Archives des mots-clés : scientific communication

Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement

Statut

The reliability of experimental findings depends on the rigour of experimental design. Here we show limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in a random sample of life sciences publications, significantly lower reporting of randomisation in work published in journals of high impact, and very limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in publications from leading United Kingdom institutions. Ascertainment of differences between institutions might serve both as a measure of research quality and as a tool for institutional efforts to improve research quality.

URL : Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273

The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication

Statut

Purposes 

The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, this article reports an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000 to 2013.

Design/methodology/approach

Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations.

Findings

Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline.

Research limitations/implications

Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version.

Practical implications

SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by Institutional Repositories (IRs) and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines.

Originality/value

This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.

URL : http://www.yorku.ca/lixuemei/The_role_of_subject_repositories_AslibPreprint.docx

Regional and Global Science: Latin American and Caribbean publications in the SciELO Citation Index and the Web of Science

Statut

We compare the visibility and performance of Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) publications in the Core collection indexes included in the Web of Science (WoS) — Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index — and the Scielo Citation Index (SciELO CI) which was integrated into the larger WoS platform in 2014.

The purpose of this comparison is to contribute to our understanding of the communication of scientific knowledge produced in Latin America and the Caribbean, and to provide some reflections on the potential benefits of the articulation of regional indexing exercises into WoS for a better understanding of geographic and disciplinary contributions.

How is the regional level of ScieLO CI related to the global one of WoS? In WoS, LAC authors are integrated at the global level in international networks; for example, as postdocs. In SciELO CI, south-south collaboration is more central, and the focus is shifted towards social problems. The articulation of SciELO into WoS may improve the international standardization (for example, of referencing) in the regional journals, but comes at the price of losing independence of the journal inclusion criteria.

URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02453

Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models

Statut

Objectives

To assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with regard to report quality and reviewer recommendations.

Design

Retrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports using an established Review Quality Instrument, and analysis of reviewer recommendations and author satisfaction surveys.

Setting

BioMed Central biology and medical journals. BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology are similar in size, rejection rates, impact factors and editorial processes, but the former uses open peer review while the latter uses single-blind peer review. The Journal of Inflammation has operated under both peer review models.

Sample

Two hundred reviewer reports submitted to BMC Infectious Diseases, 200 reviewer reports submitted to BMC Microbiology and 400 reviewer reports submitted to the Journal of Inflammation.

Results

For each journal, author-suggested reviewers provided reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance, irrespective of the peer review model (p<0.0001 for BMC Infectious Diseases, BMC Microbiology and the Journal of Inflammation). For BMC Infectious Diseases, the overall quality of reviewer reports measured by the Review Quality Instrument was 5% higher than for BMC Microbiology (p=0.042). For the Journal of Inflammation, the quality of reports was the same irrespective of the peer review model used.

Conclusions

Reviewers suggested by authors provide reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but are significantly more likely to recommend acceptance. Open peer review reports for BMC Infectious Diseases were of higher quality than single-blind reports for BMC Microbiology. There was no difference in quality of peer review in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind.

URL : Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models

DOI : 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707

Publier : à quel prix ? Étude sur la structuration des coûts de publication pour les revues françaises en SHS

Statut

La publication d’articles dans des revues scientifiques est un enjeu fort pour les institutions de recherche françaises car il s’agit bien d’un vecteur essentiel de la visibilité des travaux des chercheurs et qu’il est fondamental de maximiser l’impact de ces travaux. Cette publication a un coût pour les institutions publiques, que ce soit pour le financement du processus éditorial et de production, ou pour l’achat en bibliothèques et la mise à disposition auprès des chercheurs.

Cet article présente les résultats de l’enquête sur les coûts éditoriaux des revues scientifiques menée par le groupe édition de BSN de mars 2014 à janvier 2015 avec pour objectif de collecter une information récente et représentative de la diversité des situations, au sujet des coûts éditoriaux des revues de recherche, afin de faire un état des lieux complet et à jour.

URL : http://rfsic.revues.org/1716

‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics

Posté le par

Background

A negative consequence of the rapid growth of scholarly open access publishing funded by article processing charges is the emergence of publishers and journals with highly questionable marketing and peer review practices. These so-called predatory publishers are causing unfounded negative publicity for open access publishing in general. Reports about this branch of e-business have so far mainly concentrated on exposing lacking peer review and scandals involving publishers and journals. There is a lack of comprehensive studies about several aspects of this phenomenon, including extent and regional distribution.

Methods

After an initial scan of all predatory publishers and journals included in the so-called Beall’s list, a sample of 613 journals was constructed using a stratified sampling method from the total of over 11,000 journals identified. Information about the subject field, country of publisher, article processing charge and article volumes published between 2010 and 2014 were manually collected from the journal websites. For a subset of journals, individual articles were sampled in order to study the country affiliation of authors and the publication delays.

Results

Over the studied period, predatory journals have rapidly increased their publication volumes from 53,000 in 2010 to an estimated 420,000 articles in 2014, published by around 8,000 active journals. Early on, publishers with more than 100 journals dominated the market, but since 2012 publishers in the 10–99 journal size category have captured the largest market share. The regional distribution of both the publisher’s country and authorship is highly skewed, in particular Asia and Africa contributed three quarters of authors. Authors paid an average article processing charge of 178 USD per article for articles typically published within 2 to 3 months of submission.

Conclusions

Despite a total number of journals and publishing volumes comparable to respectable (indexed by the Directory of Open Access Journals) open access journals, the problem of predatory open access seems highly contained to just a few countries, where the academic evaluation practices strongly favor international publication, but without further quality checks.

URL : ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics

Alternative location : http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/13/230

Estimation des dépenses de publication de l’Inra dans un modèle théorique “Gold Open Access”

Statut

L’étude publiée ici est le résultat d’une simulation menée à l’Institut national de la recherche agronomique (Inra) et dont l’objectif principal était de déterminer quels auraient été les coûts de diffusion en libre accès des articles publiés par ses équipes de recherche sur l’année 2011 selon un modèle Gold Open Access (ou “voie dorée”) dans lequel le financement est assuré par les auteurs et leurs établissements.

Les auteurs de l’étude comparent ensuite ces résultats avec les coûts en abonnements supportés par l’Inra. À l’instar des estimations récentes de Wouter Gerritsma (Wageningen UR Library) au sujet de ce que coûterait le passage intégral au Gold Open Access aux Pays-Bas (wowter.net/2014/03/05/costsgoing-gold-netherlands), la publication de ces résultats a pour objectif d’alimenter la réflexion collective sur l’opportunité de s’orienter vers ce nouveau modèle de diffusion.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01097171/