What a difference a data repository makes: Six ways depositing data maximizes the impact of your science – The Official PLOS Blog

“1. You can’t lose data that’s in a public data repository…

2. Public data repositories support understanding, reanalysis and reuse…

3. Public data repositories facilitate discovery…

4. Public data repositories reflect the true value of data…

5. Public data demonstrates rigor…

6. Research with data in public data repositories attracts more citations…”

 

A Survey of Researchers’ Needs and Priorities for Data Sharing

Abstract:  One of the ways in which the publisher PLOS supports open science is via a stringent data availability policy established in 2014. Despite this policy, and more data sharing policies being introduced by other organizations, best practices for data sharing are adopted by a minority of researchers in their publications. Problems with effective research data sharing persist and these problems have been quantified by previous research as a lack of time, resources, incentives, and/or skills to share data.

In this study we built on this research by investigating the importance of tasks associated with data sharing, and researchers’ satisfaction with their ability to complete these tasks. By investigating these factors we aimed to better understand opportunities for new or improved solutions for sharing data.

In May-June 2020 we surveyed researchers from Europe and North America to rate tasks associated with data sharing on (i) their importance and (ii) their satisfaction with their ability to complete them. We received 617 completed responses. We calculated mean importance and satisfaction scores to highlight potential opportunities for new solutions to and compare different cohorts.

Tasks relating to research impact, funder compliance, and credit had the highest importance scores. 52% of respondents reuse research data but the average satisfaction score for obtaining data for reuse was relatively low. Tasks associated with sharing data were rated somewhat important and respondents were reasonably well satisfied in their ability to accomplish them. Notably, this included tasks associated with best data sharing practice, such as use of data repositories. However, the most common method for sharing data was in fact via supplemental files with articles, which is not considered to be best practice.

We presume that researchers are unlikely to seek new solutions to a problem or task that they are satisfied in their ability to accomplish, even if many do not attempt this task. This implies there are few opportunities for new solutions or tools to meet these researcher needs. Publishers can likely meet these needs for data sharing by working to seamlessly integrate existing solutions that reduce the effort or behaviour change involved in some tasks, and focusing on advocacy and education around the benefits of sharing data.

There may however be opportunities – unmet researcher needs – in relation to better supporting data reuse, which could be met in part by strengthening data sharing policies of journals and publishers, and improving the discoverability of data associated with published articles.

Data sharing policies: share well and you shall be rewarded | Synthetic Biology | Oxford Academic

Abstract:  Sharing research data is an integral part of the scientific publishing process. By sharing data, authors enable their readers to use their results in a way that the textual description of the results does not allow by itself. In order to achieve this objective, data should be shared in a way that makes it as easy as possible for readers to import them in computer software where they can be viewed, manipulated and analyzed. Many authors and reviewers seem to misunderstand the purpose of the data sharing policies developed by journals. Rather than being an administrative burden that authors should comply with to get published, the objective of these policies is to help authors maximize the impact of their work by allowing other members of the scientific community to build upon it. Authors and reviewers need to understand the purpose of data sharing policies to assist editors and publishers in their efforts to ensure that every article published complies with them.

Publication Charges Associated with Quality Open Access (OA) Publishing and Its Impact on Low Middle Income Countries (LMICs), Time to Reframe Research Policies

Abstract:  Dissemination of the scientific literature is as paramount as scientific studies. Scientific publishing has come a long way from localized distribution of few physical copies of journal to widespread and rapid distribution via internet in the 21st century. The evolution of open excess (OA) publishing which has rapidly evolved in last two decades has its heart at the right place with the ultimate goal being timely, and rapid distribution of published scientific work to a wider scientific community around the world and thus ultimately promoting scientific knowledge in global sense. However, quality OA publishing of cancer research involve an average publishing fee of around 1,500 USD which poses a challenge for Low middle income countries (LMICs), where per capita income is low. This has led to deterioration of science in LMICs in the form of publication in Cheap OA predatory journals for sake of securing academic promotions as well as authors ending up paying exorbitant publishing charges out of pocket to get their quality scientific work published. In countries like India and other LMICs, the funding agencies and institution have so far not addressed this problem. Here we assess the framework of open access publishing in LMICs like India and what are the steps which can be taken to facilitate open access publishing in LMICs. 

 

Higher Author Fees in Gastroenterology Journals Are Not Associated with Faster Processing Times or Higher Impact | SpringerLink

Abstract:  Background

Publications are an important component of academic careers.

