Archives des mots-clés : scientific communication

A validation of coauthorship credit models with empirical data from the contributions of PhD candidates

Posté le par

Author : Paul Donner

A perennial problem in bibliometrics is the appropriate distribution of authorship credit for coauthored publications. Several credit allocation methods and formulas have been introduced, but there has been little empirical validation as to which method best reflects the typical contributions of coauthors.

This paper presents a validation of credit allocation methods using a new data set of author-provided percentage contribution figures obtained from the coauthored publications in cumulative PhD theses by authors from three countries that contain contribution statements.

The comparison of allocation schemes shows that harmonic counting performs best and arithmetic and geometric counting also perform well, while fractional counting and first author counting perform relatively poorly.

URL : https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/qss_a_00048?af=R

Incentives to Open Access: Perspectives of Health Science Researchers

Posté le par

Authors : Carmen López-Vergara, Pilar Flores Asenjo, Alfonso Rosa-García

Technological development has transformed academic publication over the past two decades and new publication models, especially Open Access, have captured an important part of the publishing market, traditionally dominated by the Subscription publication model.

Although Health Sciences have been one of the leading fields promoting Open Access, the perspectives of Health Science researchers on the benefits and possibilities of Open Access remain an open question.

The present study sought to unveil the perspective of researchers on scientific publication decisions, in terms of the Subscription and Open Access publication model, Gold Road.

With this aim, we surveyed Spanish researchers in Health Sciences. Our findings show that the value of publishing in Open Access journals increases as the experience of the researcher increases and the less she/he values the impact factor.

Moreover, visibility and dissemination of the results are the main determinants of publication when choosing an Open Access journal as the first option. According to the response of the researchers, the reduction of fees and the increase in financing are important economic incentive measures to promote the Open Access publication model. It is widely accepted that the volume of Open Access publications will increase in the future.

URL : Incentives to Open Access: Perspectives of Health Science Researchers

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8020029

Being published successfully or getting arXived? The importance of social capital and interdisciplinary collaboration for getting printed in a high impact journal in Physics

Posté le par

Authors : Oliver J. Wieczorek, Mark Wittek, Raphael H. Heiberger

The structure of collaboration is known to be of great importance for the success of scientific endeavors. In particular, various types of social capital employed in co-authored work and projects bridging disciplinary boundaries have attracted researchers’ interest.

Almost all previous studies, however, use samples with an inherent survivor bias, i.e., they focus on papers that have already been published. In contrast, our article examines the chances for getting a working paper published by using a unique dataset of 245,000 papers uploaded to arXiv.

ArXiv is a popular preprint platform in Physics which allows us to construct a co-authorship network from which we can derive different types of social capital and interdisciplinary teamwork.

To emphasize the ‘normal case’ of community-specific standards of excellence, we assess publications in Physics’ high impact journals as success. Utilizing multilevel event history models, our results reveal that already a moderate number of persistent collaborations spanning at least two years is the most important social antecedent of getting a manuscript published successfully.

In contrast, inter- and subdisciplinary collaborations decrease the probability of publishing in an eminent journal in Physics, which can only partially be mitigated by scientists’ social capital.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.02148

Science Communication and Open Access: The Critique of the Political Economy of Capitalist Academic Publishers as Ideology Critique

Posté le par

Author : Manfred Knoche

Starting from a theoretical and methodological foundation of an academic ideology critique, the production, distribution and valorisation of science communication will be analysed in exemplary fashion.

The focus is on the criticism of publishing houses’ business models in the sphere of open Access publishing. These models are propagated and implemented by science and politics.

Thus, academic publications continue to be traded as commodities. The existing relationships of power and domination are thereby reproduced. In contrast, the emancipatory potential of non-commercial science communication based on the digitalisation of production and distribution is shown.

URL : Science Communication and Open Access: The Critique of the Political Economy of Capitalist Academic Publishers as Ideology Critique

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v18i2.1183

A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting

Posté le par

Authors : Jamie J Kirkham, Naomi Penfold, Fiona Murphy, Isabelle Boutron, John PA Ioannidis, Jessica K Polka, David Moher

Objectives

The objective of this review is to identify all preprint platforms with biomedical and medical scope and to compare and contrast the key characteristics and policies of these platforms. We also aim to provide a searchable database to enable relevant stakeholders to compare between platforms.

