Archives des mots-clés : scientific communication

Science through Wikipedia: A novel representation of open knowledge through co-citation networks

Posté le par

Authors : Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado, Daniel Torres-Salinas, Enrique Herrera-Viedma, Esteban Romero-Frías

This study provides an overview of science from the Wikipedia perspective. A methodology has been established for the analysis of how Wikipedia editors regard science through their references to scientific papers.

The method of co-citation has been adapted to this context in order to generate Pathfinder networks (PFNET) that highlight the most relevant scientific journals and categories, and their interactions in order to find out how scientific literature is consumed through this open encyclopaedia.

In addition to this, their obsolescence has been studied through Price index. A total of 1 433 457 references available at this http URL have been initially taken into account. After pre-processing and linking them to the data from Elsevier’s CiteScore Metrics the sample was reduced to 847 512 references made by 193 802 Wikipedia articles to 598 746 scientific articles belonging to 14 149 journals indexed in Scopus.

As highlighted results we found a significative presence of “Medicine” and “Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology” papers and that the most important journals are multidisciplinary in nature, suggesting also that high-impact factor journals were more likely to be cited. Furthermore, only 13.44% of Wikipedia citations are to Open Access journals.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.04347

Semantic publishing, la sémantique dans la sémiotique des codes sources d’écrits d’écran scientifiques

Posté le par

Auteur/Author : Gérald Kembellec

Cet article analyse les enjeux du semantic publishing en contexte scientifique et examine sous un axe sémiotique les codes sources qui en sont le vecteur de propagation.

Sont présentés et discutés les différents signes passeurs qui rendent possible le maillage de l’écriture fragmentaire en réseau : le RDFa, les microdonnées et le JSON-LD par exemple. Leurs usages sont ici analysés et mis en relation avec les besoins et objectifs des chercheurs, qu’ils soient auteurs ou lecteurs.

Enfin, le futur du semantic publishing scientifique est anticipé de manière critique et des points de vigilance sont évoqués tant sur la gouvernance des autorités et des schémas qui étayent le linked data que sur les tentations d’user et d’abuser des bénéfices communicationnels annexes entre médiation et médiatisation.

URL : https://lesenjeux.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/2019/dossier/04-semantic-publishing-la-semantique-dans-la-semiotique-des-codes-sources-decrits-decran-scientifiques

The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists

Posté le par

Authors : Jordan D. Dworkin, Kristin A. Linn, Erin G. Teich, Perry Zurn, Russell T. Shinohara, Danielle S. Bassett

Like many scientific disciplines, neuroscience has increasingly attempted to confront pervasive gender imbalances within the field. While much of the conversation has centered around publishing and conference participation, recent research in other fields has called attention to the prevalence of gender bias in citation practices.

Because of the downstream effects that citations can have on visibility and career advancement, understanding and eliminating gender bias in citation practices is vital for addressing inequity in a scientific community. In this study, we sought to determine whether there is evidence of gender bias in the citation practices of neuroscientists.

Utilizing data from five top neuroscience journals, we indeed find that reference lists tend to include more papers with men as first and last author than would be expected if gender was not a factor in referencing. Importantly, we show that this overcitation of men and undercitation of women is driven largely by the citation practices of men, and is increasing with time despite greater diversity in the academy.

We develop a co-authorship network to determine the degree to which homophily in researchers’ social networks explains gendered citation practices and we find that men tend to overcite other men even when their social networks are representative of the field.

We discuss possible mechanisms and consider how individual researchers might incorporate these findings into their own referencing practices.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.03.894378

Change in Format, Register and Narration Style in the Biomedical Literature: A 1948 Example

Posté le par

Authors : Carlo Galli, Stefano Guizzardi

Scientific communication has evolved over time and the formats of scientific writing, including its stylistic modules, have changed accordingly.

Research articles from the past fit a research world that had not been taken over by the internet, electronic searches, the new media and even the science mass production of today and reflect a reality where scientific publications were designed to be read and appreciated by actual readers.

It is therefore useful to have a look back to what science looked like in the past and examine the biomedical literature from older archives because several features of those publications may actually harbor vital insights for today’s communication.

Maintaining a vivid awareness of the evolution of science language and modalities of communication may ensure a better and steadfast progression and ameliorate academic writing in the years to come.

With this goal in mind, the present commentary set out to review a 1948 scientific report by I.L. Bennett Jr, entitled “A study on the relationship between the fevers caused by bacterial pyrogens and by the intravenous injection of the sterile exudates of acute inflammation”, which appeared in the Journal of Experimental Medicine in September 1948.

URL : Change in Format, Register and Narration Style in the Biomedical Literature: A 1948 Example

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8010010

Envisioning the scientific paper of the future

Posté le par

Authors : Natalie M. Sopinka, Laura E. Coristine, Maria C. DeRosa, Chelsea M. Rochman, Brian L. Owens, Steven J. Cooke

Consider for a moment the rate of advancement in the scientific understanding of DNA. It is formidable; from Fredrich Miescher’s nuclein extraction in the 1860s to Rosalind Franklin’s double helix X-ray in the 1950s to revolutionary next-generation sequencing in the late 2000s.

Now consider the scientific paper, the medium used to describe and publish these advances. How is the scientific paper advancing to meet the needs of those who generate and use scientific information?

