Entrepôts de données de recherche : mesurer l’impact de l’Open Science à l’aune de la consultation des jeux de données déposés

Auteur/Author  : Violaine Rebouillat

Les décennies 2000 et 2010 ont vu se développer un nombre croissant de e-infrastructures de recherche, rendant plus aisés le partage et l’accès aux données scientifiques. Cette tendance s’est vue renforcée par l’essor de politiques d’ouverture des données, lesquelles ont donné lieu à une multiplication de réservoirs de données – aussi appelés « entrepôts de données ». Quantifier et qualifier l’utilisation des données rendues publiques constitue un élément essentiel pour évaluer l’impact des politiques d’ouverture des données.

Dans cet article, nous questionnons l’utilisation des données déposées dans les entrepôts. Dans quelle mesure ces données sont-elles consultées et téléchargées ?

L’article présente les premiers résultats d’une enquête quantitative auprès de 20 entrepôts. Il esquisse deux tendances, qui restent à ce stade propres à l’échantillon étudié, à savoir : (1) l’augmentation globale du nombre de consultations, de téléchargements et de données disponibles dans les entrepôts sur la période étudiée (2015-2020), et (2) la concentration des téléchargements sur une proportion relativement faible des données de l’entrepôt (de l’ordre de 10% à 30%).

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02928817/

Do researchers use open research data? Exploring the relationships between usage trends and metadata quality across scientific disciplines from the Figshare case

Authors : Alfonso Quarati, Juliana E Raffaghelli

Open research data (ORD) have been considered a driver of scientific transparency. However, data friction, as the phenomenon of data underutilisation for several causes, has also been pointed out.

A factor often called into question for ORD low usage is the quality of the ORD and associated metadata. This work aims to illustrate the use of ORD, published by the Figshare scientific repository, concerning their scientific discipline, their type and compared with the quality of their metadata.

Considering all the Figshare resources and carrying out a programmatic quality assessment of their metadata, our analysis highlighted two aspects. First, irrespective of the scientific domain considered, most ORD are under-used, but with exceptional cases which concentrate most researchers’ attention.

Second, there was no evidence that the use of ORD is associated with good metadata publishing practices. These two findings opened to a reflection about the potential causes of such data friction.

URL : Do researchers use open research data? Exploring the relationships between usage trends and metadata quality across scientific disciplines from the Figshare case

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520961048

What drives and inhibits researchers to share and use open research data? A systematic literature review to analyze factors influencing open research data adoption

Authors : Anneke Zuiderwijk, Rhythima Shinde, Wei Jeng

Both sharing and using open research data have the revolutionary potentials for forwarding scientific advancement. Although previous research gives insight into researchers’ drivers and inhibitors for sharing and using open research data, both these drivers and inhibitors have not yet been integrated via a thematic analysis and a theoretical argument is lacking.

This study’s purpose is to systematically review the literature on individual researchers’ drivers and inhibitors for sharing and using open research data. This study systematically analyzed 32 open data studies (published between 2004 and 2019 inclusively) and elicited drivers plus inhibitors for both open research data sharing and use in eleven categories total that are: ‘the researcher’s background’, ‘requirements and formal obligations’, ‘personal drivers and intrinsic motivations’, ‘facilitating conditions’, ‘trust’, ‘expected performance’, ‘social influence and affiliation’, ‘effort’, ‘the researcher’s experience and skills’, ‘legislation and regulation’, and ‘data characteristics.’

This study extensively discusses these categories, along with argues how such categories and factors are connected using a thematic analysis. Also, this study discusses several opportunities for altogether applying, extending, using, and testing theories in open research data studies.

With such discussions, an overview of identified categories and factors can be further applied to examine both researchers’ drivers and inhibitors in different research disciplines, such as those with low rates of data sharing and use versus disciplines with high rates of data sharing plus use. What’s more, this study serves as a first vital step towards developing effective incentives for both open data sharing and use behavior.

URL : What drives and inhibits researchers to share and use open research data? A systematic literature review to analyze factors influencing open research data adoption

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239283

Publication strategies under the Publish or Perish Paradigm – using Kolb’s ELT to understand PhD students’ needs

Authors : Charlotte Nordahl Wien, Bertil F. Dorch, Lone Bredahl, Mette Brandt Eriksen

Having a viable publication strategy at an early stage of the career can nowadays make a researcher. Not having one appears to break them. We as librarians are in a unique position to guide them in their endeavours to create a viable publication strategy.