Aims

We investigated the financial costs to authors for submitting and publishing manuscripts in gastroenterology (GI) journals in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and elsewhere.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study carried out from 11/1/2020 to 12/31/2020. We used the SCImago Journal and Country Rankings site to compile a list of gastroenterology and hepatology journals to analyze. We gathered information on the journals’ Hirsch indices (h indices), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Impact Factor (IF), and base countries as of 2019, processing and publication fees, open access fees, time to first decision, and time from acceptance to publication. We used t-testing and linear regression modeling to evaluate the effect of geography and journal quality metrics on processing fees and times.

Results

We analyzed 97 GI journals, of which 51/97 (52.6%) were based in the US/UK while the other 46/97 (47.4%) were based elsewhere. The mean IF (5.67 vs 3.53, p?=?0.08), h index (90.5 vs 41.8, p?<?0.001), and SJR (1.82 vs 0.83, p?<?0.001) for the US/UK journals were higher than those for non-US/UK journals. We also found that 11/51 (21.6%) of US/UK journals and 15/46 (32.6%) of non-US/UK journals had mandatory processing and publication fees. These tended to be significantly larger in the US/UK group than in the non-US/UK group (USD 2380 vs USD 1470, p?=?0.04).

Conclusions

Publication-related fees may preclude authors from smaller or socioeconomically disadvantaged institutions and countries from publishing and disseminating their work.

Impact of cytopathology authors work: Comparative analysis based on Open-access cytopathology publications non-Open-access conventional publications – CytoJournal

Abstract:  OBJECTIVES:

Open access (OA) is based on a set of principles and a range of practices through which fruits of research are distributed online, free of cost, or other access barriers. According to the 2001 definition, OA publications are without barriers to copy or reuse with free access to readers. Some studies have reported higher rates of citation for OA publications. In this study, we analyzed the citation rates of OA and traditional nonOA (with or without free access) publications for authors publishing in the subspecialty of cytopathology during 2010–2015.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

We observed and compared citation patterns for authors who had published in both OA and traditional non-OA, peer-reviewed, scientific, cytopathology journals. Thirty authors were randomly selected with criteria of publishing a total of at least five cytopathology articles over 2010–2015. Number of citations per article (CPA) (during 2010–2015) for OA publications (in CytoJournal and Journal of Cytology) and non-OA publications (in Diagnostic Cytopathology, Cytopathology, Acta Cytologica, Journal of American of Cytopathology, and Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology) was collected and compared statistically using two-tailed Student’s t-est. The data were collected manually through science citation analysis sites, mostly Google Scholar.

RESULTS:

Thirty authors published 579 cytopathology articles in OA and non-OA journals. Average CPA for OA publications was 26.64. This was 11.35 higher than the average CPA) of non-OA conventional with subscription cytopathology journals (74% increase) and 11.76 higher than the average CPA of conventional cytopathology non-OA journal articles with free access (79% increase). These differences were statistically significantly with P < 0.05.

CONCLUSION:

We observed that the cytopathology publications in the OA journal attained a higher rate of CPA than the publications in the traditional non-OA journals in the field of cytopathology during 2010–2015.

Motivations, concerns and selection biases when posting preprints: a survey of bioRxiv authors | bioRxiv

Abstract:  Since 2013, the usage of preprints as a means of sharing research in biology has rapidly grown, in particular via the preprint server bioRxiv. Recent studies have found that journal articles that were previously posted to bioRxiv received a higher number of citations or mentions/shares on other online platforms compared to articles in the same journals that were not posted. However, the exact causal mechanism for this effect has not been established, and may in part be related to authors’ biases in the selection of articles that are chosen to be posted as preprints. We aimed to investigate this mechanism by conducting a mixed-methods survey of 1,444 authors of bioRxiv preprints, to investigate the reasons that they post or do not post certain articles as preprints, and to make comparisons between articles they choose to post and not post as preprints. We find that authors are most strongly motivated to post preprints to increase awareness of their work and increase the speed of its dissemination; conversely, the strongest reasons for not posting preprints centre around a lack of awareness of preprints and reluctance to publicly post work that has not undergone a peer review process. We additionally find weak evidence that authors preferentially select their highest quality, most novel or most significant research to post as preprints, however, authors retain an expectation that articles they post as preprints will receive more citations or be shared more widely online than articles not posted.

 

Next generation Open Access analytics: A case study – IOS Press

Abstract:  A critical component in the development of sustainable funding models for Open Access (OA) is the ability to communicate impact in ways that are meaningful to a diverse range of internal and external stakeholders, including institutional partners, funders, and authors. While traditional paywall publishers can take advantage of industry standard COUNTER reports to communicate usage to subscribing libraries, no similar standard exists for OA content. Instead, many organizations are stuck with proxy metrics like sessions and page views that struggle to discriminate between robotic access and genuine engagement.