Study Design and Setting

Preprint platforms that were launched up to 25th June 2019 and have a biomedical and medical scope according to MEDLINE’s journal selection criteria were identified using existing lists, web-based searches and the expertise of both academic and non-academic publication scientists.

A data extraction form was developed, pilot-tested and used to collect data from each preprint platform’s webpage(s). Data collected were in relation to scope and ownership; content-specific characteristics and information relating to submission, journal transfer options, and external discoverability; screening, moderation, and permanence of content; usage metrics and metadata.

Where possible, all online data were verified by the platform owner or representative by correspondence.

Results

A total of 44 preprint platforms were identified as having biomedical and medical scope, 17 (39%) were hosted by the Open Science Framework preprint infrastructure, six (14%) were provided by F1000 Research Ltd (the Open Research Central infrastructure) and 21 (48%) were other independent preprint platforms. Preprint platforms were either owned by non-profit academic groups, scientific societies or funding organisations (n=28; 64%), owned/partly owned by for-profit publishers or companies (n=14; 32%) or owned by individuals/small communities (n=2; 5%).

Twenty-four (55%) preprint platforms accepted content from all scientific fields although some of these had restrictions relating to funding source, geographical region or an affiliated journal’s remit.

Thirty-three (75%) preprint platforms provided details about article screening (basic checks) and 14 (32%) of these actively involved researchers with context expertise in the screening process.

The three most common screening checks related to the scope of the article, plagiarism and legal/ethical/societal issues and compliance. Almost all preprint platforms allow submission to any peer-reviewed journal following publication, have a preservation plan for read-access, and most have a policy regarding reasons for retraction and the sustainability of the service.

Forty-one (93%) platforms currently have usage metrics, with the most common metric being the number of downloads presented on the abstract page.

Conclusion

A large number of preprint platforms exist for use in biomedical and medical sciences, all of which offer researchers an opportunity to rapidly disseminate their research findings onto an open-access public server, subject to scope and eligibility.

However, the process by which content is screened before online posting and withdrawn or removed after posting varies between platforms, which may be associated with platform operation, ownership, governance and financing.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578

Community curation in PomBase: enabling fission yeast experts to provide detailed, standardized, sharable annotation from research publications

Posté le par

Authors : Antonia Lock, Midori A Harris, Kim Rutherford, Jacqueline Hayles, Valerie Wood

Maximizing the impact and value of scientific research requires efficient knowledge distribution, which increasingly depends on the integration of standardized published data into online databases.

To make data integration more comprehensive and efficient for fission yeast research, PomBase has pioneered a community curation effort that engages publication authors directly in FAIR-sharing of data representing detailed biological knowledge from hypothesis-driven experiments.

Canto, an intuitive online curation tool that enables biologists to describe their detailed functional data using shared ontologies, forms the core of PomBase’s system.

With 8 years’ experience, and as the author response rate reaches 50%, we review community curation progress and the insights we have gained from the project.

We highlight incentives and nudges we deploy to maximize participation, and summarize project outcomes, which include increased knowledge integration and dissemination as well as the unanticipated added value arising from co-curation by publication authors and professional curators.

URL : Community curation in PomBase: enabling fission yeast experts to provide detailed, standardized, sharable annotation from research publications

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baaa028

Availability of research articles for the public during pandemic – a case study

Posté le par

Author : Augustine Joshua Devasahayam

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease has affected millions of lives, forcing most of us to stay at home and work. However, there is an immediate need to conduct research on potential drugs against COVID-19.

In this article, the extent to which major publishers have provided access for the public to read research articles relevant to potential drug candidates for the COVID-19 disease are presented.

A systematic search of five electronic databases (Elsevier’s ScienceDirect, Taylor & Francis, SpringerLink, Wiley, and New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)) was conducted on April 12-17, 2020. The total number of research articles containing terms ‘Ribavirin’, ‘Remdesivir’, ‘Hydroxychloroquine OR Chloroquine’, ‘Favipiravir’, ‘Lopinavir OR Ritonavir’, ‘Sarilumab’, and ‘Tocilizumab’, available for the public to read for free were determined.

In this study, there was a lack of full access to research articles related to potential drugs of COVID-19 in commercial academic databases, except for ‘Remdesivir’ and ‘Favipiravir’ from NEJM.

URL : Availability of research articles for the public during pandemic – a case study

DOI : http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10340