In this paper we use Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory as our theoretical framework for understanding learning processes related to the development of a publication strategy.

We compare a set of publication strategies developed by newly enrolled PhD students 4 to 5 years ago to articles retrieved from PubMed and Scopus using the PhD students’ ORCID as identifier. We subdivide the publication strategies into three categories (fulfilled, partially fulfilled, abandoned).

We find evidence that the more realistic the publication plan is, the more likely it is to be followed.

This indicates that it is of importance that PhD schools support students’ efforts in developing their publication strategy at an early stage of their career.

URL : Publication strategies under the Publish or Perish Paradigm – using Kolb’s ELT to understand PhD students’ needs

DOI : http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10349

Open Access Perceptions, Strategies, and Digital Literacies: A Case Study of a Scholarly-Led Journal

Authors : Noella Edelmann, Judith Schoßböck

Open access (OA) publications play an important role for academia, policy-makers, and practitioners. Universities and research institutions set up OA policies and provide authors different types of support for engaging in OA activities. This paper presents a case study on OA publishing in a scholarly community, drawing on qualitative and quantitative data gained from workshops and a survey.

As the authors are the managing editors of the OA eJournal for eDemocracy and Open Government (JeDEM), the aim was to collect data and insights on the publication choices of authors interested in OA publishing and other crucial factors such as personal attitudes to publishing, institutional context, and digital literacy in order to improve the journal.

In the first phase, two workshops with different stakeholders were held at the Conference for e-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM) held in Austria and in South Korea in 2016. In the second phase, an online survey was sent to all the users of the e-journal JeDEM in October 2019.

From the workshops, key differences regarding OA perception and strategies between the stakeholder groups were derived. Participants strongly perceived OA publishing as a highly individualist matter embedded within a publishing culture emphasizing reputation and rankings.

The survey results, however, showed that institutional support differs considerably for authors. Factors such as visibility, reputation, and impact play the biggest role for the motivation to publish OA.

The results from both inquiries provide a better understanding of OA publishing attitudes and the relevant digital literacies but also suggest the need to investigate further the enablers or difficulties of scholarship, particularly in a digital context.

They clearly point to the potential of regularly addressing the users of the journal as well as communicating with them the more nuanced aspects of OA publishing, non-traditional metrics, or respective digital literacies, in order to reduce misconceptions about OA and to support critical stances.

URL : Open Access Perceptions, Strategies, and Digital Literacies: A Case Study of a Scholarly-Led Journal

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8030044

Brazilian Publication Profiles: Where and How Brazilian authors publish

Authors : Concepta M. Mcmanus, Abilio A. Baeta Neves, Andrea Q. Maranhão

Publishing profiles can help institutions and financing agencies understand the different needs of knowledge areas and regions for development within a country. Incites ® (Web of Science) was used to see where Brazilian authors were publishing, the impact, and the cost of this publishing.

The USA was the country of choice for publishing journals, along with Brazil, England, and the Netherlands. While Brazilian authors continue to publish in hybrid journals, they are more often opting for closed access, with 89% of the papers published in Brazil being open access, compared with 21% of papers published abroad.

The correlation between the cost of publishing and the number of citations was positive and significant. Publishing patterns were different depending on the area of knowledge and the Brazilian region.

Stagnation or reduction in publications with international collaboration, industry collaboration, or in high impact open access journals may be the cause of a reduction in citation impact.

These data can help in elaborating public and institutional policies for financing publications in Brazil, especially when looking at unfavourable changes in currency exchange rates.

URL : Brazilian Publication Profiles: Where and How Brazilian authors publish

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202020200328

Researcher’s Perceptions on Publishing “Negative” Results and Open Access

Authors : Lucía Echevarría, Alberto Malerba, Virginia Arechavala-Gomeza

Scientific advance is based on reproducibility, corroboration, and availability of research results. However, large numbers of experimental results that contradict previous work do not get published and many research results are not freely available as they are hidden behind paywalls.

As part of COST Action “DARTER”, a network of researchers in the field of RNA therapeutics, we have performed a small survey among our members and their colleagues to assess their opinion on the subject of publishing contradictory or ambiguous results and their attitude to open access (OA) publishing.

Our survey indicates that, although researchers highly value publication of “negative” results, they often do not publish their own, citing lack of time and the perception that those results may not be as highly cited. OA, on the other hand, seems to be widely accepted, but in many cases not actively sought by researchers due to higher costs associated with it.

URL : Researcher’s Perceptions on Publishing “Negative” Results and Open Access

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1089/nat.2020.0865