Étiquette : scientific practices

Catégories
EN

Evaluation of Faculty Knowledge of Predatory Journals in the United States: A Cross-Institutional Survey

Authors : Nicole R. Webber, Stephanie Wiegand, Jason A. Cohen, John M. Reynolds, Lisa Ancelet, Arlene V. Salazar

Predatory journals are a known hazard in modern academic research publishing, with research and anecdotal accounts indicating that they exploit inexperienced researchers. Most literature on the topic centres on specific disciplines and/or countries deemed ‘more vulnerable’ to publishing scams.

At the time of publication, no studies have examined a full range of disciplines at institutions across the United States. Our research collected responses from 1098 faculty at 17 US doctoral universities using a multi-disciplinary survey to assess self-reported knowledge and awareness of predatory publishing.

In this analysis, we investigated participants’ reported knowledge levels of predatory journals in relation to four aspects: academic discipline, years employed in academic research, number of articles published, and early career researcher status.

We conclude that the relationship between experience and knowledge of predatory publishing depends on the definition of experience employed, and that the number of recent articles published by a faculty member is a more reliable indicator of knowledge about predatory publishing than the other measures of experience investigated.

URL : Evaluation of Faculty Knowledge of Predatory Journals in the United States: A Cross-Institutional Survey

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2020

 

Catégories
EN

Scholarly Publications: Criteria, Types, and Recognition From the Researchers’ Perspective

Authors : Christian Kaier, Lisa Schilhan, Lisa Schilhan, Hilmar Brohmer

Based on a survey, this study investigates the perceptions of researchers in Austria concerning scholarly publications, exploring criteria, types, and emerging types of publication and their future recognition. The findings reveal that researchers value a diverse set of criteria, with content-related factors prioritised over formal ones. While traditional publication types remain dominant, novel forms, such as data publications and replication studies, are gaining recognition.

Researchers (n = 616) express a desire for broader recognition of diverse types of work, particularly data publications, teaching materials, and software or code. The findings also exhibit the predominantly research-to-research focus of scholarly communication, with limited emphasis on science-to-public engagement. An analysis of career stages shows that pre-doctoral and post-doctoral researchers tend to be more open-minded than professors regarding the future recognition of some novel types of publication.

There are evident differences between disciplines, highlighting the need for a nuanced, subject-specific approach to evaluation and documentation. Overall, the survey results call for greater consideration of novel publication types in research assessment and documentation. Accordingly, libraries should enhance their research support services to assist in the publication, documentation, and archiving of additional types of publication.

URL : Scholarly Publications: Criteria, Types, and Recognition From the Researchers’ Perspective

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2019

Catégories
EN

Worth the Cost? Researchers’ Use and Experience With Commercial Services for Research Outreach

Author : Hamid R. Jamali

Introduction

Research outreach activities aim to communicate specific research findings to non-specialist audiences. In recent years, commercial outreach services have emerged that offer fee-based assistance in transforming research findings into accessible reader-friendly content, including multimedia content, and promotional material aimed at broader audiences.

They may also publish the content on their own platforms, such as magazines or websites, to further enhance research visibility and dissemination. The experiences associated with these services are poorly understood. This study examined the motivation for use, challenges, and perceived value of commercial services for research outreach among researchers.

Methods

An online questionnaire surveyed researchers who had published with two commercial services, ResearchOutreach.org or ResearchFeatures.com, between January 2022 and February 2024, yielding 104 responses (20% response rate).

Results

Most respondents used commercial services to increase their research visibility and reach a broader audience. Factors influencing researchers’ decision to use commercial services included convenience, professionalism, broad audience access, and insufficient university outreach support.Most respondents (91.5%) were satisfied with the representation of their research, and about half faced no challenges.

One-third said they would recommend the service; however, issues like content quality, time consumption, and high costs were noted. Interestingly, a third of the participants paid personally, and around 67% reported no significant impact from the publication on their work.

Discussion

While commercial outreach services can enhance research visibility, their cost-effectiveness and impact vary. A significant portion of researchers reported little to no tangible benefits from these services, which raises concerns about their cost-effectiveness and the accuracy of marketing claims.

Conclusion

This study reveals a mix of positive and negative experiences with commercial outreach services, which highlights that their usefulness depends on individual circumstances and expectations. Concerns around cost and effectiveness persist. More transparent evaluations are needed. Collaboration between institutions and service providers might help support effective research dissemination and ensure equitable access to outreach resources.

URL : Worth the Cost? Researchers’ Use and Experience With Commercial Services for Research Outreach

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18409

Catégories
EN

Open access publishing in an African context: Notable improvements and recurring challenges

Authors : Sodiq Onaolapo, Philips Ayeni, Siphamandla Mncube

Open access publishing has been promoted as a pivotal means of bridging the gap in knowledge access and usage. Despite the growing support for open access publishing globally, little is known about African scholars’ engagement with open access publishing and the barriers limiting their open access publishing practices.

