Archives des mots-clés : scientific communication

Évaluation de la production des laboratoires de recherche en SIC dans l’environnement de la science ouverte : analyse bibliométrique des publications sur HAL

Posté le par

Auteur/Author : Arezki Achouri

Cette étude fournit une première approche d’évaluation de la production scientifique des laboratoires de recherche en Sciences de l’information et de la communication (SIC) sur la plateforme d’archives ouvertes HAL.

Elle porte sur les publications de 36 laboratoires de recherche en SIC dans HAL et présente les résultats d’une analyse bibliométrique réalisée à partir des données extraites via HAL. L’objectif de cette étude est d’analyser la présence des laboratoires de recherche en SIC sur HAL en fonction d’un certain nombre de variables : le nombre de dépôts, la langue de publication, la typologie des documents et la part des documents en libre accès.

Les résultats de l’étude ont montré une présence importante des laboratoires en SIC sur HAL, mais nous avons également constaté des différences entre les laboratoires de recherche concernant leur nombre dépôts, leur ouverture en termes de libre accès ainsi que l’internationalisation de leurs collections. Chaque laboratoire a sa propre politique de publication sur HAL.

URL : https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-03344887

Open Access Publishing Probabilities Based on Gender and Authorship Structures in Vietnam

Posté le par

Authors : Huyen Thanh T. Nguyen, Minh-Hoang Nguyen, Tam-Tri Le, Manh-Toan Ho, Quan-Hoang Vuong

Open access (OA) publishing is beneficial for researchers to improve recognition, representation, and visibility in academia. However, few studies have been conducted for studying the association between gender and OA publishing likelihood.

Therefore, the current study explores the impacts of gender-based authorship structures on OA publishing in Vietnamese social sciences and humanities. Bayesian analysis was performed on a dataset of 3122 publications in social sciences and humanities.

We found that publications with mixed-gender authorship were most likely to be published under Gold Access terms (26.31–31.65%). In contrast, the likelihood of publications with the solely male or female author(s) was lower.

It is also notable that if female researcher(s) held the first-author position in an article of mixed-gender authorship, the publication would be less likely to be published under Gold Access terms (26.31% compared to 31.65% of male-first-author structure).

In addition, publications written by a solo female author (14.19%) or a group of female authors (10.72%) had lower OA publishing probabilities than those written by a solely male author(s) (17.14%).

These findings hint at the possible advantage of gender diversity and the disadvantage of gender homophily (especially female-only authorship) on OA publishing likelihood. Moreover, they show there might be some negative impacts of gender inequality on OA publishing.

As a result, the notion of gender diversity, financial and policy supports are recommended to promote the open science movement.

URL : Open Access Publishing Probabilities Based on Gender and Authorship Structures in Vietnam

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9040045

Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases

Posté le par

Authors : Lutz Bornmann, Robin Haunschild, Rüdiger Mutz

Growth of science is a prevalent issue in science of science studies. In recent years, two new bibliographic databases have been introduced, which can be used to study growth processes in science from centuries back: Dimensions from Digital Science and Microsoft Academic.

In this study, we used publication data from these new databases and added publication data from two established databases (Web of Science from Clarivate Analytics and Scopus from Elsevier) to investigate scientific growth processes from the beginning of the modern science system until today.

We estimated regression models that included simultaneously the publication counts from the four databases. The results of the unrestricted growth of science calculations show that the overall growth rate amounts to 4.10% with a doubling time of 17.3 years. As the comparison of various segmented regression models in the current study revealed, models with four or five segments fit the publication data best.

We demonstrated that these segments with different growth rates can be interpreted very well, since they are related to either phases of economic (e.g., industrialization) and/or political developments (e.g., Second World War).

In this study, we additionally analyzed scientific growth in two broad fields (Physical and Technical Sciences as well as Life Sciences) and the relationship of scientific and economic growth in UK.

The comparison between the two fields revealed only slight differences. The comparison of the British economic and scientific growth rates showed that the economic growth rate is slightly lower than the scientific growth rate.