We review four essential qualities for the scientific paper of the future: (i) a robust source of trustworthy information that remains peer reviewed and is (ii) communicated to diverse users in diverse ways, (iii) open access, and (iv) has a measurable impact beyond Impact Factor.

Since its inception, scientific literature has proliferated. We discuss the continuation and expansion of practices already in place including: freely accessible data and analytical code, living research and reviews, changes to peer review to improve representation of under-represented groups, plain language summaries, preprint servers, evidence-informed decision-making, and altmetrics.

URL : Envisioning the scientific paper of the future

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2019-0012

Megajournal mismanagement: Manuscript decision bias and anomalous editor activity at PLOS ONE

Posté le par

Author : Alexander M. Petersen

Since their emergence just a decade ago, nearly 2% of scientific research is now published by megajournals, representing a major industrial shift in the production of knowledge. Such high-throughput production stresses several aspects of the publication process, including the editorial oversight of peer-review.

As the largest megajournal, PLOS ONE has relied on a single-tier editorial board comprised of ∼7000 active academics, who thereby face conflicts of interest relating to their dual roles as both producers and gatekeepers of peer-reviewed literature.

While such conflicts of interest are also a factor for editorial boards of smaller journals, little is known about how the scalability of megajournals may introduce perverse incentives for editorial service.

To address this issue, we analyzed the activity of PLOS ONE editors over the journal’s inaugural decade (2006–2015) and find highly variable activity levels. We then leverage this variation to model how editorial bias in the manuscript decision process relates to two editor-specific factors: repeated editor-author interactions and shifts in the rates of citations directed at editors – a form of citation remuneration that is analogue to self-citation.

Our results indicate significantly stronger manuscript bias among a relatively small number of extremely active editors, who also feature relatively high self-citation rates coincident in the manuscripts they handle.

These anomalous activity patterns are consistent with the perverse incentives and the temptations they offer at scale, which is theoretically grounded in the “slippery-slope” evolution of apathy and misconduct in power-driven environments.

By applying quantitative evaluation to the gatekeepers of scientific knowledge, we shed light on various ethics issues crucial to science policy – in particular, calling for more transparent and structured management of editor activity in megajournals that rely on active academics.

URL : Megajournal mismanagement: Manuscript decision bias and anomalous editor activity at PLOS ONE

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.100974

Economie et organisation éditoriale des plateformes et des agrégateurs de revues scientifiques françaises : Analyse comparative de huit plateformes étrangères de diffusion de revues scientifiques

Posté le par

Effectuée pour le compte du Comité de suivi de l’édition scientifique (CSES), cette étude présente une analyse comparative de huit plateformes étrangères avec deux objectifs : décrire leurs principales caractéristiques et enrichir l’étude des plateformes et agrégateurs de revues scientifiques françaises par une analyse du potentiel concurrentiel et des complémentarités de ces plateformes et agrégateurs étrangers.

Le panel est composé de huit plateformes, trois acteurs commerciaux (EBSCO, ProQuest, Cambridge University Press) et cinq acteurs publics ou à but non lucratif (JSTOR, Project MUSE, Érudit, SciELO, Open Library of Humanities).

L’étude présente pour chaque plateforme le modèle d’affaires, les services et fonctionnalités, le positionnement par rapport à l’Open Access, les perspectives de développement et la part des contenus français.

Elle décrit également les trajectoires, particularités et futurs développements de plusieurs plateformes dont notamment Project MUSE, JSTOR et Érudit, et s’intéresse à des aspects fonctionnels et techniques intéressants comme le TDM et l’intelligence artificielle.

Toutes ces plateformes ont en commun qu’elles diffusent des revues scientifiques en ligne, avec des technologies du web, suivant le modèle d’affaires biface (avec deux clientèles différentes, éditeurs de revues et lecteurs), et qu’elles proposent des services aux éditeurs (producteurs de contenus) aussi bien qu’aux institutions, bibliothèques et particuliers (consommateurs d’informations scientifiques et techniques).

Cependant, l’étude révèle une grande diversité de modèles économiques (chiffre d’affaires, part des ventes et des subventions, reversement aux éditeurs, open access) et propose une comparaison entre ces plateformes étrangères et le panel français, en soulignant notamment la proximité entre CAIRN, JSTOR et Project MUSE.

L’intérêt pour une revue française d’établir un partenariat avec l’une des plateformes internationales est surtout lié à la diffusion par un agrégateur commercial avec une clientèle internationale et anglophone, mais ouvert à des revues non anglophones.

Ces plateformes représentent une opportunité complémentaire plutôt qu’une alternative à leurs propres moyens de diffusion. L’étude ajoute quelques éléments d’information pour évaluer l’impact de ces plateformes sur le marché français.

Être en mesure de créer des conditions (techniques, financières, organisationnelles) favorables à l’innovation, est peut-être l’un des critères qui fera la différence entre les plateformes dans les cinq à dix ans à venir.

Mais également, la capacité de garantir une conservation (et un accès) à long terme, le degré de standardisation des systèmes et formats, et l’intégration dans les communautés et institutions scientifiques, y compris dans des projets de recherche.

URL : Economie et organisation éditoriale des plateformes et des agrégateurs de revues scientifiques françaises : Analyse comparative de huit plateformes étrangères de diffusion de revues scientifiques

Original location : https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid149053/analyse-comparative-de-huit-plateformes-etrangeres-de-diffusion-de-revues-scientifiques.html