Archives des mots-clés : scientific practices

What Do Researchers Need? Feedback On Use of Online Primary Source Materials

Statut

“Cultural heritage institutions are increasingly providing online access to primary source materials for researchers. While the intent is to enable round-the-clock access from any location, few studies have examined the extent to which current web delivery is meeting the needs of users. Careful use of limited resources requires intelligent assessment of researcher needs in comparison to the actual online presentation, including access, retrieval and usage options. In the hopes of impacting future delivery methods and access development, this article describes the results of a qualitative study of 11 humanities faculty researchers at the University of Alabama, who describe and rate the importance of various issues encountered when using 29 participant-selected online databases.”

URL : http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july14/deridder/07deridder.html

The Determinants of Open Access Publishing: Survey Evidence from Countries in the Mediterranean Open Access Network (MedOANet)

Statut

“We discuss the results of a survey conducted between April 2013 and May 2014 in six Mediterranean countries and covering 2,528 researchers from Spain (1,291), Portugal (142), France (380), Italy (596), Turkey (131) and Greece (130). We compare the results to our German survey with 1,913 respondents. We show that there are significant differences between the scientific disciplines with respect to researcher’s awareness of and experience with both open access (OA) journals and self-archiving. Accordingly, the publishing culture (e.g. reputation, publishing language) but also other issues like age and certain policies (MedOANet) may explain why researchers make more frequent use of OA publishing in some countries and disciplines.”

URL : http://ssrn.com/abstract=2457550

Qu’est-ce qu’une archive de chercheur ?

Statut

“Au cours de sa carrière, un chercheur est amené à produire, consulter et conserver différents types de documents. Carnets, agendas, brouillons de toutes formes, livres annotés forment bien souvent la grande partie des fonds d’archives disponibles. La prise en compte et l’étude de ces documents témoignent d’une activité prenante, mais permettent surtout de saisir les évolutions, les tâtonnements et les manières de faire propres à tel ou tel chercheur. En décidant d’explorer certaines pratiques concrètes qui se matérialisent dans les archives, Jean-François Bert met l’accent sur l’aspect ordinaire de l’activité savante afin de comprendre le processus de la recherche, dans sa singularité et souvent sa grande complexité. Cet ouvrage, synthétique et richement documenté, donne les outils essentiels à une meilleure compréhension et à un usage profondément renouvelé des archives de chercheur.”

URL : http://books.openedition.org/oep/438

ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship?

Statut

“ResearchGate is a social network site for academics to create their own profiles, list their publications, and interact with each other. Like Academia.edu, it provides a new way for scholars to disseminate their work and hence potentially changes the dynamics of informal scholarly communication. This article assesses whether ResearchGate usage and publication data broadly reflect existing academic hierarchies and whether individual countries are set to benefit or lose out from the site. The results show that rankings based on ResearchGate statistics correlate moderately well with other rankings of academic institutions, suggesting that ResearchGate use broadly reflects the traditional distribution of academic capital. Moreover, while Brazil, India, and some other countries seem to be disproportionately taking advantage of ResearchGate, academics in China, South Korea, and Russia may be missing opportunities to use ResearchGate to maximize the academic impact of their publications.”

URL : http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~cm1993/papers/ResearchGate.pdf

A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals

Statut

“Aim. To determine the characteristics of megajournal authors, the nature of the manuscripts they are submitting to these journals, factors influencing their decision to publish in a megajournal, sources of funding for article processing charges (APCs) or other fees and their likelihood of submitting to a megajournal in the future.

Methods. Web-based survey of 2,128 authors who recently published in BMJ Open, PeerJ, PLOS ONE or SAGE Open.

Results. The response rate ranged from 26% for BMJ Open to 47% for SAGE Open. The authors were international, largely academics who had recently published in both subscription and Open Access (OA) journals. Across journals about 25% of the articles were preliminary findings and just under half were resubmissions of manuscripts rejected by other journals. Editors from other BMJ journals and perhaps to a lesser extent SAGE and PLOS journals appear to be encouraging authors to submit manuscripts that were rejected by the editor’s journals to a megajournal published by the same publisher. Quality of the journal and speed of the review process were important factors across all four journals. Impact factor was important for PLOS ONE authors but less so for BMJ Open authors, which also has an impact factor. The review criteria and the fact the journal was OA were other significant factors particularly important for PeerJ authors. The reputation of the publisher was an important factor for SAGE Open and BMJ Open. About half of PLOS ONE and around a third of BMJ Open and PeerJ authors used grant funding for publishing charges while only about 10% of SAGE Open used grant funding for publication charges. Around 60% of SAGE Open and 32% of PeerJ authors self-funded their publication fees however the fees are modest for these journals. The majority of authors from all 4 journals were pleased with their experience and indicated they were likely to submit to the same or similar journal in the future.

Conclusions. Megajournals are drawing an international group of authors who tend to be experienced academics. They are choosing to publish in megajournals for a variety of reasons but most seem to value the quality of the journal and the speed of the review/publication process. Having a broad scope was not a key factor for most authors though being OA was important for PeerJ and SAGE Open authors. Most authors appeared pleased with the experience and indicated they are likely to submit future manuscripts to the same or similar megajournal which seems to suggest these journals will continue to grow in popularity.”

URL : A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals
Alternative URL : https://peerj.com/articles/365/

Open Access Journals & Academics’ Behaviour The…

Statut

Open Access Journals & Academics’ Behaviour :

“The rising star of scholarly publishing is Open Access. Even some traditional journals now offer this option on author payment, and many full freely accessible journals are now available to scholars, providing relief to research institutions increasingly unable to afford the escalating subscription rates of serials. However, proper recognition of full Open Access journals by the community remains a major obstacle to overcome if they are to become a viable alternative for scholarly communication. Through a survey, this work investigates economics scholars’ attitudes to OA, and attempts to outline the state of practices and norms governing individuals’ publication choices.”

URL : http://www.icer.it/docs/wp2014/ICERwp03-14.pdf

The role of motivators in improving knowledge sharing…

Statut

The role of motivators in improving knowledge-sharing among academics :

“Introduction. This research addresses a primary issue that involves motivating academics to share knowledge. Adapting the theory of reasoned action, this study examines the role of motivation that consists of intrinsic motivators (commitment; enjoyment in helping others) and extrinsic motivators (reputation; organizational rewards) to determine and explain the behaviour of Malaysian academics in sharing knowledge.

Method. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed using a non-probability sampling technique. A total of 373 completed responses were collected with a total response rate of 38.2%.

Analysis. The partial least squares analysis was used to analyse the data.

Results. The results indicated that all five of the hypotheses were supported. Analysis of data from the five higher learning institutions in Malaysia found that commitment and enjoyment in helping others (i.e., intrinsic motivators) and reputation and organizational rewards (i.e., extrinsic motivators) have a positive and significant relationship with attitude towards knowledge-sharing. In addition, the findings revealed that intrinsic motivators are more influential than extrinsic motivators. This suggests that academics are influenced more by intrinsic motivators than by extrinsic motivators.

Conclusions. The findings provided an indication of the determinants in enhancing knowledge-sharing intention among academics in higher education institutions through extrinsic and intrinsic motivators.”

URL : http://www.informationr.net/ir/19-1/paper606.html