Archives des mots-clés : scientific communication

Pratiques de communication dans la pratique de recherche des doctorant.e.s en biologie

Posté le par

Auteur/Author : Mélodie Faury

Dans cet article, je m’intéresse à une période particulière d’un parcours de chercheur : la thèse, moment d’engagement (ou de choix de non-engagement) dans une carrière de recherche scientifique.

Les entretiens sont effectués auprès de dix doctorant.e.s en biologie expérimentale ayant tous suivi la même formation universitaire à la recherche. Lors d’un entretien, je leur propose de rendre compte de leur pratique, tout en la mettant à distance en la commentant à partir du relevé de leurs pratiques de communication quotidiennes (courriers électroniques, réunions, conversations avec différents membres du laboratoire, téléphone, séminaires, etc.).

L’étude des pratiques de communication dans les pratiques de recherche des doctorant.e.s met en évidence la fréquence et la diversité des pratiques et des situations de communication dans lesquelles les doctorant.e.s se retrouvent impliqués au cours d’une semaine.

Ces situations structurent leur travail de recherche et s’organisent autour, ou à partir, de ce qui constitue leurs principales activités en tant que doctorant.e.s : les expériences à la paillasse, en premier lieu, associées à la mise en place et à l’entretien de collaborations ; l’écriture d’articles, leur soumission pour publication et la présentation des résultats obtenus, devant les membres de l’équipe, du laboratoire ou dans le cadre de congrès, colloques ou séminaires.

La méthode d’entretien choisie est intéressante à deux titres : elle permet d’une part de rendre compte d’un quotidien peu connu de la pratique de recherche de doctorant.e.s en biologie expérimentale, et d’autre part d’appréhender le rapport des étudiants en thèse à ce qui constitue leur pratique de la recherche, par l’explication et le commentaire du relevé de leurs pratiques de communication de la semaine précédent l’entretien.

Cette approche constitue pour les chercheurs-enquêtés une première forme de mise à distance de leur pratique et une occasion d’élaborer un discours, face au chercheur-enquêteur, sur eux-mêmes, sur leur pratique et sur la science et elle me permet de saisir à un premier niveau comment se construit un « rapport identitaire et culturel aux sciences » par l’expérience vécue de la pratique (rendre compte de ce qui structure la pratique) telle qu’elle est rapportée dans les discours (parler de la pratique, la commenter et se positionner).

URL : https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02988079

Data Science Tools for Monitoring the Global Repository Eco-System and its Lines of Evolution

Posté le par

Authors : Friedrich Summann, Andreas Czerniak, Jochen Schirrwagen, Dirk Pieper

The global network of scholarly repositories for the publication and dissemination of scientific publications and related materials can already look back on a history of more than twenty years.

During this period, there have been many developments in terms of technical optimization and the increase of content. It is crucial to observe and analyze this evolution in order to draw conclusions for the further development of repositories.

The basis for such an analysis is data. The Open Archives Initiative (OAI) service provider Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE) started indexing repositories in 2004 and has collected metadata also on repositories.

This paper presents the main features of a planned repository monitoring system. Data have been collected since 2004 and includes basic repository metadata as well as publication metadata of a repository.

This information allows an in-depth analysis of many indicators in different logical combinations. This paper outlines the systems approach and the integration of data science techniques. It describes the intended monitoring system and shows the first results.

URL : Data Science Tools for Monitoring the Global Repository Eco-System and its Lines of Evolution

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8020035

Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey

Posté le par

Authors : Nicolas Lombard, A. Gasmi, L. Sulpice, K. Boudjema, Damien Bergeat

Objective

To describe surgical journals’ position statements on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe key features of their research transparency promotion.

Methods

Only “SURGICAL” journals with an impact factor higher than 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were included, if there were explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the official instructions for authors (OIA) or if they had published randomised controlled trial (RCT) between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018.

The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy included in the instructions for authors. Data-sharing policies were grouped into 3 categories, inclusion of data-sharing policy mandatory, optional, or not available.

Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement policy”, a conflict of interests (COIs) disclosure requirement, and a specific reference to reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT for RCT.

Results

Among the 87 surgical journals identified, 82 were included in the study: 67 (82%) had explicit instructions for RCT and the remaining 15 (18%) had published at least one RCT. The median impact factor was 2.98 [IQR = 2.48–3.77], and in 2016 and 2017, the journals published a median of 11.5 RCT [IQR = 5–20.75].

The OIA of four journals (5%) stated that the inclusion of a data-sharing statement was mandatory, optional in 45% (n = 37), and not included in 50% (n = 41).

No association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (mandatory or optional). A “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” was associated with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) allusion or affiliation and higher impact factors.

Journals with specific RCT instructions in their OIA and journals referenced on the ICMJE website more frequently mandated the use of CONSORT guidelines.

Conclusion

Research transparency promotion is still limited in surgical journals. Standardisation of journal requirements according to ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.

URL : Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04756-7

Characteristics of academic publications, preprints, and registered clinical trials on the COVID-19 pandemic

Posté le par

Authors : Silvia Gianola, Tiago S. Jesus, Silvia Bargeri, Greta Castellini

The COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a deluge of publications. For this cross-sectional study we compared the amount and reporting characteristics of COVID-19-related academic articles and preprints and the number of ongoing clinical trials and systematic reviews.

