Étiquette : scientific communication

Catégories
FR

OAI-PMH à « l’heure du web sémantique » : bilans et perspectives

Auteur/Author : Vincent de Lavenne de la Montoise

À l’approche du vingtième anniversaire du protocole OAI-PMH, et dans un environnement web qui a subi de profondes évolutions (technologiques et d’usages), quelle est l’actualité de l’échange de données ? Comment se sont construits les usages des professionnel le s en la matière ? Sont ils adaptés aux défis actuels ?

Ce travail se propose d’analyser l’exposition et l’échange de données sous un angle historique, avant d’essayer de comprendre les enjeux actuels qui détermineront quelle(s) solution(s) techniques choisir.

URL : OAI-PMH à « l’heure du web sémantique » : bilans et perspectives

Original location : https://www.enssib.fr/bibliotheque-numerique/documents/69909-oai-pmh-a-l-heure-du-web-semantique.pdf

Catégories
EN

Preprints in motion: tracking changes between posting and journal publication

Authors : Jessica K Polka, Gautam Dey, Máté Pálfy, Federico Nanni, Liam Brierley, Nicholas Fraser, Jonathon Alexis Coates

Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, drawing widespread attention from the general public, press and policymakers for the first time.

This phenomenon has sharpened longstanding questions about the reliability of information shared prior to journal peer review. Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record?

We assessed preprints that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal between 1st January and 30th April 2020, representing the initial phase of the pandemic response. We utilised a combination of automatic and manual annotations to quantify how an article changed between the preprinted and published version.

We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 6% of non-COVID-19-related and 15% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not reverse the main message of the paper.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.20.432090

Catégories
EN

Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year

Authors : Mallory K. Ellingson, Xiaoting Shi, Joshua J. Skydel, Kate Nyhan,Richard Lehman, Joseph S. Ross, Joshua D. Wallach

Objective

To estimate the financial costs paid by individual medical researchers from meeting the article processing charges (APCs) levied by open access journals in 2019.

Design

Cross-sectional analysis.

Data sources

Scopus was used to generate two random samples of researchers, the first with a senior author article indexed in the ‘Medicine’ subject area (general researchers) and the second with an article published in the ten highest-impact factor general clinical medicine journals (high-impact researchers) in 2019.

For each researcher, Scopus was used to identify all first and senior author original research or review articles published in 2019. Data were obtained from Scopus, institutional profiles, Journal Citation Reports, publisher databases, the Directory of Open Access Journals, and individual journal websites.

Main outcome measures

Median APCs paid by general and high-impact researchers for all first and senior author research and review articles published in 2019.

Results

There were 241 general and 246 high-impact researchers identified as eligible for our study. In 2019, the general and high-impact researchers published a total of 914 (median 2, IQR 1–5) and 1471 (4, 2–8) first or senior author research or review articles, respectively. 42% (384/914) of the articles from the general researchers and 29% (428/1471) of the articles from the high-impact medical researchers were published in fully open access journals.

The median total APCs paid by general researchers in 2019 was US$191 (US$0–US$2500) and the median total paid by high-impact researchers was US$2900 (US$0–US$5465); the maximum paid by a single researcher in total APCs was US$30115 and US$34676, respectively.

Conclusions

Medical researchers in 2019 were found to have paid between US$0 and US$34676 in total APCs. As journals with APCs become more common, it is important to continue to evaluate the potential cost to researchers, especially on individuals who may not have the funding or institutional resources to cover these costs.

URL : Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047107

Catégories
EN

Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research

Authors : Richard G. Jung, Pietro Di Santo, Cole Clifford, Graeme Prosperi-Porta, Stephanie Skanes, Annie Hung, Simon Parlow, Sarah Visintini, F. Daniel Ramirez, Trevor Simard & Benjamin Hibbert

The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports.

We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis.

Comparative analysis of COVID-19 to historical articles reveals a shorter time to acceptance (13.0[IQR, 5.0–25.0] days vs. 110.0[IQR, 71.0–156.0] days in COVID-19 and control articles, respectively; p < 0.0001).

Furthermore, methodological quality scores are lower in COVID-19 articles across all study designs. COVID-19 clinical studies have a shorter time to publication and have lower methodological quality scores than control studies in the same journal. These studies should be revisited with the emergence of stronger evidence.

URL : Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21220-5

Catégories
EN

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

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

Catégories
EN

Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

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

Catégories
EN

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

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