Archives des mots-clés : scientific communication

The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open-access environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions

Statut

“As open-access (OA) publishing funded by article-processing charges (APCs) becomes more widely accepted, academic institutions need to be aware of the “total cost of publication” (TCP), comprising subscription costs plus APCs and additional administration costs. This study analyzes data from 23 UK institutions covering the period 2007–2014 modeling the TCP. It shows a clear rise in centrally managed APC payments from 2012 onward, with payments projected to increase further. As well as evidencing the growing availability and acceptance of OA publishing, these trends reflect particular UK policy developments and funding arrangements intended to accelerate the move toward OA publishing (“Gold” OA). Although the mean value of APCs has been relatively stable, there was considerable variation in APC prices paid by institutions since 2007. In particular, “hybrid” subscription/OA journals were consistently more expensive than fully OA journals. Most APCs were paid to large “traditional” commercial publishers who also received considerable subscription income. New administrative costs reported by institutions varied considerably. The total cost of publication modeling shows that APCs are now a significant part of the TCP for academic institutions, in 2013 already constituting an average of 10% of the TCP (excluding administrative costs).”

URL : The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open-access environment

DOI: 10.1002/asi.23446

How Digital Are the Digital Humanities? An Analysis of Two Scholarly Blogging Platforms

Statut

“In this paper we compare two academic networking platforms, HASTAC and Hypotheses, to show the distinct ways in which they serve specific communities in the Digital Humanities (DH) in different national and disciplinary contexts. After providing background information on both platforms, we apply co-word analysis and topic modeling to show thematic similarities and differences between the two sites, focusing particularly on how they frame DH as a new paradigm in humanities research. We encounter a much higher ratio of posts using humanities-related terms compared to their digital counterparts, suggesting a one-way dependency of digital humanities-related terms on the corresponding unprefixed labels. The results also show that the terms digital archive, digital literacy, and digital pedagogy are relatively independent from the respective unprefixed terms, and that digital publishing, digital libraries, and digital media show considerable cross-pollination between the specialization and the general noun. The topic modeling reproduces these findings and reveals further differences between the two platforms. Our findings also indicate local differences in how the emerging field of DH is conceptualized and show dynamic topical shifts inside these respective contexts.”

URL : https://microblogging.infodocs.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/journal.pone.0115035.pdf

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115035

Les modes de communication de la recherche aujourd’hui : quel rôle pour les bibliothécaires ?

Statut

“Le modèle des publications scientifiques, historiquement fondé sur l’article, semble être battu en brèche ces dernières années. Les échanges entre les chercheurs passent aujourd’hui par de multiples canaux, carnets de recherche, listes de diffusion, réseaux sociaux dédiés et grand public. L’identité numérique des chercheurs s’affirme d’année en année sur la Toile, générant de nouvelles visibilités hors des circuits de diffusion
traditionnels. Dans ce nouvel environnement réticulaire, tout à la fois laboratoire 2.0 et espace d’actualités et de débats, les bibliothèques pourraient jouer un rôle de premier plan. Sans se défaire de ses missions traditionnelles – archiver, signaler, collecter, elles peuvent les renouveler. Archiver ces nouvelles productions, travailler à leur identification pérenne ainsi qu’à celle de leurs auteurs, former à l’utilisation de ces outils sont autant de tâches pour les bibliothécaires.”

URL : https://microblogging.infodocs.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/arenes2015.pdf

URL alternative : http://www.enssib.fr/bibliotheque-numerique/documents/65046-les-modes-de-communication-de-la-recherche-aujourd-hui-quel-role-pour-les-bibliothecaires.pdf

COAR Roadmap Future Directions for Repository Interoperability

Statut

“In the past few years, Open Access repositories and their associated services have become an important component of the global e-research infrastructure. Increasingly, repositories are also being integrated with other systems, such as research administrative systems and with research data repositories, with the aim of providing a more integrated and seamless suite of services to various communities. Repositories can also be connected into networks (e.g. at the national or regional level) to support unified access to an open, aggregated collection of scholarship and related materials that machines can mine enabling researchers to work with content in new ways and allowing funders and institutions to track research outputs.
Scholarly communication is undergoing fundamental changes, in particular with new requirements for open access to research outputs, new forms of peer-review, and alternative methods for measuring impact. In parallel, technical developments, especially in communication and interface technologies facilitate bi-directional data exchange across related applications and systems. The aim of this roadmap is to identify important trends and their associated action points in order for the repository community to determine priorities for further investments in interoperability.”

URL : COAR Roadmap Future Directions for Repository Interoperability

Alternative URL : https://www.coar-repositories.org/files/Roadmap_final_formatted_20150203.pdf

Monographs and Open Access : A report to HEFCE

Statut

“This report examines, and seeks to clarify, the range of issues that emerge when we think about the relationship between open access and monographs (including under this latter term other long scholarly publications). It arises from the immediate need of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), and its sister funding councils in the UK, to examine the issues for open access in relation to books in a context where both funding and research councils in the UK have already established open-access requirements for publications in journals and conference proceedings, but the issues are much greater than those of defining the practicalities of mandates and the sustainability of open-access models. Furthermore, although the principal focus of the report is defined by the culture and policy preoccupations of higher education in this country, the international character of research, publishing, and academic careers has to be acknowledged.”

URL : http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/indirreports/2015/monographsandopenaccess/2014_monographs.pdf

Science 2.0 Repositories: Time for a Change in Scholarly Communication

Statut

“Information and communication technology (ICT) advances in research infrastructures are continuously changing the way research and scientific communication are performed. Scientists, funders, and organizations are moving the paradigm of “research publishing” well beyond traditional articles. The aim is to pursue an holistic approach where publishing includes any product (e.g. publications, datasets, experiments, software, web sites, blogs) resulting from a research activity and relevant to the interpretation, evaluation, and reuse of the activity or part of it. The implementation of this vision is today mainly inspired by literature scientific communication workflows, which separate the “where” research is conducted from the “where” research is published and shared. In this paper we claim that this model cannot fit well with scientific communication practice envisaged in Science 2.0 settings. We present the idea of Science 2.0 Repositories (SciRepos), which meet publishing requirements arising in Science 2.0 by blurring the distinction between research life-cycle and research publishing. SciRepos interface with the ICT services of research infrastructures to intercept and publish research products while providing researchers with social networking tools for discovery, notification, sharing, discussion, and assessment of research products.”

URL : http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january15/assante/01assante.html

Indian research going global: A study on the status of open access publishing

Posté le par

Aims to measure quantitatively the scholarly journals which were produced with full immediate open access (OA) from 2003 to 2013. Focuses on the amount of India’s contribution to scholarly literature through the repositories of their institutions, amount of literature produced in various disciplines and the open source software’s (OSS) used for it.

Aims to know the current status of open access publishing in India. A survey of the open access journals indexed in the Directory of Open access Journals (DOAJ) and the repositories indexed in the Open DOAR is followed for this study. India started making its journals open access in 2003 with about 13 journals in a year and has reached about 197 journals till September 2013, which shows a growth of 15 fold of the open access journal output within a year.

The percentage of the multidisciplinary repositories is highest with 43% and the repositories of the disciplines such as Technology, Chemistry and Chemical Technology and Physics and Astronomy are 18%, 15% and 14% respectively among the 64 repositories listed in OpenDOAR.

With about 650 open access journals and about 64 open access directories, India has made important contributions towards the growth of Open access publishing.

URL : http://www.spoars.org/journal/v3n4p4