Veille dédiée aux Sciences de l'Information et des Bibliothèques // Collecting and Sharing research papers in Library and Information science ISSN 2429-3938
Auteurs/Authors : Françoise Rousseau-Hans, Christine Ollendorff, Vincent Harnais
Le consortium Couperin publie les résultats de son enquête sur les pratiques de publication et d’accès ouvert des chercheurs français, réalisée dans le cadre du « Plan national de la science ouverte » annoncé par la Ministre de l’Enseignement Supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation en juillet 2018. Ce document est le rapport complet de l’étude.
Authors : Carmen López-Vergara, Pilar Flores Asenjo, Alfonso Rosa-García
Technological development has transformed academic publication over the past two decades and new publication models, especially Open Access, have captured an important part of the publishing market, traditionally dominated by the Subscription publication model.
Although Health Sciences have been one of the leading fields promoting Open Access, the perspectives of Health Science researchers on the benefits and possibilities of Open Access remain an open question.
The present study sought to unveil the perspective of researchers on scientific publication decisions, in terms of the Subscription and Open Access publication model, Gold Road.
With this aim, we surveyed Spanish researchers in Health Sciences. Our findings show that the value of publishing in Open Access journals increases as the experience of the researcher increases and the less she/he values the impact factor.
Moreover, visibility and dissemination of the results are the main determinants of publication when choosing an Open Access journal as the first option. According to the response of the researchers, the reduction of fees and the increase in financing are important economic incentive measures to promote the Open Access publication model. It is widely accepted that the volume of Open Access publications will increase in the future.
URL : Incentives to Open Access: Perspectives of Health Science Researchers
Auteur/Authors : Philippe Amiel, Francesca Frontini, Pierre-Yves Lacour, Agnès Robin
L’article présente les résultats d’une enquête exploratoire, menée en juin 2018 par le programme de recherche CommonData, dans le bassin montpelliérain à propos des pratiques de gestion des données de la recherche scientifique par les chercheurs.
Les principaux objectifs étaient de voir si cette gestion est ou non le fruit d’une organisation pensée et raisonnée, de vérifier la capacité ou l’incapacité dans laquelle se trouvent les chercheurs pour qualifier juridiquement les données explorées, collectées ou produites – qualification rendue nécessaire par la mise en œuvre de la politique actuelle d’ouverture de la science – et enfin, d’observer la réalité du sentiment de propriété développé par les chercheurs à l’égard des données qu’ils produisent, posant la question plus générale de la dimension personnelle et/ou institutionnelle du travail de recherche et de ses conséquences sur l’attribution de la propriété.
Authors : Stephanie M. Swanberg, Joanna Thielen, Nancy Bulgarelli
Objective
The purpose of predatory open access (OA) journals is primarily to make a profit rather than to disseminate quality, peer-reviewed research.
Publishing in these journals could negatively impact faculty reputation, promotion, and tenure, yet many still choose to do so. Therefore, the authors investigated faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory OA journals.
Methods
A twenty-item questionnaire containing both quantitative and qualitative items was developed and piloted. All university and medical school faculty were invited to participate.
The survey included knowledge questions that assessed respondents’ ability to identify predatory OA journals and attitudinal questions about such journals. Chi-square tests were used to detect differences between university and medical faculty.
Results
A total of 183 faculty completed the survey: 63% were university and 37% were medical faculty. Nearly one-quarter (23%) had not previously heard of the term “predatory OA journal.”
Most (87%) reported feeling very confident or confident in their ability to assess journal quality, but only 60% correctly identified a journal as predatory, when given a journal in their field to assess.
Chi-square tests revealed that university faculty were more likely to correctly identify a predatory OA journal (p=0.0006) and have higher self-reported confidence in assessing journal quality, compared with medical faculty (p=0.0391).
Conclusions
Survey results show that faculty recognize predatory OA journals as a problem. These attitudes plus the knowledge gaps identified in this study will be used to develop targeted educational interventions for faculty in all disciplines at our university.
URL : Faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory open access journals: a needs assessment study
Original location : http://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/849
Authors : Vanessa de Arruda Jorge, Sarita Albagli
Introduction
In a public health emergency, sharing of research data is acknowledged as essential to manage treatment and control of the disease. The objective of this study was to examine how researchers reacted during the Zika virus emergency in Brazil.
Method
A literature review examined both unpublished reports and the published literature. Interviews were conducted with eleven researchers (from a sample of sixteen) in the Renezika network. Questions concerned sources of data used for research on the Zika virus, where this data was obtained, and what requirements by funding agencies influenced how data generated was shared – and how open the degree of sharing was.
Analysis
A content analysis matrix was developed based on the results of the interviews. The data were organised acording to categories, subcategories, records units and frequency of records units.
Results
Researchers stressed the importance of access to issue samples as well as pure research data. Collaboration – and publication – increased but also depended on trust in existing networks. Researchers were aware that many agencies and publishers required the deposit of research data in repositories – and several options existed for Zika research.
Conclusions
The findings show that research data were shared, but not necessarily as open data. Trust was necessary between researchers, and researchers in developing countries needed to be assured about their rights and ownership of data, and publications using that data.
Authors : Meredith T. Niles, Lesley A. Schimanski, Erin C. McKiernan, Juan Pablo Alperin
Using an online survey of academics at 55 randomly selected institutions across the US and Canada, we explore priorities for publishing decisions and their perceived importance within review, promotion, and tenure (RPT).
We find that respondents most value journal readership, while they believe their peers most value prestige and related metrics such as impact factor when submitting their work for publication.
Respondents indicated that total number of publications, number of publications per year, and journal name recognition were the most valued factors in RPT.
Older and tenured respondents (most likely to serve on RPT committees) were less likely to value journal prestige and metrics for publishing, while untenured respondents were more likely to value these factors.
These results suggest disconnects between what academics value versus what they think their peers value, and between the importance of journal prestige and metrics for tenured versus untenured faculty in publishing and RPT perceptions.
Authors : Michael Cary, Taylor Rockwell
Does the rise of open access journals change the way researchers collaborate? Specifically, since publishing in open access journals requires a publication fee, does income affect how researchers form international collaborations?
To answer this question, we create a new data set by scraping bibliographic data from Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) journals. Using the four income group classifications from the World Bank Analytical Classifications, we find that researchers from low-income nations are more likely to form international collaborations than researchers from wealthier nations.
This result is verified to be significant using a series of pairwise Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests. We then study which nations most frequently form international collaborations with other nations and find that the USA, China, Germany, and France are the most preferred nations for forming international collaborations.
While most nations prefer to form international collaborations with high-income nations, some exceptions exist, where a nation most often forms international collaborations with a nearby nation that is either an upper-middle-income or lower-middle-income nation.
We further this analysis by showing that these results are apparent across the six different research categories established in the Frascati Manual. Finally, trends in publications in MDPI journals mirror trends seen in all journals, such as the continued increase in the percentage of published papers involving international collaboration.