This paper presents the results of an innovative project that builds on existing COUNTER metrics to develop more flexible reporting. Reporting goals include surfacing third party engagement with OA content, the use of graphical report formats to improve accessibility, the ability to assemble custom data dashboards, and configurations that support the variant needs of diverse stakeholders. We’ll be sharing our understanding of who the stakeholders are, their differing needs for analytics, feedback on the reports shared, lessons learned, and areas for future research in this evolving area.

The Relationship Between Open Access Article Publishing and Short-Term Citations in Otolaryngology – David W. Wassef, Gregory L. Barinsky, Sara Behbahani, Sudeep Peddireddy, Jordon G. Grube, Christina H. Fang, Soly Baredes, Jean Anderson Eloy, 2021

Abstract:  Objectives:

The purpose of this study is to compare the number of citations received by open access articles versus subscription access articles in subscription journals in the Otolaryngology literature.

Methods:

Using the Dimensions research database, we examined articles indexed to PubMed with at least 5 citations published in 2018. Articles were included from Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, The Laryngoscope, JAMA Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, and American Journal of Otolaryngology. Multivariate Poisson regression modeling was used to adjust for journal, article type, and topic. Practice guidelines, position statements, or retractions were excluded as potential outliers.

Results:

137 open access articles and 337 subscription access articles meeting inclusion criteria were identified, with a median citation number of 8 (IQR 6-11). The most common article type was original investigation (82.5%), and the most common study topic was head and neck (28.9%). Open access articles had a higher median number of citations at 9 (IQR 6-13) when compared to subscription access articles at 7 (IQR 6-10) (P?=?.032). Open access status was significantly associated with a higher number of citations than subscription access articles when adjusting for journal, article type, and topic (??=?.272, CI 0.194-0.500, P?<?.001).

Conclusions:

Although comprising a minority of articles examined in this study of subscription journals, open access articles were associated with a higher number of citations than subscription access articles. Open access publishing may facilitate the spread of novel findings in Otolaryngology.

Defining Social Impact

“But, what if, as we talk about sustainable scholarship and investing in open, we (through coalitions, collaboratives, initiatives, associations) focused people, time, and money on propping up open/public impact programs for specific disciplines. The field of Education Research is interested in cultivating an open strategy? The Academic Libraries of Indiana will coordinate a team of scholcomm experts to lend a hand. Life sciences ready to double down on public impact of health research? The Triangle Research Libraries Network is perfectly poised. I also know that this idea would be a significant diversion from the mission of regional library cooperatives… just spitballing ideas here. The point I hope I’m making is that if, for example, engineers of various stripes heard that NC State Libraries was a key supporter of EngrXiv our % stake as stakeholders in the advancement of open research would be more readily evident….

We’ve already begun to see University Communications partner and often crosshire with Offices of Research, if the two universities I’ve worked at are any indication. There are similar partnerships in the research infrastructure space connecting libraries with central IT….

The underlayment throughout these studies, and yet unclear in my three ideas, is how will we actually really create an open research system that is not just welcoming to The Public but has clear and beneficial opportunities for their involvement at the beginning, through the middle, and on to the conclusion. Fecher and Hebing hope for a dialogic relationship between science and society. The VSNU and Springer/Nature promote co-creation of research agendas with communities. Bayley, Phipps, Roche and Lodge see opportunity for systemic tweaks that lean toward a more open publishing cycle.

Maybe, the most societal impact I can actually affect is concerning myself with my public, and fighting to make sure they have access, can use, and receive benefit from the 40 hours a week I spend emailing brilliant folks about putting their life’s work online for free.”

Defining Social Impact

“But, what if, as we talk about sustainable scholarship and investing in open, we (through coalitions, collaboratives, initiatives, associations) focused people, time, and money on propping up open/public impact programs for specific disciplines. The field of Education Research is interested in cultivating an open strategy? The Academic Libraries of Indiana will coordinate a team of scholcomm experts to lend a hand. Life sciences ready to double down on public impact of health research? The Triangle Research Libraries Network is perfectly poised. I also know that this idea would be a significant diversion from the mission of regional library cooperatives… just spitballing ideas here. The point I hope I’m making is that if, for example, engineers of various stripes heard that NC State Libraries was a key supporter of EngrXiv our % stake as stakeholders in the advancement of open research would be more readily evident….

We’ve already begun to see University Communications partner and often crosshire with Offices of Research, if the two universities I’ve worked at are any indication. There are similar partnerships in the research infrastructure space connecting libraries with central IT….

