Étiquette : scientific communication

Catégories
Non classé

Evaluating big deal journal bundles

« Large commercial publishers sell bundled online subscriptions to their entire list of academic journals at prices significantly lower than the sum of their á la carte prices. Bundle prices differ drastically between institutions, but they are not publicly posted. The data that we have collected enable us to compare the bundle prices charged by commercial publishers with those of nonprofit societies and to examine the types of price discrimination practiced by commercial and nonprofit journal publishers. This information is of interest to economists who study monopolist pricing, librarians interested in making efficient use of library budgets, and scholars who are interested in the availability of the work that they publish. »

URL : http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Journals/PNAS-2014-Bergstrom-1403006111.pdf

Catégories
Non classé

EPISCIENCES – an overlay publication platform

This paper delineates the main characteristics of the Episciences platform, an environment for overlay peer-reviewing that complements existing publication repositories, designed by the Centre pour la Communication Scientifique directe (CCSD ) service unit. We describe the main characteristics of the platform and present the first experiment of launching two journals in the computer science domain onto it. Finally, we address a series of open questions related to the actual changes in editorial models (open submission, open peer- review, augmented publication) that such a platform is likely to raise, as well as some hints as to the underlying business model.

URL : http://hal.inria.fr/hal-01002815

Catégories
Non classé

Impact of assessment criteria on publication behaviour: the case of communication research in Spain

« Introduction: This paper outlines the evolution of Spanish production in the area of communication research over the last seventeen years. It analyses whether the consolidation of the existing systems of assessment of scientific activity have been mirrored by an increase in the output of Spanish authors in journals indexed by the Social Sciences Citation Index.

Method:  A bibliometric approach to the subject matter has been selected.  We have analysed indicators such as institutional and individual productivity, models of publishing and dynamics of co-operation (intra-and inter-institutional, national and international).

Analysis: This method has been applied to thirty-four journals included in the communication category of the Social Sciences Citation Index. To ensure consistency in the data collected, only journals that have remained in this database over the seventeen years covered by the research, from 1994 to 2010, have been selected.

Results: Results reveal that the output of Spanish researchers in communication has increased significantly over five years, from forty-eight papers in 1994-2005, to eighty-two for the period 2006-2010.

Conclusions: The increase coincides with the creation in 2002 of National Quality and Accreditation Evaluation Agency (ANECA) whose assessment criteria give priority to publication in journals indexed by the Social Sciences Citation Index. »

URL : http://www.informationr.net/ir/19-2/paper613.html

Catégories
Non classé

Qu’est-ce qu’une archive de chercheur ?

« Au cours de sa carrière, un chercheur est amené à produire, consulter et conserver différents types de documents. Carnets, agendas, brouillons de toutes formes, livres annotés forment bien souvent la grande partie des fonds d’archives disponibles. La prise en compte et l’étude de ces documents témoignent d’une activité prenante, mais permettent surtout de saisir les évolutions, les tâtonnements et les manières de faire propres à tel ou tel chercheur. En décidant d’explorer certaines pratiques concrètes qui se matérialisent dans les archives, Jean-François Bert met l’accent sur l’aspect ordinaire de l’activité savante afin de comprendre le processus de la recherche, dans sa singularité et souvent sa grande complexité. Cet ouvrage, synthétique et richement documenté, donne les outils essentiels à une meilleure compréhension et à un usage profondément renouvelé des archives de chercheur. »

URL : http://books.openedition.org/oep/438

Catégories
Non classé

The ethics of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations

« This study explored national differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication in retracted biomedical literature. The national affiliations of authors and reasons for retraction of papers accessible through PubMed that were published from 2008 to 2012 and subsequently retracted were determined in order to identify countries with the largest numbers and highest rates of retraction due to plagiarism and duplicate publication. Authors from more than fifty countries retracted papers. While the United States retracted the most papers, China retracted the most papers for plagiarism and duplicate publication. Rates of plagiarism and duplicate publication were highest in Italy and Finland, respectively. Unethical publishing practices cut across nations. »

URL : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988779/

Catégories
EN

The Number of Scholarly Documents on the Public Web

The number of scholarly documents available on the web is estimated using capture/recapture methods by studying the coverage of two major academic search engines: Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search. Our estimates show that at least 114 million English-language scholarly documents are accessible on the web, of which Google Scholar has nearly 100 million.

Of these, we estimate that at least 27 million (24%) are freely available since they do not require a subscription or payment of any kind. In addition, at a finer scale, we also estimate the number of scholarly documents on the web for fifteen fields: Agricultural Science, Arts and Humanities, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Economics and Business, Engineering, Environmental Sciences, Geosciences, Material Science, Mathematics, Medicine, Physics, Social Sciences, and Multidisciplinary, as defined by Microsoft Academic Search. In addition, we show that among these fields the percentage of documents defined as freely available varies significantly, i.e., from 12 to 50%.

URL : The Number of Scholarly Documents on the Public Web

Alternative URL : http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0093949

Catégories
Non classé

Reproducibility, Correctness, and Buildability: the Three Principles for Ethical Public Dissemination of Computer Science and Engineering Research

« We propose a system of three principles of public dissemination, which we call reproducibility, correctness, and buildability, and make the argument that consideration of these principles is a necessary step when publicly disseminating results in any evidence-based scientific or engineering endeavor. We examine how these principles apply to the release and disclosure of the four elements associated with computer science research: theory, algorithms, code, and data. Reproducibility refers to the capability to reproduce fundamental results from released details. Correctness refers to the ability of an independent reviewer to verify and validate the results of a paper. We introduce the new term buildability to indicate the ability of other researchers to use the published research as a foundation for their own new work. This is more broad than extensibility, as it requires that the published results have reached a level of completeness that the research can be used for its stated purpose, and has progressed beyond the level of a preliminary idea. We argue that these three principles are not being sufficiently met by current publications and proposals in computer science and engineering, and represent a goal for which publishing should continue to aim. We introduce standards for the evaluation of reproducibility, correctness, and buildability in relation to the varied elements of computer science research and discuss how they apply to proposals, workshops, conferences, and journal publications, making arguments for appropriate standards of each principle in these settings. We address modern issues including big data, data confidentiality, privacy, security, and privilege. Our examination raises questions for discussion in the community on the appropriateness of publishing works that fail to meet one, some, or all of the stated principles. »

URL : http://research.kristinrozier.com/papers/RozierRozierEthics2014.pdf