Archives des mots-clés : scientific communication

The Twitter accounts of scientific journals: a dataset

Posté le par

Author : Andreas Nishikawa-Pacher

Twitter harbours dense networks of academics, but to what extent do scientific journals use that platform? This article introduces a dataset of 3,485 Twitter accounts pertaining to a sample of 13,821 journals listed in Web of Science’s three major indices (SCIE, SSCI and AHCI).

The summary statistics indicate that 25.2% of the journals have a dedicated Twitter presence. This number is likely to grow, as, on average, every one and a half days sees yet another journal setting up a new profile. The share of Twitter presence, however, varies strongly by publisher and discipline.

The most active discipline is political science, which has almost 75% of its journals on Twitter, while other research categories have zero. The median account issues 116 messages a year and it interacts with distinct other users once in two to three Tweets. Approximately 600 journals refer to themselves as ‘peer-reviewed’, while 263 journals refer to their citation-based impact (like the impact factor) in their profile description.

All in all, the data convey immense heterogeneity with respect to the Twitter behaviour of scientific journals. As there are numerous deceptive Twitter profile names established by predatory publishers, it is recommended that journals establish their official accounts lest bogus journals mislead the public about scientific findings. The dataset is available for use for further scientometric analyses.

URL : The Twitter accounts of scientific journals: a dataset

DOI : http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.593

Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain

Posté le par

Authors : Remedios Melero, Juan-José Boté-Vericad, Alexandre López-Borrull

Pillars of open science are often included within the editorial policies of scholarly journals, including policies on open access publication, availability of underlying research data, preprints and open peer review.

The aim of this paper is to examine and analyse perceptions and editorial practices related to open access, preprints, open research data and open peer review, from the perspective of editors of scientific journals published in Spain, to gain an insight into editorial policies related to open science.

Results and data were obtained by a combined method of online interviews and an online questionnaire. The online survey was sent to editors from journals indexed in the Dulcinea directory, which at the time of the study included 1875 academic journals. A total of 420 responses (22.4%) were obtained.

The results indicated that 92% of the journals were open access journals, 2% of the journals conducted open peer review, 15% of the journals had instructions to allow archiving preprints, and out of 375 responses, only 59 journals (16%) reported having a policy on underlying research data.

Based on these results, there is a trend in favour of open access, but the perceived barriers to open peer review outweighed the advantages. There is also some reluctance to allow preprints to be made available.

This concern might be because editors want authors and readers to read and cite the contents published in their journals, rather than their preprint versions.

URL : Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1511

The Science of Literature Reviews: Searching, Identifying, Selecting, and Synthesising

Posté le par

Authors : Uchendu Eugene Chigbu, Sulaiman Olusegun Atiku, Cherley C. Du Plessis

The ability to conduct an explicit and robust literature review by students, scholars or scientists is critical in producing excellent journal articles, academic theses, academic dissertations or working papers.

A literature review is an evaluation of existing research works on a specific academic topic, theme or subject to identify gaps and propose future research agenda. Many postgraduate students in higher education institutions lack the necessary skills and understanding to conduct in-depth literature reviews.

This may lead to the presentation of incorrect, false or biased inferences in their theses or dissertations. This study offers scientific knowledge on how literature reviews in different fields of study could be conducted to mitigate against biased inferences such as unscientific analogies and baseless recommendations.

The literature review is presented as a process that involves several activities including searching, identifying, reading, summarising, compiling, analysing, interpreting and referencing.

We hope this article serves as reference material to improve the academic rigour in the literature review chapters of postgraduate students’ theses or dissertations. This article prompts established scholars to explore more innovative ways through which scientific literature reviews can be conducted to identify gaps (empirical, knowledge, theoretical, methodological, application and population gap) and propose a future research agenda.

URL : The Science of Literature Reviews: Searching, Identifying, Selecting, and Synthesising

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11010002

Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies

Posté le par

Authors : Béatrice Milard, Yoann Pitarch

To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition.

It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned.

The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.

URL : Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24732

Objectifs et stratégies de publication d’un bulletin de liaison : Le Médiéviste et l’Ordinateur (1979-1989)

Posté le par

Auteur/Author : Edgar Lejeune

En 1979, un petit groupe de spécialistes d’histoire médiévale utilisateurs des ordinateurs lance une publication d’un genre nouveau : le bulletin de liaison Le Médiéviste et l’Ordinateur.

Leur objectif est alors de « créer un réseau » permettant d’échanger des informations sur les nouvelles pratiques de recherche assistée par ordinateur qui se développent dans leur discipline depuis la fin des années 1960.

Cet article propose une analyse des stratégies de publication mises en place par les membres du comité de rédaction du Médiéviste et l’Ordinateur, dans le but d’observer comment une « culture commune » peut se construire en humanités numériques sur la base d’un périodique.

Pour ce faire, nous regarderons dans un premier temps, à partir des archives du comité de rédaction du bulletin conservées à l’Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes (IRHT), comment cette publication est organisée, depuis le choix des auteurs jusqu’à la distribution des exemplaires.

Nous analyserons ensuite comment, dans les pages du bulletin, les éditeurs mettent en place des stratégies de communication permettant de rendre accessibles des contenus « techniques » à l’ensemble du lectorat visé.

URL : Objectifs et stratégies de publication d’un bulletin de liaison : Le Médiéviste et l’Ordinateur (1979-1989)

DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/revuehn.3087

La fonction de l’éditeur-auteur dans les éditions critiques numériques

Posté le par

Autrice/Author : Joana Casenave

Cet article propose une étude des caractères d’auctorialité propres à l’édition critique et de l’évolution que cette auctorialité connaît dans l’édition critique numérique. Le développement des éditions numériques induit en effet la mise en place d’un corps auctorial collectif, dont nous analysons ici les modes de fonctionnement.

L’évolution de la fonction auctoriale amène également un profond renouvellement de la mise en discours de l’information, dans sa forme comme dans le choix et la hiérarchisation des contenus proposés.

Dans le même temps, cela modifie le processus de reconnaissance de l’autorité de l’édition ainsi que les modes d’évaluation scientifique. Cet article propose ainsi une étude exploratoire de ces évolutions que connaît l’édition critique dans le champ numérique.

URL : La fonction de l’éditeur-auteur dans les éditions critiques numériques

DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/revuehn.3241

Whose research benefits more from Twitter? On Twitter-worthiness of communication research and its role in reinforcing disparities of the field

Posté le par

Authors : Chung-hong Chan, Jing Zeng, Mike S. Schäfer

Twitter has become an important promotional tool for scholarly work, but individual academic publications have varied degrees of visibility on the platform. We explain this variation through the concept of Twitter-worthiness: factors making certain academic publications more likely to be visible on Twitter.

Using publications from communication studies as our analytical case, we conduct statistical analyses of 32187 articles spanning 82 journals. Findings show that publications from G12 countries, covering social media topics and published open access tend to be mentioned more on Twitter.

Similar to prior studies, this study demonstrates that Twitter mentions are associated with peer citations. Nevertheless, Twitter also has the potential to reinforce pre-existing disparities between communication research communities, especially between researchers from developed and less-developed regions. Open access, however, does not reinforce such disparities.

URL : Whose research benefits more from Twitter? On Twitter-worthiness of communication research and its role in reinforcing disparities of the field

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278840