Étiquette : scientific communication

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

Catégories
EN

COVID‐19 and the generation of novel scientific knowledge: Evidence‐based decisions and data sharing

Authors : Lucie Perillat, Brian S. Baigrie

Rationale, aims and objectives

The COVID‐19 pandemic has impacted every facet of society, including medical research. This paper is the second part of a series of articles that explore the intricate relationship between the different challenges that have hindered biomedical research and the generation of novel scientific knowledge during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

In the first part of this series, we demonstrated that, in the context of COVID‐19, the scientific community has been faced with numerous challenges with respect to (1) finding and prioritizing relevant research questions and (2) choosing study designs that are appropriate for a time of emergency.

Methods

During the early stages of the pandemic, research conducted on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) sparked several heated debates with respect to the scientific methods used and the quality of knowledge generated.

Research on HCQ is used as a case study in both papers. The authors explored biomedical databases, peer‐reviewed journals, pre‐print servers and media articles to identify relevant literature on HCQ and COVID‐19, and examined philosophical perspectives on medical research in the context of this pandemic and previous global health challenges.

Results

This second paper demonstrates that a lack of research prioritization and methodological rigour resulted in the generation of fleeting and inconsistent evidence that complicated the development of public health guidelines.

The reporting of scientific findings to the scientific community and general public highlighted the difficulty of finding a balance between accuracy and speed.

Conclusions

The COVID‐19 pandemic presented challenges in terms of (3) evaluating evidence for the purpose of making evidence‐based decisions and (4) sharing scientific findings with the rest of the scientific community.

This second paper demonstrates that the four challenges outlined in the first and second papers have often compounded each other and have contributed to slowing down the creation of novel scientific knowledge during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13548

Catégories
EN

Implementing the Global University Publications Licence: a new open scholarship model for advocating change

Authors : Jiafeng Zhou, Ke Wu, Neil Smyth

Universities want a voluntary, non-exclusive licence from authors to disseminate publications. This practitioner case study explores an innovative model to communicate and advance open and equitable scholarship through the implementation of the Global University Publications Licence at the University of Nottingham Ningbo China.

This article explains the licensing policy and key influences, including, the copyright law of the People’s Republic of China and the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).

The University approved the Global University Publications Licence, with implementation from 1 August 2019. It is available in Chinese and English. Since implementation, the University has retained rights for 74% of research publications submitted. 100% of those publications are available through the University with a CC-BY licence and zero embargo.

The open scholarship model provides an equitable approach to versions and citation. The article concludes by suggesting university libraries can exploit copyright law in China to progress open scholarship strategies, including recognition of employers as authors of works, a priority right to the exploitation of works and an embargo protection of two years after the completion of the work.

The author’s final version of publications can be open, discoverable, cited and preserved through trusted universities with global reputations for high-quality research.

URL : Implementing the Global University Publications Licence: a new open scholarship model for advocating change

DOI : http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.531