Étiquette : scientific communication

Catégories
FR

Quand le discours de savoir se fait technodiscours. Hypertextualité, commentaires et unité textuelle du billet scientifique

Auteur/Author : Ingrid Mayeur

Le présent article propose des pistes pour déterminer par quels moyens le discours scientifique sur blog fait texte. Nous nous intéressons plus spécifiquement à l’enrichissement hypertextuel des énoncés et aux commentaires qui interrogent les contours du billet scientifique comme forme textuelle cohérente.

À partir de l’analyse d’un corpus de 87 billets extraits de la Une d’Hypothèses, plateforme de carnets de recherche en sciences humaines et sociales, nous identifions les fonctions cognitives assurées par ces deux composantes des écrits de blogs scientifiques ainsi que leur incidence sur le jugement de textualité (Adam 2011) susceptible d’être porté sur les billets.

Nous proposons enfin une lecture de l’enrichissement hypertextuel et des commentaires comme gestes discursifs du savoir (Lttr13 2016) jouant un rôle dans les opérations de textualisation des billets scientifiques.

URL : Quand le discours de savoir se fait technodiscours. Hypertextualité, commentaires et unité textuelle du billet scientifique

DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/corela.11876

Catégories
EN

How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing

Authors : Franciszek Krawczyk, Emanuel Kulczycki

The aim of this paper is to investigate how predatory journals are characterized by authors who write about such journals. We emphasize the ways in which predatory journals have been conflated with—or distinguished from—open access journals.

We created a list of relevant publications on predatory publishing using four databases: Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, and Microsoft Academic.

We included 280 English-language publications in the review according to their contributions to the discussions on predatory publishing. Then, we coded and qualitatively analyzed these publications.

The findings show the profound influence of Jeffrey Beall, who composed and maintained himself lists of predatory publishers and journals, on the whole discussion on predatory publishing.

The major themes by which Beall has characterized predatory journals are widely present in non-Beall publications. Moreover, 122 papers we reviewed combined predatory publishing with open access using similar strategies as Beall.

The overgeneralization of the flaws of some open access journals to the entire open access movement has led to unjustified prejudices among the academic community toward open access.

This is the first large-scale study that systematically examines how predatory publishing is defined in the literature.

URL : How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271

Catégories
EN

Software must be recognised as an important output of scholarly research

Authors : Caroline Jay, Robert Haines, Daniel S. Katz

Software now lies at the heart of scholarly research. Here we argue that as well as being important from a methodological perspective, software should, in many instances, be recognised as an output of research, equivalent to an academic paper.

The article discusses the different roles that software may play in research and highlights the relationship between software and research sustainability and reproducibility. It describes the challenges associated with the processes of citing and reviewing software, which differ from those used for papers.

We conclude that whilst software outputs do not necessarily fit comfortably within the current publication model, there is a great deal of positive work underway that is likely to make an impact in addressing this.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.07571

Catégories
EN

Questionable and open research practices: attitudes and perceptions among quantitative communication researchers

Authors : Bert Bakker, Kokil Jaidka, Timothy Dörr, Neil Fasching, Yphtach Lelkes

Recent contributions have questioned the credibility of quantitative communication research. While questionable research practices are believed to be widespread, evidence for this claim is primarily derived from other disciplines.

Before change in communication research can happen, it is important to document the extent to which QRPs are used and whether researchers are open to the changes proposed by the so-called open science agenda.

We conducted a large survey among authors of papers published in the top-20 journals in communication science in the last ten years (N=1039). A non-trivial percent of researchers report using one or more QRPs. While QRPs are generally considered unacceptable, researchers perceive QRPs to be common among their colleagues.

At the same time, we find optimism about the use of open science practices in communication research. We end with a series of recommendations outlining what journals, institutions and researchers can do moving forward.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7uyn5

Catégories
EN

Institutional Repositories for Public Engagement : Creating a Common Good Model for an Engaged Campus

Authors : Erik A. Moore, Valerie M. Collins, Lisa R. Johnston

Most higher-education institutions strive to be publicly engaged and community centered. These institutions leverage faculty, researchers, librarians, community liaisons, and communication specialists to meet this mission, but they have largely underutilized the potential of institutional repositories.

Academic institutions can use institutional repositories to provide open access and long-term preservation to institutional gray literature, research data, university publications, and campus research products that have tangible, real-world applications for the communities they serve.

Using examples from the University of Minnesota, this article demonstrates how making this content discoverable, openly accessible, and preserved for the future through an institutional repository not only increases the value of this publicly-engaged work but also creates a lasting record of a university’s public engagement efforts and contributes to the mission of the institution.

URL : Institutional Repositories for Public Engagement : Creating a Common Good Model for an Engaged Campus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21900/j.jloe.v1i1.472
Catégories
EN

The Enlightenment of Peer Review : How Academic Librarians Can Utilize Open Peer Review Methods to Advance Information Literacy

Author : Sandra Moore

In today’s world of digital scholarly publishing, it is increasingly clear that movements such as open access (OA), Open Science, and open peer review (OPR) are increasingly impactful and gaining momentum.

The shift towards openness in the academy reveals a transformation of traditional structures that compose scholarly communication as well as changing attitudes about the nature of authority and access within these systems.

These new directions in the scholarly information landscape have created a need for academic librarians to realign roles and respond in ways that build resiliency in an era of rapid change.

Recognizing that many core elements of scholarly communication are powerful tools for teaching students about information literacy can lead to transformative instructional strategies.

This paper explores how academic librarians can leverage the innovative traits of OPR to advance information literacy through experiential student learning opportunities grounded in the ACRL (2016) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.

URL : The Enlightenment of Peer Review : How Academic Librarians Can Utilize Open Peer Review Methods to Advance Information Literacy

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5206/elip.v3i1.8618

Catégories
FR

L’effet SIGAPS : La recherche médicale française sous l’emprise de l’évaluation comptable

Auteurs/Authors : Yves Gingras, Mahdi Khelfaoui

Cette recherche a pour but de mettre en évidence les effets pervers générés par l’introduction du système SIGAPS (Système d’interrogation, de gestion, et d’analyse des publications scientifiques) sur la production scientifique française en médecine et en sciences biomédicales.

Cet outil biblio-métrique de gestion et de financement de la recherche présente un exemple emblématique des dé-rives que peuvent générer les méthodes d’évaluation de la recherche reposant sur des critères pu-rement comptables.

Dans cette note, nous présentons d’abord le fonctionnement de SIGAPS, pour ensuite expliquer précisément en quoi les méthodes de calcul des « points SIGAPS », fondés sur les facteurs d’impact des revues et l’ordre des noms des co-auteurs, posent de nombreux problèmes.

Nous identifions notamment les effets du système SIGAPS sur les dynamiques de publications, les choix des lieux de publications, la langue de publication et les critères de recrutement et de promotion des chercheurs.

Finalement, nous montrons que l’utilisation du système SIGAPS ne répond pas bien à tous les critères de ce que l’on pourrait appeler une « éthique de l’évaluation » qui devrait respecter certaines règles, comme la transparence, l’équité et la validité des indicateurs.

URL : https://cirst2.openum.ca/files/sites/179/2020/10/Note_2020-05vf.pdf