Auteur/Author : Ghislaine Chartron
Cet article propose un premier bilan de la science ouverte liée à la pandémie Covid-19. Typologie des ressources mises à disposition en fonction des publics cibles, analyse de certains problèmes de qualité de l’information et des données, enjeux de la science des données et de la gouvernance des données, énoncé de certaines limites de la science ouverte dans le contexte Covid-19, évolution de la communication scientifique en virologie.
Auteur/Author : Ingrid Mayeur
Le présent article aborde la question de la plasticité du document numérique à partir d’un cas concret, celui d’une démarche de publication menée conjointement dans deux espaces médiatiques liés à des domaines d’activités distincts : scientifique pour le premier (la plateforme de blogging en SHS Hypotheses.org, et plus spécifiquement le blog de la revue d’anthropologie et de sciences humaines Terrain), informationnel pour le second (le site collaboratif The Conversation).
Si ces publications conjointes ne constituent pas une remédiation au sens où un document se trouverait énoncé à nouveau au sein d’un dispositif numérique et porterait les marques liées à ce nouveau contexte d’énonciation (Colas-Blaise 2018), les variantes textuelles résultant des choix énonciatifs effectués dans l’un et l’autre de ces dispositifs médiatiques s’avèrent signifiantes au regard du projet communicationnel qu’ils soutiennent.
Mobilisant l’approche heuristique des espaces de communication (Odin 2011), nous tenterons de les identifier et d’en proposer une lecture, en portant l’attention sur la temporalité des dispositifs comme source de variation médiatique (Bonaccorsi et Flon 2014).
Authors : Andre Bruns, Niels Taubert
The Open Access (OA) publishing model that is based on article processing charges (APC) is often associated with the potential for more transparency regarding the expenditures for publications.
However, the extent to which transparency can be achieved depends not least on the completeness of data in APC monitoring systems. This article investigates two blind spots of the largest collection of APC payment information, OpenAPC. It aims to identify likely APC-liable publications for German universities that contribute to this system and for those that do not provide data to it.
The calculation combines data from Web of Science, the ISSN-Gold-OA-list and OpenAPC. The results show that for the group of universities contributing to the monitoring system, more than half of the APC payments are not covered by it and the average payments for non-covered APCs is higher than for APCs covered by the system.
In addition, the group of universities that do not contribute to OpenAPC accounts for two thirds of the number of APC-liable publications recorded for contributing universities. Regarding the size of these blind spots, the value of the monitoring system is limited at present.
URL : Investigating the Blind Spot of a Monitoring System for Article Processing Charges
Authors : Andre S. Sunahara, Matjaz Perc, Haroldo V. Ribeiro
The association between productivity and impact of scientific production is a long-standing debate in science that remains controversial and poorly understood. Here we present a large-scale analysis of the association between yearly publication numbers and average journal-impact metrics for the Brazilian scientific elite.
We find this association to be discipline-specific, career-age dependent, and similar among researchers with outlier and non-outlier performance. Outlier researchers either outperform in productivity or journal prestige, but they rarely do so in both categories.
Non-outliers also follow this trend and display negative correlations between productivity and journal prestige but with discipline-dependent intensity. Our research indicates that academics are averse to simultaneous changes in their productivity and journal-prestige levels over consecutive career years.
We also find that career patterns concerning productivity and journal prestige are discipline-specific, having in common a raise of productivity with career age for most disciplines and a higher chance of outperforming in journal impact during early career stages.
Authors : Ehren Helmut Pflugfelder, Alexander Mahmou-Werndli
Which genre of science writing contributes most to public understanding, and how does that understanding happen? Working within a science in society approach, this paper examines public engagement with science as it occurs in the comments and discussion boards of r/science.
Researchers use content analysis to identify relevant concept categories and code comments for interaction with science content.
The resulting data are analyzed by genre (scientific news journalism, press release, and research article) and open access status, revealing differences in public engagement with implications for science communicators and scholars seeking to understand how the public interacts with science news.
URL : Impacts of genre and access on science discussions: ‘The New Reddit Journal of Science’
Authors : Anne Baillot, Julie Giovacchini
The TEI Guidelines are developed and curated by a community whose main purpose is to standardize the encoding of primary sources relevant for humanities research and teaching. But other communities are also working with TEI-based publication formats.
The first goal of this paper is to raise awareness of the importance of TEI-based scholarly publishing as we know it today.
The second goal is to contribute to a reflection on the development of a TEI customization that would cover the whole authoring-reviewing-publishing workflow and guarantee archiving options that are as solid for journal publications as what we now have for primary sources published in TEI.
Authors : Thomas Rhys Evans, Peter Branney, Andrew Clements, Ella Hatton
Preregistration is the practice of publicly publishing plans on central components of the research process before access to, or collection, of data. Within the context of the replication crisis, open science practices like preregistration have been pivotal in facilitating greater transparency in research.
However, such practices have been applied nearly exclusively to basic academic research, with rare consideration of the relevance to applied and consultancy-based research. This is particularly problematic as such research is typically reported with very low levels of transparency and accountability despite being disseminated as influential gray literature to inform practice.
Evidence-based practice is best served by an appreciation of multiple sources of quality evidence, thus the current review considers the potential of preregistration to improve both the accessibility and credibility of applied research toward more rigorous evidence-based practice.
The current three-part review outlines, first, the opportunities of preregistration for applied research, and second, three barriers – practical challenges, stakeholder roles, and the suitability of preregistration.
Last, this review makes four recommendations to overcome these barriers and maximize the opportunities of preregistration for academics, industry, and the structures they are held within – changes to preregistration templates, new types of templates, education and training, and recognition and structural changes.