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’, comprising subscription costs plus APCs and additional administration costs. This study analyses data from 23 UK institutions covering the period 2007 to 2014 modelling the total cost of publication (TCP). It shows a clear rise in centrally-managed APC payments from 2012 onwards, 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 towards OA publishing (‘Gold’ OA). Whilst 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 modelling 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 : http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/81227/

Exposing the predators. Methods to stop predatory journals

Statut

“The internet is greatly improving the impact of scholarly journals, but also poses new threats to their quality. Publishers have arisen that abuse the Gold Open Access model, in which the author pays a fee to get his article published, to make money with so-called predatory journals. These publishers falsely claim to conduct peer review, which makes them more prone to publish fraudulent and plagiarised research. This thesis looks at three possible methods to stop predatory journals: black- and white-lists, open peer review systems and new metrics. Black- and whitelists have set up rules and regulations that credible publishers and journals should follow. Open peer review systems should make it harder for predatory publishers to make false claims about their peer review process. Metrics should measure more aspects of research impact and become less liable to gaming. The question is, which of these three methods is the best candidate to stop predatory journals. As all three methods have their drawbacks, especially for new but high quality journals, none of them stop predatory journals on its own can. Rather, we need a system in which researchers, publishers and reviewers communicate more openly about the research they create, disseminate and read. But above all, we need to find a way to take away incentives for researchers and publishers to engage in fraudulent practices.”

URL : http://hdl.handle.net/1887/28943

Using Crowdsourcing to Evaluate Published Scientific Literature: Methods and Example

Statut

“Systematically evaluating scientific literature is a time consuming endeavor that requires hours of coding and rating. Here, we describe a method to distribute these tasks across a large group through online crowdsourcing. Using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, crowdsourced workers (microworkers) completed four groups of tasks to evaluate the question, “Do nutrition-obesity studies with conclusions concordant with popular opinion receive more attention in the scientific community than do those that are discordant?” 1) Microworkers who passed a qualification test (19% passed) evaluated abstracts to determine if they were about human studies investigating nutrition and obesity. Agreement between the first two raters’ conclusions was moderate (κ = 0.586), with consensus being reached in 96% of abstracts. 2) Microworkers iteratively synthesized free-text answers describing the studied foods into one coherent term. Approximately 84% of foods were agreed upon, with only 4 and 8% of ratings failing manual review in different steps. 3) Microworkers were asked to rate the perceived obesogenicity of the synthesized food terms. Over 99% of responses were complete and usable, and opinions of the microworkers qualitatively matched the authors’ expert expectations (e.g., sugar-sweetened beverages were thought to cause obesity and fruits and vegetables were thought to prevent obesity). 4) Microworkers extracted citation counts for each paper through Google Scholar. Microworkers reached consensus or unanimous agreement for all successful searches. To answer the example question, data were aggregated and analyzed, and showed no significant association between popular opinion and attention the paper received as measured by Scimago Journal Rank and citation counts. Direct microworker costs totaled $221.75, (estimated cost at minimum wage: $312.61). We discuss important points to consider to ensure good quality control and appropriate pay for microworkers. With good reliability and low cost, crowdsourcing has potential to evaluate published literature in a cost-effective, quick, and reliable manner using existing, easily accessible resources.”

URL : Using Crowdsourcing to Evaluate Published Scientific Literature: Methods and Example

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100647

Where to publish? Development of a recommender system for academic publishing

Statut

“This thesis using the method of research design is about creating a journal recommendation system for authors. Existing systems like JANE or whichjournal.com offer recommendations based on similarities of the content. This study invests how more sophisticated factors like openness, price (subscription or article processing charge), speed of publication can be included in the ranking of a recommendation system. The recommendation should also consider the expectations from other stakeholders like libraries or funders.”

URL : Where to publish? Development of a recommender system for academic publishing 

Alternative URL : http://eprints.rclis.org/23523/

 

Rise of the Rest: The Growing Impact of Non-Elite Journals

Statut

“In this paper, we examine the evolution of the impact of non-elite journals. We attempt to answer two questions. First, what fraction of the top-cited articles are published in non-elite journals and how has this changed over time. Second, what fraction of the total citations are to non-elite journals and how has this changed over time.
We studied citations to articles published in 1995-2013. We computed the 10 most-cited journals and the 1000 most-cited articles each year for all 261 subject categories in Scholar Metrics. We marked the 10 most-cited journals in a category as the elite journals for the category and the rest as non-elite.
There are two conclusions from our study. First, the fraction of top-cited articles published in non-elite journals increased steadily over 1995-2013. While the elite journals still publish a substantial fraction of high-impact articles, many more authors of well-regarded papers in diverse research fields are choosing other venues.
The number of top-1000 papers published in non-elite journals for the representative subject category went from 149 in 1995 to 245 in 2013, a growth of 64%. Looking at broad research areas, 4 out of 9 areas saw at least one-third of the top-cited articles published in non-elite journals in 2013. For 6 out of 9 areas, the fraction of top-cited papers published in non-elite journals for the representative subject category grew by 45% or more.
Second, now that finding and reading relevant articles in non-elite journals is about as easy as finding and reading articles in elite journals, researchers are increasingly building on and citing work published everywhere. Considering citations to all articles, the percentage of citations to articles in non-elite journals went from 27% in 1995 to 47% in 2013. Six out of nine broad areas had at least 50% of citations going to articles published in non-elite journals in 2013.”

URL : http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1410.2217

Research governance and scientific knowledge production in The Gambia

Statut

“Public research institutions and scientists are principal actors in the production and transfer of scientific knowledge, technologies and innovations for application in industry as well for social and economic development. Based on the relevance of science and technology actors, the aim of this study was to identify and explain factors in research governance that influence scientific knowledge production and to contribute to empirical discussions on the impact levels of different governance models and structures. These discussions appear limited and mixed in the literature, although still are ongoing. No previous study has examined the possible contribution of the scientific committee model of research governance to scientific performance at the individual level of the scientist. In this context, this study contributes to these discussions, firstly, by suggesting that scientific committee structures with significant research steering autonomy could contribute not only directly to scientific output but also indirectly through moderating effects on research practices. Secondly, it is argued that autonomous scientific committee structures tend to play a better steering role than do management-centric models and structures of research governance.”

URL : Research governance and scientific knowledge production in The Gambia

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/sajs.2014/20130185

Data and scholarly publishing: the transforming landscape

Statut

“This article sets the scene for the special issue on research data and publishing. Research data – that material commonly accepted by the scholarly community as required evidence for hypotheses and insights, for verification and/or reproducibility of experiments – has become an increasingly critical issue for publishers given recent developments in funders’ mandates, technological advances, policymakers’ interests, and so forth. I outline some of the recent initiatives that are responding to policy directives, particularly Project ODE, and consider how publishers are working with data and integrating their practices with other collaborative efforts. A summary of the new policies, products, and partnerships demonstrates that the onus is now with scholarly publishers to gain an understanding of these developments and how they are affecting fellow key stakeholders within the research communications ecosystem.”

URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20140502