URL : Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00903-w

Does double-blind peer review reduce bias? Evidence from a top computer science conference

Posté le par

Authors : Mengyi Sun, Jainabou Barry Danfa, Misha Teplitskiy

Peer review is essential for advancing scientific research, but there are long-standing concerns that authors’ prestige or other characteristics can bias reviewers. Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a way to reduce reviewer bias, but the evidence for its effectiveness is limited and mixed.

Here, we examine the effects of double-blind peer review by analyzing the review files of 5,027 papers submitted to a top computer science conference that changed its reviewing format from single- to double-blind in 2018.

First, we find that the scores given to the most prestigious authors significantly decreased after switching to double-blind review. However, because many of these papers were above the threshold for acceptance, the change did not affect paper acceptance significantly.

Second, the inter-reviewer disagreement increased significantly in the double-blind format.

Third, papers rejected in the single-blind format are cited more than those rejected under double-blind, suggesting that double-blind review better excludes poorer quality papers.

Lastly, an apparently unrelated change in the rating scale from 10 to 4 points likely reduced prestige bias significantly such that papers’ acceptance was affected.

These results support the effectiveness of double-blind review in reducing biases, while opening new research directions on the impact of peer-review formats.

URL : Does double-blind peer review reduce bias? Evidence from a top computer science conference

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24582

Identifying and characterizing social media communities: a socio-semantic network approach to altmetrics

Posté le par

Authors : Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado, Daniel Torres-Salinas, Nicolas Robinson-Garcia

Altmetric indicators allow exploring and profiling individuals who discuss and share scientific literature in social media. But it is still a challenge to identify and characterize communities based on the research topics in which they are interested as social and geographic proximity also influence interactions.

This paper proposes a new method which profiles social media users based on their interest on research topics using altmetric data. Social media users are clustered based on the topics related to the research publications they share in social media.

This allows removing linkages which respond to social or personal proximity and identifying disconnected users who may have similar research interests. We test this method for users tweeting publications from the fields of Information Science & Library Science, and Microbiology.

We conclude by discussing the potential application of this method and how it can assist information professionals, policy managers and academics to understand and identify the main actors discussing research literature in social media.

URL : Identifying and characterizing social media communities: a socio-semantic network approach to altmetrics

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04167-8

L’usage de la plateforme HAL par les unités de recherche de l’Université de Lille. La situation en 2021

Posté le par

Auteurs/Authors : Eric Kergosien, Joachim Schöpfel

Cette note présente les résultats d’une étude de suivi sur l’usage de la plateforme HAL par les laboratoires de recherche de l’Université de Lille, réalisée en avril 2021. L’analyse a porté sur les dépôts dans HAL, sur la création d’une collection et sur la part des documents en libre accès.

L’étude propose une photographie de la situation en 2021, par rapport aux résultats des analyses de 2019 et 2020, en montrant l’évolution de l’usage de HAL par les unités de recherche et l’impact de la mise en place d’une archive institutionnelle locale nommée LillOA.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03372596

Science rules! A qualitative study of scientists’ approaches to grant lottery

Posté le par

Author : Axel Philipps

Using peer review to assess the validity of research proposals has always had its fair share of critics, including a more-than-fair-share of scholars. The debate about this method of assessing these proposals now seems trivial when compared with assessing the validity for granting funding by lottery.

Some of the same scholars have suggested that the way grant lottery was being assessed has made random allocation seem even-handed, less biased and more supportive of innovative research.

But we know little of what researchers actually think about grant lottery and even less about the thoughts of those scientists who rely on funding. This paper examines scientists’ perspectives on selecting grants by ‘lots’ and how they justify their support or opposition.

How do they approach something scientifically that is, in itself, not scientific? These approaches were investigated with problem-centered interviews conducted with natural scientists in Germany.

The qualitative interviews for this paper reveal that scientists in dominated and dominating field positions are, more or less, open to the idea of giving a selection process by lots a try. Nonetheless, they are against pure randomization because from their point of view it is incompatible with scientific principles.

They rather favor a combination of grant lottery and peer review processes, assuming that only under these conditions could randomly allocated funding be an integral and legitimate part of science.

URL : Science rules! A qualitative study of scientists’ approaches to grant lottery

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa027