Archives des mots-clés : scientific communication

Patent research in academic literature. Landscape and trends with a focus on patent analytics

Posté le par

Authors : Cristian Mejia, Yuya Kajikawa

Patent analytics is crucial for understanding innovation dynamics and technological trends. However, a comprehensive overview of this rapidly evolving field is lacking. This study presents a data-driven analysis of patent research, employing citation network analysis to categorize and examine research clusters. Here, we show that patent research is characterized by interconnected themes spanning fundamental patent systems, indicator development, methodological advancements, intellectual property management practices, and diverse applications.

We reveal central research areas in patent strategies, technological impact, and patent citation research while identifying emerging focuses on environmental sustainability and corporate innovation. The integration of advanced analytical techniques, including AI and machine learning, is observed across various domains. This study provides insights for researchers and practitioners, highlighting opportunities for cross-disciplinary collaboration and future research directions.

URL : Patent research in academic literature. Landscape and trends with a focus on patent analytics

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2024.1484685

Comparison of Feature Learning Methods for Metadata Extraction from PDF Scholarly Documents

Posté le par

Authors : Zeyd Boukhers, Cong Yang

The availability of metadata for scientific documents is pivotal in propelling scientific knowledge forward and for adhering to the FAIR principles (i.e. Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) of research findings. However, the lack of sufficient metadata in published documents, particularly those from smaller and mid-sized publishers, hinders their accessibility. This issue is widespread in some disciplines, such as the German Social Sciences, where publications often employ diverse templates. To address this challenge, our study evaluates various feature learning and prediction methods, including natural language processing (NLP), computer vision (CV), and multimodal approaches, for extracting metadata from documents with high template variance.

We aim to improve the accessibility of scientific documents and facilitate their wider use. To support our comparison of these methods, we provide comprehensive experimental results, analyzing their accuracy and efficiency in extracting metadata. Additionally, we provide valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of various feature learning and prediction methods, which can guide future research in this field.

URL : Comparison of Feature Learning Methods for Metadata Extraction from PDF Scholarly Documents

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.05082

How to build an Open Science Monitor based on publications? A French perspective

Posté le par

Authors : Laetitia Bracco, Eric Jeangirard, Anne L’Hôte, Laurent Romary

Many countries and institutions are striving to develop tools to monitor their open science policies. Since 2018, with the launch of its National Plan for Open Science, France has been progressively implementing a monitoring framework for its public policy, relying exclusively on reliable, open, and controlled data. Currently, this monitoring focuses on research outputs, particularly publications, as well as theses and clinical trials.

Publications serve as a basis for analyzing other dimensions, including research data, code, and software. The metadata associated with publications is therefore particularly valuable, but the methodology for leveraging it raises several challenges. Here, we briefly outline how we have used this metadata to construct the French Open Science Monitor.

URL : How to build an Open Science Monitor based on publications? A French perspective

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.02856

Rejected papers in academic publishing: Turning negatives into positives to maximize paper acceptance

Posté le par

Authors : Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Maryna Nazarovets

There are ample reasons why papers might get rejected by peer-reviewed journals, and the experience can be, especially for those who have had little experience, sobering. When papers get rejected a number of times, that may signal that there are problems with the paper (e.g., weak methodology or lack of robust analyses), that it is insufficiently developed, is poorly written, or that it is too topic-specific and needs to find an appropriate niche journal.

In the case of a single or multiple rejections, whenever there is feedback from a journal, as well as reasons for rejection, this provides a useful signal for improving the paper before it is resubmitted to another journal. This article examines literature related to the rejection of papers in academic journals, encompassing the opinions and experiences offered by authors, as well as advice suggested by editors, allowing readers and authors who experience rejections to reflect on the possible reasons that may have led to that outcome.

Many papers related to this topic were published as editorials or opinions, offering advice on how to improve aspects of a submitted paper in order to increase its chances of acceptance.

URL : Rejected papers in academic publishing: Turning negatives into positives to maximize paper acceptance

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1649

 

Recycling Research Without (Self-)Plagiarism: The Importance of Context and the Case of Conference Contributions

Posté le par

Authors : Gert Helgesson, Jonas Åkerman, Sara Belfrage

In this paper, we clarify the notions of plagiarism and self-plagiarism and show that a rather straightforward observation about these notions has important implications for the admissibility of recycling research outputs. The key point is that contextual variation must be taken into account in normative assessments of recycling research outputs, and we illustrate this with some examples.

In particular, we apply the analysis in order to dissolve a disagreement about the proper handling of submissions to conferences. Some researchers are comfortable with sending the same contribution to several conferences, while others find that unacceptable and a clear deviation from good research practise. We take a closer look at the arguments regarding whether it is acceptable or not to make the same conference contribution more than once, including the argument that submitting the same contribution more than once would amount to self-plagiarism.

We argue that contextual variation must be taken into account, in accordance with our previous analysis, and conclude that whether or not a duplication of a conference contribution deviates from good research practise depends on what significance is ascribed to it in the specific case. We conclude with some practical recommendations, emphasising for example, the importance of being explicit and clear on this point, and encourage conference organisers to provide opportunities to specify relevant facts in the submission.

URL : Recycling Research Without (Self-)Plagiarism: The Importance of Context and the Case of Conference Contributions

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1653

La communication scientifique au XXIe siècle : enjeux et représentations des chercheurs

Posté le par

Auteurs/Authors : Cheikh Ndiaye, Aminata Cissé, Félicité Métonou

Différentes politiques publiques mises en place au cours des dernières décennies, notamment depuis le début du siècle, contribuent à la réalisation d’un projet de croissance économique tant au niveau européen que mondial. Leurs répercussions sur l’organisation du paysage scientifique, les missions des enseignants-chercheurs ou leurs activités sont visibles.

S’interrogeant sur les finalités de la communication scientifique, les auteurs – à partir d’une revue de littérature, d’observations et expériences personnelles, d’une analyse de données issues d’une enquête qualitative – replacent la publication dans son contexte aux valeurs atypiques avant de la réenvisager comme un mécanisme de promotion individuelle.

En valorisant le chercheur, elle l’inscrit cependant dans le consensus pour le bien collectif, devenant un moyen privilégié de son intégration sociale.

URL : http://www.refsicom.org/1501