Using a survey research design, data was collected from 241 researchers from selected universities in Africa, such as Nigerian, Kenyan and South African universities. The data was collected using online surveys and analysed using the descriptive statistics of frequency counts and percentages. T

he study reveals that while most of the respondents had published open access articles (78.01%) and had a positive perception of the quality of open access journals (73.45%) and editorial teams, more than half were still limited by article processing charges (58.51%) as they had no funding for their research.

Although African researchers are embracing open access publishing more now than they were historically, barriers such as article processing charges and the prolonged response time from reviewers continue to pose a serious challenge to open access uptake in Africa. This study proposes five recommendations for improving open access uptake in African and Global South countries.

URL : Open access publishing in an African context: Notable improvements and recurring challenges

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352251351113

Catégories
EN

Understanding ORCID adoption among academic researchers

Author : Stephen R. Porter

Just over a decade ago, the ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier) was created to provide a unique digital identifier for researchers around the world. The ORCID has proven essential in identifying individual researchers and their publications, both for bibliometric research analyses and for universities and other organizations tracking the research productivity and impact of their personnel.

Yet widespread adoption of the ORCID by individual researchers has proved elusive, with previous studies finding adoption rates ranging from 3% to 42%. Using a national survey of U.S. academic researchers at 31 research universities, we investigate why some researchers adopt an ORCID and some do not. We found an overall adoption rate of 72%, with adoptions rates ranging between academic disciplines from a low of 17% in the visual and performing arts to a high of 93% in biological and biomedical sciences.

Many academic journals require an ORCID to submit a manuscript, and this is the main reason why researchers adopt an ORCID. The top three reasons for not having an ORCID are not seeing the benefits, being far enough in the academic career to not need it, and working in an academic discipline where it is not needed.

URL : Understanding ORCID adoption among academic researchers

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05300-7

Catégories
EN

Open science in Spain: Influence of personal and contextual factors on deposit patterns

Author :  Daniel de Gracia Palomera

Background

This study investigates factors influencing the deposit of academic publications and research data in open access repositories by Spanish researchers.

Methods

Using survey data from a sample of Spanish academics, the research examines the impact of personal attributes (e.g., gender, age, knowledge of open science) and contextual variables (e.g., academic discipline, institutional type) on deposit behaviours. Quantitative methods, including chi-square tests and regression analysis, reveal significant associations between knowledge of open science and deposit practices.

Results

Researchers familiar with open science principles were more likely to deposit multiple versions of articles and datasets, albeit with varying intensity. Key findings highlight disciplinary and institutional differences: researchers in Life Sciences and Experimental Sciences showed higher engagement with both article and data deposits, whereas Health Sciences lagged. Gender differences were also observed, with male researchers depositing articles and datasets more frequently than their female counterparts, though age showed limited impact. Public institutions exhibited lower data deposit rates despite mandates supporting open access.

Conclusions

The study underscores the need for tailored policies, including awareness campaigns, infrastructure investment, and discipline-specific strategies, to promote equitable and widespread adoption of open science practices. Findings contribute to understanding open science implementation, emphasizing the interplay of individual, institutional, and systemic factors.

URL : Open science in Spain: Influence of personal and contextual factors on deposit patterns

DOI : https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.160207.1

 

Catégories
EN

Research Data in Scientific Publications: A Cross-Field Analysis

Authors : Puyu Yang, Giovanni Colavizza

Data sharing is fundamental to scientific progress, enhancing transparency, reproducibility, and innovation across disciplines. Despite its growing significance, the variability of data-sharing practices across research fields remains insufficiently understood, limiting the development of effective policies and infrastructure.

This study investigates the evolving landscape of data-sharing practices, specifically focusing on the intentions behind data release, reuse, and referencing. Leveraging the PubMed open dataset, we developed a model to identify mentions of datasets in the full-text of publications. Our analysis reveals that data release is the most prevalent sharing mode, particularly in fields such as Commerce, Management, and the Creative Arts.

In contrast, STEM fields, especially the Biological and Agricultural Sciences, show significantly higher rates of data reuse. However, the humanities and social sciences are slower to adopt these practices. Notably, dataset referencing remains low across most disciplines, suggesting that datasets are not yet fully recognized as research outputs.

A temporal analysis highlights an acceleration in data releases after 2012, yet obstacles such as data discoverability and compatibility for reuse persist. Our findings can inform institutional and policy-level efforts to improve data-sharing practices, enhance dataset accessibility, and promote broader adoption of open science principles across research domains.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.01407