The underlayment throughout these studies, and yet unclear in my three ideas, is how will we actually really create an open research system that is not just welcoming to The Public but has clear and beneficial opportunities for their involvement at the beginning, through the middle, and on to the conclusion. Fecher and Hebing hope for a dialogic relationship between science and society. The VSNU and Springer/Nature promote co-creation of research agendas with communities. Bayley, Phipps, Roche and Lodge see opportunity for systemic tweaks that lean toward a more open publishing cycle.

Maybe, the most societal impact I can actually affect is concerning myself with my public, and fighting to make sure they have access, can use, and receive benefit from the 40 hours a week I spend emailing brilliant folks about putting their life’s work online for free.”

World Journal Clout Index (WJCI)

“he World Journal Clout Index (WJCI) Report (2020 STM) is the research result of the “Research on the Comprehensive Evaluation Method of World Science & Technology Journal Impact” commissioned by the China Association for Science and Technology. This project aims to establish a new journal evaluation system and explore a global-oriented journal impact evaluation method on scientific, comprehensive and reasonable basis, with a view to contributing Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions in the field of academic evaluation and promoting the fair evaluation and equal use of sci-tech journals worldwide.

The WJCI Report (2020 STM) determines the proportion of source journals in each country/region from four dimensions: R&D input, output of research papers, number of researchers, and the scale and level of journals. This report selects about 15,000 high-level journals representative of the region, discipline and industry as source journals from 63,000 or more active sci-tech academic journals worldwide. On the basis of thorough research on the journal classification systems of different citation databases, our research group creates a novel journal classification system that contains 5 Level-1 categories, 45 Level-2 categories and 279 Level-3 categories. This novel system comprehensively covers all sci-tech fields and reflects the development of emerging and cross-disciplinary disciplines, following the general outline of the Classification and Code Disciplines of the People’s Republic of China , with reference to the Chinese Library Classification and Disciplinary Classification for Degree Granting and Talent Training, etc. The project has also established the World Citation Database 2019, under the support of CrossRef and Digital Science, for calculating indexes and obtained the downloads on CNKI, Wanfang and Altmetric. Furthermore, a new journal impact evaluation index that integrates citation and web usage—World Journal Clout Index (WJCI) is formulated….”

Why Open Access: Economics and Business Researchers’ Perspectives

Abstract:  Public research policies have been promoting open-access publication in recent years as an adequate model for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. However, depending on the disciplines, its use is very diverse. This study explores the determinants of open-access publication among academic researchers of economics and business, as well as their assessment of different economic measures focused on publication stimulus. To do so, a survey of Spanish business and economics researchers was conducted. They reported an average of 19% of their publications in open-access journals, hybrids or fully Gold Route open access. Almost 80% of the researchers foresee a future increase in the volume of open-access publications. When determining where to publish their research results, the main criterion for the selection of a scientific journal is the impact factor. Regarding open access, the most valued aspect is the visibility and dissemination it provides. Although the cost of publication is not the most relevant criterion in the choice of a journal, three out of four researchers consider that a reduction in fees and an increase in funding are measures that would boost the open-access model.

 

Dashboard will track hiring and promotion criteria

“A US$1.2 million grant will fund an effort to identify and publicize the criteria that universities around the world use to hire and promote researchers. The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), a global initiative to reform the evaluation of researchers, will use part of the funds to create an interactive dashboard that will shine much-needed light on a process that is often opaque and controversial, says programme director Anna Hatch, who is based in Washington DC. “When criteria are visible and transparent, universities can be held accountable,” she says. “Researchers will know how their contributions will be measured, so they can make a better case for themselves.”

DORA, conceived in 2012 at the annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology, called for improvements to the evaluation of researchers and the outputs of scholarly research. The declaration specifically calls for doing away with impact factors as a way to judge the merit of academics. So far, it has been signed by more than 20,000 individuals and institutions around the world.

The grant is from the Arcadia Fund, a UK-based charity that has supported many academic initiatives since its founding in 2001….”

Association between productivity and journal impact across disciplines and career age

Abstract:  The association between productivity and impact of scientific production is a long-standing debate in science that remains controversial and poorly understood. Here we present a large-scale analysis of the association between yearly publication numbers and average journal-impact metrics for the Brazilian scientific elite. We find this association to be discipline-specific, career-age dependent, and similar among researchers with outlier and non-outlier performance. Outlier researchers either outperform in productivity or journal prestige, but they rarely do so in both categories. Non-outliers also follow this trend and display negative correlations between productivity and journal prestige but with discipline-dependent intensity. Our research indicates that academics are averse to simultaneous changes in their productivity and journal-prestige levels over consecutive career years. We also find that career patterns concerning productivity and journal prestige are discipline-specific, having in common a raise of productivity with career age for most disciplines and a higher chance of outperforming in journal impact during early career stages.