Archives des mots-clés : scientific communication

How is science clicked on Twitter? Click metrics for Bitly short links to scientific publications

Posté le par

Authors : Zhichao Fang, Rodrigo Costas, Wencan Tian, Xianwen Wang, Paul Wouters

To provide some context for the potential engagement behavior of Twitter users around science, this article investigates how Bitly short links to scientific publications embedded in scholarly Twitter mentions are clicked on Twitter.

Based on the click metrics of over 1.1 million Bitly short links referring to Web of Science (WoS) publications, our results show that around 49.5% of them were not clicked by Twitter users. For those Bitly short links with clicks from Twitter, the majority of their Twitter clicks accumulated within a short period of time after they were first tweeted.

Bitly short links to the publications in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities tend to attract more clicks from Twitter over other subject fields. This article also assesses the extent to which Twitter clicks are correlated with some other impact indicators.

Twitter clicks are weakly correlated with scholarly impact indicators (WoS citations and Mendeley readers), but moderately correlated to other Twitter engagement indicators (total retweets and total likes).

In light of these results, we highlight the importance of paying more attention to the click metrics of URLs in scholarly Twitter mentions, to improve our understanding about the more effective dissemination and reception of science information on Twitter.

URL : How is science clicked on Twitter? Click metrics for Bitly short links to scientific publications

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24458

Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

Posté le par

Authors : Daniel G Hamilton, Hannah Fraser, Rink Hoekstra, Fiona Fidler

Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 editors of journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology.

We found that 49% of the journals surveyed checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, that 61% allowed authors to recommend both for and against specific reviewers, and that less than 6% used a form of open peer review.

Most journals did not have an official policy on altering reports from reviewers, but 91% of editors identified at least one situation in which it was appropriate for an editor to alter a report. Editors were also asked for their views on five issues related to publication ethics.

A majority expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their own journals, and replication studies.

Our results provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role and transparency of peer review in scholarly publishing.

URL : Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62529

Which aspects of the Open Science agenda are most relevant to scientometric research and publishing? An opinion paper

Posté le par

Authors : Lutz Bornmann, Raf Guns, Michael Thelwall, Dietmar Wolfram

Open Science is an umbrella term that encompasses many recommendations for possible changes in research practices, management, and publishing with the objective to increase transparency and accessibility.

This has become an important science policy issue that all disciplines should consider. Many Open Science recommendations may be valuable for the further development of research and publishing but not all are relevant to all fields.

This opinion paper considers the aspects of Open Science that are most relevant for scientometricians, discussing how they can be usefully applied.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_e_00121

COVID‐19 and the generation of novel scientific knowledge: Evidence‐based decisions and data sharing

Posté le par

Authors : Lucie Perillat, Brian S. Baigrie

Rationale, aims and objectives

The COVID‐19 pandemic has impacted every facet of society, including medical research. This paper is the second part of a series of articles that explore the intricate relationship between the different challenges that have hindered biomedical research and the generation of novel scientific knowledge during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

In the first part of this series, we demonstrated that, in the context of COVID‐19, the scientific community has been faced with numerous challenges with respect to (1) finding and prioritizing relevant research questions and (2) choosing study designs that are appropriate for a time of emergency.

Methods

During the early stages of the pandemic, research conducted on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) sparked several heated debates with respect to the scientific methods used and the quality of knowledge generated.

Research on HCQ is used as a case study in both papers. The authors explored biomedical databases, peer‐reviewed journals, pre‐print servers and media articles to identify relevant literature on HCQ and COVID‐19, and examined philosophical perspectives on medical research in the context of this pandemic and previous global health challenges.

Results

This second paper demonstrates that a lack of research prioritization and methodological rigour resulted in the generation of fleeting and inconsistent evidence that complicated the development of public health guidelines.

The reporting of scientific findings to the scientific community and general public highlighted the difficulty of finding a balance between accuracy and speed.

Conclusions

The COVID‐19 pandemic presented challenges in terms of (3) evaluating evidence for the purpose of making evidence‐based decisions and (4) sharing scientific findings with the rest of the scientific community.

This second paper demonstrates that the four challenges outlined in the first and second papers have often compounded each other and have contributed to slowing down the creation of novel scientific knowledge during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13548

Implementing the Global University Publications Licence: a new open scholarship model for advocating change

Posté le par

Authors : Jiafeng Zhou, Ke Wu, Neil Smyth

Universities want a voluntary, non-exclusive licence from authors to disseminate publications. This practitioner case study explores an innovative model to communicate and advance open and equitable scholarship through the implementation of the Global University Publications Licence at the University of Nottingham Ningbo China.

This article explains the licensing policy and key influences, including, the copyright law of the People’s Republic of China and the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).

The University approved the Global University Publications Licence, with implementation from 1 August 2019. It is available in Chinese and English. Since implementation, the University has retained rights for 74% of research publications submitted. 100% of those publications are available through the University with a CC-BY licence and zero embargo.

The open scholarship model provides an equitable approach to versions and citation. The article concludes by suggesting university libraries can exploit copyright law in China to progress open scholarship strategies, including recognition of employers as authors of works, a priority right to the exploitation of works and an embargo protection of two years after the completion of the work.

The author’s final version of publications can be open, discoverable, cited and preserved through trusted universities with global reputations for high-quality research.

URL : Implementing the Global University Publications Licence: a new open scholarship model for advocating change

DOI : http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.531

Open Access, Plan S and ‘Radically Liberatory’ Forms of Academic Freedom

Posté le par

Author : Samuel A. Moore

This opinion piece interrogates the position that open access policies infringe academic freedom. Through an analysis of the objections to open access policies (specifically Plan S) that draw on academic freedom as their primary concern, the article illustrates the shortcomings of foregrounding a negative conception of academic freedom that primarily seeks to protect the fortunate few in stable academic employment within wealthy countries.

Although Plan S contains many regressive and undesirable elements, the article makes a case for supporting its proposal for zero‐embargo repository‐based open access as the basis for a more positive form of academic freedom for scholars around the globe.

Ultimately, open access publishing only makes sense within a project that seeks to nurture this positive conception of academic freedom by transforming higher education towards something more socially just and inclusive of knowledge producers and consumers worldwide.

URL : Open Access, Plan S and ‘Radically Liberatory’ Forms of Academic Freedom

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12640

Preprints: Their Evolving Role in Science Communication

Posté le par

Authors : Iratxe Puebla, Jessica Polka, Oya Rieger

The use of preprints for the dissemination of research in some life sciences branches has increased substantially over the last few years. In this document, we discuss preprint publishing and use in the life sciences, from initial experiments back in the 1960s to the current landscape.

We explore the perspectives, advantages and perceived concerns that different stakeholders associate with preprints, and where preprints stand in the context of research assessment frameworks.

We also discuss the role of preprints in the publishing ecosystem and within open science more broadly, before outlining some remaining open questions and considerations for the future evolution of preprints.

URL : Preprints: Their Evolving Role in Science Communication

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/ezfsk