La fin de la publication scientifique ? Une analyse entre légitimité, prédation et automatisation

Auteure/Author : Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri

La courte histoire de la communication scientifique sur le Web se caractérise par des régulations spécifiques au numérique : accélération, ouverture et fragmentation. Au cœur de ces régulations, le modèle de la « Revue » devient moins le vecteur de diffusion de l’information scientifique que le lieu de structuration et de convergence des stratégies des acteurs impliqués.

Revues légitimes, revues médias, revues prédatrices ou bien encore revues générées automatiquement, composent aujourd’hui « l’offre » de la publication scientifique disponible via des plateformes qui contribuent à en effacer les caractéristiques et les repères.

Ainsi, l’information scientifique, concept apparu après-guerre, trouve un champ d’intervention conceptuel et opératoire nouveau, qui dépasse la multiplication et la généralisation du modèle de la plateforme (archives ouvertes, serveurs de pré-prints, réseaux sociaux…). Il permet de prendre en charge l’évolution des sciences, de leurs objets et de leurs pratiques.

Mais surtout il permet de penser les nouvelles formes de validation scientifiques qui se redéfinissent, à l’intersection des champs scientifique, social et médiatique, et qui soulèvent de nouvelles questions à leur tour.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03435153

Le numérique facilite-t-il l’accès ouvert aux communs scientifiques ?

Auteur/Author : Nicolas Jullien

L’économie de la science et des revues scientifiques est complexe. Pour mieux comprendre les trajectoires de basculement vers les publications ouvertes, cet article propose de décrire leur « modèle économique » et ce qu’Internet a changé.

Après un rapide rappel des questions soulevées par l’accès ouvert, nous proposons d’étudier la revue scientifique comme un « commun de connaissance ». Cela nous fournit un cadre afin de structurer les enjeux pour chaque acteur de la revue, et ainsi de décrire les différents types de revues scientifiques existantes, autour de l’adéquation format-lectorat d’une part et système de validation scientifique d’autre part.

Selon les modèles, le format d’accès ouvert peut varier, mais l’enjeu global est plus au niveau de l’accès aux bases de données d’articles (comme données ouvertes), que sur l’évolution du fonctionnement des revues scientifiques.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/terminal.8058

Intelligibilité multimodale de l’hypertexte érudit : le rôle du documentaliste. Une nécessaire collaboration pour la documentarisation sérielle dans la chaîne éditoriale scientifique

Auteur/Author : Gérald Kembellec

Cet article montre la porosité des frontières entre les métiers de l’édition et de la publication en ligne et que le nécessaire renouvellement des métiers de l’info-documentation trouverait une place naturelle face à l’évolution du Web.

Nous pensons en particulier à l’accompagnement de la délicate mise en oeuvre de la documentarisation sérielle des hypertextes érudits, spécifiquement en contextes scientifique ou culturel.

La vocation de cet article est de démontrer que la valorisation hypertexte d’un document de qualité au sein des ramifications du Web ne peut se faire qu’à travers une bonne intelligence entre auteur(s), éditeur et diffuseur, pour à terme rencontrer son public.

Il sera également démontré que chaque acteur de cette chaîne auctorio-éditoriale serait gagnant dans le cadre d’un travail de formalisation qualitatif qui aurait une portée diffusionelle forte.

Enfin, nous pointerons que ce travail d’intermédiation doit être piloté par un acteur de l’info-communication, pour rendre le texte intelligible aux humains comme aux machines. Cet acte médiateur est ici désigné sous le terme de documentarisation sérielle.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03419892

Editors between Support and Control by the Digital Infrastructure — Tracing the Peer Review Process with Data from an Editorial Management System

Authors : Judith Hartstein, Clemens Blüme

Many journals now rely on editorial management systems, which are supposed to support the administration and decision making of editors, while aiming at making the process of communication faster and more transparent to both reviewers and authors. Yet, little is known about how these infrastructures support, stabilize, transform or change existing editorial practices.

Research suggests that editorial management systems as digital infrastructures are adapted to the local needs at scholarly journals and reflect main realms of activities. Recently, it has been established that in a minimal case, the peer review process is comprised of postulation, consultation, decision and administration.

