: Data were collected from 10 researchers from 10 different countries (Australia, China, the UK, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Nigeria, Trinidad and Tobago, and Turkiye) using semi-structured interviews. NVivo was employed for data analysis.

Results: Based on the responses, five themes about the influence of ChatGPT on academic and research writing were generated, i.e., opportunity, human assistance, thought-provoking, time-saving, and negative attitude. Although the researchers were mostly positive about it, some feared it would degrade their writing skills and lead to plagiarism. Many of them believed that ChatGPT would redefine the concepts, parameters, and practices of creativity and plagiarism.

Discussion: Creativity may no longer be restricted to the ability to write, but also to use ChatGPT or other large language models (LLMs) to write creatively. Some suggested that machine-generated text might be accepted as the new norm; however, using it without proper acknowledgment would be considered plagiarism. The researchers recommended allowing ChatGPT for academic and research writing; however, they strongly advised it to be regulated with limited use and proper acknowledgment.

URL : Global insights: ChatGPT’s influence on academic and research writing, creativity, and plagiarism policies

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2024.1486832

Peer Reviews of Peer Reviews: A Randomized Controlled Trial and Other Experiments

Posté le par

Authors : Alexander Goldberg, Ivan Stelmakh, Kyunghyun Cho, Alice Oh, Alekh Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, Nihar B. Shah

Is it possible to reliably evaluate the quality of peer reviews? We study this question driven by two primary motivations — incentivizing high-quality reviewing using assessed quality of reviews and measuring changes to review quality in experiments. We conduct a large scale study at the NeurIPS 2022 conference, a top-tier conference in machine learning, in which we invited (meta)-reviewers and authors to evaluate reviews given to submitted papers.

First, we conduct a RCT to examine bias due to the length of reviews. We generate elongated versions of reviews by adding substantial amounts of non-informative content. Participants in the control group evaluate the original reviews, whereas participants in the experimental group evaluate the artificially lengthened versions.

We find that lengthened reviews are scored (statistically significantly) higher quality than the original reviews. In analysis of observational data we find that authors are positively biased towards reviews recommending acceptance of their own papers, even after controlling for confounders of review length, quality, and different numbers of papers per author.

We also measure disagreement rates between multiple evaluations of the same review of 28%-32%, which is comparable to that of paper reviewers at NeurIPS. Further, we assess the amount of miscalibration of evaluators of reviews using a linear model of quality scores and find that it is similar to estimates of miscalibration of paper reviewers at NeurIPS.

Finally, we estimate the amount of variability in subjective opinions around how to map individual criteria to overall scores of review quality and find that it is roughly the same as that in the review of papers. Our results suggest that the various problems that exist in reviews of papers — inconsistency, bias towards irrelevant factors, miscalibration, subjectivity — also arise in reviewing of reviews.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09497