L’avenir de l’édition scientifique en France et la science ouverte : Comment favoriser le dialogue ? Comment organiser la consultation ?

Mérindol, Jean-Yves. L’avenir de l’édition scientifique en France et la science ouverte : Comment favoriser le dialogue ? Comment organiser la consultation ? 24 janvier 2020.  Rapport remis à Frédérique VIDAL Ministre de l’enseignement supérieur, de la recherche et de l’innovation. https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid148896/les-pouvoirs-publics-et-l-edition-scientifique-en-france.html

Depuis un peu plus de trois cents ans, les découvertes scientifiques sont rendues publiques par la publication d’articles dans des revues spécialisées ou via des monographies savantes. Les éditeurs
– en France comme à l’étranger – ont joué ici un rôle historique fondamental.
L’accès au savoir et à la culture s’est considérablement modifié ces trente dernières années sous l’influence cumulée de changements technologiques (numérisation, réseaux, web) et sociaux
(développement mondial de la science).

Source : https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid148896/les-pouvoirs-publics-et-l-edition-scientifique-en-france.html

The Use of Social Networking Sites for Scholarly Communication by Emergent Social Scientists: An Affordances Approach

Manco, Alejandra The Use of Social Networking Sites for Scholarly Communication by Emergent Social Scientists: An Affordances Approach. Young Information Scientist, 2019, vol. 4, pp. 17-30. https://doi.org/10.25365/yis-2019-4-2

Objectives — This study aims to explore how early career social sciences researchers and PhD social science students use social networking sites for science communication in Brazil. The central research question is what are the motives and rationale of the researchers for using social networking sites for academic communication. Two sub-questions arise from here: How do these reasons relate to scientific practices and the academic system of Brazil? And which are the main affordances perceived by researchers? Methods — This study is empirically oriented, building upon case studies in Brazil. It makes use of a review of affordances of social media platforms, applying the review to the study of social media as a theoretical foundation. The methodological approach is qualitative, using both interviews and netnography as research methods. Results — The primary motivations for using different Social Networking Sites (SNSs) are all related to connectivity: communication with peers—and, to a lesser degree, to the public and the research participants, updating themselves about their research interests, dissemination of research, checking availability of papers, self-branding, and participation in interest groups. These motivations translate into cross-posting practices and integrated communication strategies—combining online and offline elements—on the different platforms. The main affordances perceived by researchers in this study were related to social affordances or, in other words, social capital processes: availability, scalability, visibility, and multimediality. Conclusions — SNSs have not yet replaced traditional communication channels in the case of early career social science researchers because the academic evaluation systems do yet not include them. The use of SNSs changes according to the affordances early career social sciences researchers see (or fail to see) for each platform. This study identified observable differences according to a researcher’s field of expertise and level of comfort with particular platforms.

Source : https://doi.org/10.25365/yis-2019-4-2

How Frequently are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited

Björk, Bo-Christer, Sari Kanto-Karvonen, et J. Tuomas Harviainen. « How Frequently are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited ». arXiv:1912.10228 [cs], 21 décembre 2019. http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.10228.
Predatory journals are Open Access journals of highly questionable scientific quality. Such journals pretend to use peer review for quality assurance, and spam academics with requests for submissions, in order to collect author payments. In recent years predatory journals have received a lot of negative media. While much has been said about the harm that such journals cause to academic publishing in general, an overlooked aspect is how much articles in such journals are actually read and in particular cited, that is if they have any significant impact on the research in their fields. Other studies have already demonstrated that only some of the articles in predatory journals contain faulty and directly harmful results, while a lot of the articles present mediocre and poorly reported studies. We studied citation statistics over a five-year period in Google Scholar for 250 random articles published in such journals in 2014, and found an average of 2,6 citations per article and that 60 % of the articles had no citations at all. For comparison a random sample of articles published in the approximately 25,000 peer reviewed journals included in the Scopus index had an average of 18,1 citations in the same period with only 9 % receiving no citations. We conclude that articles published in predatory journals have little scientific impact.

Publishers’ Responsibilities in Promoting Data Quality and Reproducibility

Hrynaszkiewicz I. (2019) Publishers’ Responsibilities in Promoting Data Quality and Reproducibility. In: . Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/164_2019_290

Scholarly publishers can help to increase data quality and reproducible research by promoting transparency and openness. Increasing transparency can be achieved by publishers in six key areas: (1) understanding researchers’ problems and motivations, by conducting and responding to the findings of surveys; (2) raising awareness of issues and encouraging behavioural and cultural change, by introducing consistent journal policies on sharing research data, code and materials; (3) improving the quality and objectivity of the peer-review process by implementing reporting guidelines and checklists and using technology to identify misconduct; (4) improving scholarly communication infrastructure with journals that publish all scientifically sound research, promoting study registration, partnering with data repositories and providing services that improve data sharing and data curation; (5) increasing incentives for practising open research with data journals and software journals and implementing data citation and badges for transparency; and (6) making research communication more open and accessible, with open-access publishing options, permitting text and data mining and sharing publisher data and metadata and through industry and community collaboration. This chapter describes practical approaches being taken by publishers, in these six areas, their progress and effectiveness and the implications for researchers publishing their work.

Source : https://doi.org/10.1007/164_2019_290