By exploring process generated data from a publisher’s editorial management system, we investigate the ways by which the digital infrastructure is used and how it represents the different realms of the process of peer review. How does the infrastructure support, strengthen or restrain editorial agency for administrating the process?

In our study, we investigate editorial processes and practices with their data traces captured by an editorial management system. We do so by making use of the internal representation of manuscript life cycles from submission to decision for 14,000 manuscripts submitted to a biomedical publisher.

Reconstructing the processes applying social network analysis, we found that the individual steps in the process have no strict order, other than could be expected with regard to the software patent. However, patterns can be observed, as to which stages manuscripts are most likely to go through in an ordered fashion.

We also found the different realms of the peer review process represented in the system, some events, however, indicate that the infrastructure offers more control and observation of the peer review process, thereby strengthening the editorial role in the governance of peer review while at the same time the infrastructure oversees the editors’ performance.

URL : Editors between Support and Control by the Digital Infrastructure — Tracing the Peer Review Process with Data from an Editorial Management System

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.747562

Ensuring Quality and Status: Peer Review Practices in Kriterium, A Portal for Quality-Marked Monographs and Edited Volumes in Swedish SSH

Authors : Björn Hammarfelt, Isak Hammar, Helena Francke

Although established forms of peer review are often criticized for being slow, secretive, and even unfair, they are repeatedly mentioned by academics as the most important indicator of quality in scholarly publishing.

In many countries, the peer review of books is a less codified practice than that of journal articles or conference papers, and the processes and actors involved are far from uniform. In Sweden, the review process of books has seldom been formalized.

However, more formal peer review of books has been identified as a response to the increasing importance placed on streamlined peer-reviewed publishing of journal articles in English, which has been described as a direct challenge to more pluralistic publication patterns found particularly in the humanities.

In this study, we focus on a novel approach to book review, Kriterium, where an independent portal maintained by academic institutions oversees the reviewing of academic books. The portal administers peer reviews, providing a mark of quality through a process which involves reviewers, an academic coordinator, and an editorial board.

The paper studies how this process functions in practice by exploring materials concerning 24 scholarly books reviewed within Kriterium. Our analysis specifically targets tensions identified in the process of reviewing books with a focus on three main themes, namely the intended audience, the edited volume, and the novel role of the academic coordinator.

Moreover, we find that the two main aims of the portal–quality enhancement (making research better) and certification (displaying that research is of high quality)–are recurrent in deliberations made in the peer review process.

Consequently, we argue that reviewing procedures and criteria of quality are negotiated within a broader discussion where more traditional forms of publishing are challenged by new standards and evaluation practices.

URL : Ensuring Quality and Status: Peer Review Practices in Kriterium, A Portal for Quality-Marked Monographs and Edited Volumes in Swedish SSH

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.740297

Representation of Women Among Editors in Chief of Leading Medical Journals

Authors : Ana-Catarina Pinho-Gomes, Amy Vassallo, Kelly Thompson, Kate Womersley, Robyn Norton, Mark Woodward

Importance

Women remain underrepresented among editors of scientific journals, particularly in senior positions. However, to what extent this applies to medical journals of different specialties remains unclear.

Objective

To investigate the gender distribution of the editors in chief at leading medical journals.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional study of the editors in chief at the top 10 international medical journals of 41 categories related to the medical specialties of the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Journal Citation Reports in 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion of women as editors in chief.

Results

This study found that, overall, women represented 21% (94 of 44) of the editors in chief, with wide variation across medical specialties from 0% to 82%. There were 5 categories for which none of the editors in chief were women (dentistry, oral surgery and medicine; allergy; psychiatry; anesthesiology; and ophthalmology) and only 3 categories for which women outnumbered men as editors in chief (primary health care, microbiology, and genetics and heredity).

In 27 of the 41 categories, women represented less than a third of the editors in chief (eg, 1 of 10 for critical care medicine, 2 of 10 for gastroenterology and hepatology, and 3 of 10 for endocrinology and metabolism).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that women are underrepresented among editors in chief of leading medical journals. For the benefit of medical research, a joint effort from editorial boards, publishers, authors, and academic institutions is required to address this gender gap.

URL : Representation of Women Among Editors in Chief of Leading Medical Journals

DOI :10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.23026