scientific communication – Page 164

Donations as a Source of Income for Open Access Journals: An Option To Consider?

Statut

“Online open access journals allow readers to view scholarly articles without a subscription or other payment barrier. However, publishing costs must still be covered. Therefore, many of these publications rely on support from a variety of sources. One source of funds not commonly discussed is donations from readers.

This study investigated the prevalence of this practice and sought to learn about the motivation of journal editors to solicit donations, and also to gather input on the effectiveness of this strategy. Results show that very few open access journals solicit donations from readers, and for those that do, donations represent only a very small portion of all support received.”

URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0018.307

Data journals: A survey

Posté le 15 juin 2015 par Hans Dillaerts

Data occupy a key role in our information society. However, although the amount of published data continues to grow and terms such as data deluge and big data today characterize numerous (research) initiatives, much work is still needed in the direction of publishing data in order to make them effectively discoverable, available, and reusable by others.

Several barriers hinder data publishing, from lack of attribution and rewards, vague citation practices, and quality issues to a rather general lack of a data-sharing culture.

Lately, data journals have overcome some of these barriers. In this study of more than 100 currently existing data journals, we describe the approaches they promote for data set description, availability, citation, quality, and open access. We close by identifying ways to expand and strengthen the data journals approach as a means to promote data set access and exploitation.”

URL : http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/14938/DataJournalsSurvey%20%281%29.pdf

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

Characterizing Social Media Metrics of Scholarly Papers: The Effect of Document Properties and Collaboration Patterns

Statut

“A number of new metrics based on social media platforms—grouped under the term “altmetrics”—have recently been introduced as potential indicators of research impact. Despite their current popularity, there is a lack of information regarding the determinants of these metrics. Using publication and citation data from 1.3 million papers published in 2012 and covered in Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science as well as social media counts from Altmetric.com, this paper analyses the main patterns of five social media metrics as a function of document characteristics (i.e., discipline, document type, title length, number of pages and references) and collaborative practices and compares them to patterns known for citations. Results show that the presence of papers on social media is low, with 21.5% of papers receiving at least one tweet, 4.7% being shared on Facebook, 1.9% mentioned on blogs, 0.8% found on Google+ and 0.7% discussed in mainstream media. By contrast, 66.8% of papers have received at least one citation. Our findings show that both citations and social media metrics increase with the extent of collaboration and the length of the references list. On the other hand, while editorials and news items are seldom cited, it is these types of document that are the most popular on Twitter. Similarly, while longer papers typically attract more citations, an opposite trend is seen on social media platforms. Finally, contrary to what is observed for citations, it is papers in the Social Sciences and humanities that are the most often found on social media platforms. On the whole, these findings suggest that factors driving social media and citations are different. Therefore, social media metrics cannot actually be seen as alternatives to citations; at most, they may function as complements to other type of indicators.”

URL : Characterizing Social Media Metrics of Scholarly Papers

DOI : 10.1371/journal.pone.0120495

The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era

Statut

“The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers’ high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as well as its evolution over time and across various disciplines, has not yet been analyzed. This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers). NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics. The paper also examines the migration of journals between small and big publishing houses and explores the effect of publisher change on citation impact. It concludes with a discussion on the economics of scholarly publishing.”

URL : The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era

DOI :10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

Evolution or revolution? Publishers’ perceptions of future directions in research communications and the publisher role

Statut

“This report presents a snapshot of the views of a wide range of publishers, covering their perceptions of future directions in research communications, scholarly publishing and the role of publishers. It is important to emphasise that there is not a single “publishers’ view” on these matters: the publishers represented here are of differing scale, ownership, (dominant) business model, discipline, and tradition, and their views reflect that diversity of experience.

Nearly 20 publishers of different types and scale were interviewed: for-profit and not-for-profit; open access and subscription-based; commercial, society, university presses; and with representation from all scholarly fields. We aimed to synthesise the views thus gathered, while reflecting the diversity of opinion where salient.”

URL : Evolution or revolution? Publishers’ perceptions of future directions in research communications and the publisher role

Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth?

Statut

“A “mega-journal” is a new type of scientific journal that publishes freely accessible articles, which have been peer reviewed for scientific trustworthiness, but leaves it to the readers to decide which articles are of interest and importance to them. In the wake of the phenomenal success of PLOS ONE, several other publishers have recently started mega-journals. This article presents the evolution of mega-journals since 2010 in terms of article publication rates. The fastest growth seems to have ebbed out at around 35,000 annual articles for the 14 journals combined. Acceptance rates are in the range of 50–70%, and speed of publication is around 3–5 months. Common features in mega-journals are alternative impact metrics, easy reusability of figures and data, post-publication discussions and portable reviews from other journals.”

URL : Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth?

DOI : https://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.981