To do this, we searched the PubMed database of citations and abstracts for published life science journals by using appropriate combinations of medical subject headings (MeSH terms), and the COVID-19 section of the MedRxiv and BioRxiv archives up to 20 May 2020 (21 weeks).

In addition, we searched Clinicaltrial.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, EU Clinical Trials Register, and 15 other trial registers, as well as PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews.

The characteristics of each publication were extracted. Regression analyses and Z tests were used to detect publication trends and their relative proportions. A total of 3635 academic publications and 3805 preprints were retrieved. Only 8.6% (n = 329) of the preprints were already published in indexed journals. The number of academic and preprint publications increased significantly over time (p<0.001).

Case reports (6% academic vs 0.9% preprints; p<0.001) and letters (17.4% academic vs 0.5% preprints; p<0.001) accounted for a greater share of academic compared to preprint publications. Differently, randomized controlled trials (0.22% vs 0.63%; p<0.001) and systematic reviews (0.08% vs 5%) made up a greater share of the preprints.

The relative proportion of clinical studies registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and EU Clinical Trials Register was 57.9%, 49.5%, and 98.9%, respectively, most of which were still “recruiting”.

PROSPERO listed 962 systematic review protocols. Preprints were slightly more prevalent than academic articles but both were increasing in number.

The void left by the lack of primary studies was filled by an outpour of immediate opinions (i.e., letters to the editor) published in PubMed-indexed journals. Summarizing, preprints have gained traction as a publishing response to the demand for prompt access to empirical, albeit not peer-reviewed, findings during the present pandemic.

URL : Characteristics of academic publications, preprints, and registered clinical trials on the COVID-19 pandemic

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240123

Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions

Posté le par

Authors : Anna Severin, Joanna Chataway

Stakeholders might have diverging or conflicting expectations about the functions that peer review should fulfil. We aimed to explore how stakeholder groups perceive peer review and what they expect from it. We conducted qualitative focus group workshops with early‐, mid‐, and senior career scholars, editors, and publishers.

We recruited participants following a purposive maximum variation sampling approach. To identify purposes of peer review, we conducted a thematic analysis. Stakeholders expected peer review (1) to assess the contributions of a manuscript, (2) to conduct quality control, (3) to improve manuscripts, (4) to assess the suitability of manuscripts for a journal, (5) to provide a decision‐making tool for editors, (6) to provide feedback by peers, (7) to curate a community, and (8) to provide a seal of accreditation for published articles.

Stakeholders with different roles and tasks in the peer review process differed in the value they attached to the functions of peer review. Early‐ and mid‐career researchers valued social and feedback functions of peer review, while senior career researchers and editors expected it to instead perform a technical assessment of manuscripts and serve as a decision‐making tool.

Publishers expected peer review to assess the suitability of manuscripts for their journals and to provide a seal of accreditation. This revealed a potential tension between functions of peer review. Stakeholder expectations are shaped by how stakeholders perceive their own roles both in relation to the peer review process and within their scientific community.

URL : Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1336

Branding Scholarly Journals: Transmuting Symbolic Capital into Economic Capital

Posté le par

Auteurs/Authors : Mahdi Khelfaoui, Yves Gingras

In this paper, we analyze a relatively recent commercial strategy devised by large academic publishers, consisting in the branding of their most prestigious scientific journals. Using Pierre Bourdieu’s model of capital conversion, we show how publishers transfer the symbolic capital of an already prestigious journal to derivative journals that capture part of the prestige of the original brand and transform it into new economic capital.

As shown by their high impact factors, these new journals, bearing the mark of the original journal in their titles, are rapidly adopted by researchers. Through manuscript transfer mechanisms, publishers also use part of the papers rejected by their flagship and highly selective jour-nals to recycle and monetize them inlower impactor open access derivativejournals of their lists.

URL : https://cirst2.openum.ca/files/sites/179/2020/08/Note_2020-03-branding.pdf

‘I Updated the ‘: The Evolution of References in the English Wikipedia and the Implications for Altmetrics

Posté le par

Authors : Olga Zagovora, Roberto Ulloa, Katrin Weller, Fabian Flöck

With this work, we present a publicly available dataset of the history of all the references (more than 55 million) ever used in the English Wikipedia until June 2019. We have applied a new method for identifying and monitoring references in Wikipedia, so that for each reference we can provide data about associated actions: creation, modifications, deletions, and reinsertions.

The high accuracy of this method and the resulting dataset was confirmed via a comprehensive crowdworker labelling campaign. We use the dataset to study the temporal evolution of Wikipedia references as well as users’ editing behaviour.

We find evidence of a mostly productive and continuous effort to improve the quality of references: (1) there is a persistent increase of reference and document identifiers (DOI, PubMedID, PMC, ISBN, ISSN, ArXiv ID), and (2) most of the reference curation work is done by registered humans (not bots or anonymous editors).

We conclude that the evolution of Wikipedia references, including the dynamics of the community processes that tend to them should be leveraged in the design of relevance indexes for altmetrics, and our dataset can be pivotal for such effort.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.03083