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…”

 

An Open-Publishing Response to the COVID-19 Infodemic

Abstract:  The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed the rapid dissemination of papers and preprints investigating the disease and its associated virus, SARS-CoV-2. The multifaceted nature of COVID-19 demands a multidisciplinary approach, but the urgency of the crisis combined with the need for social distancing measures present unique challenges to collaborative science. We applied a massive online open publishing approach to this problem using Manubot. Through GitHub, collaborators summarized and critiqued COVID-19 literature, creating a review manuscript. Manubot automatically compiled citation information for referenced preprints, journal publications, websites, and clinical trials. Continuous integration workflows retrieved up-to-date data from online sources nightly, regenerating some of the manuscript’s figures and statistics. Manubot rendered the manuscript into PDF, HTML, LaTeX, and DOCX outputs, immediately updating the version available online upon the integration of new content. Through this effort, we organized over 50 scientists from a range of backgrounds who evaluated over 1,500 sources and developed seven literature reviews. While many efforts from the computational community have focused on mining COVID-19 literature, our project illustrates the power of open publishing to organize both technical and non-technical scientists to aggregate and disseminate information in response to an evolving crisis.

 

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.

92 million new citations added to COCI | OpenCitations blog

“It’s been a month since the announcement of 1.09 Billion Citations available in the July 2021 release of COCI, the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations.  

We’re now proud to announce the September 2021 release of COCI, which is based on open references to works with DOIs within the Crossref dump dated August 2021. This new release extends COCI with more than 92 Million additional citations, giving a total number of more than 1.18 Billion DOI-to-DOI citation links….”

New arXivLabs collaboration provides citations in context from scite | arXiv.org blog

“We are happy to announce our arXivLabs collaboration with scite, a new company that is introducing “Smart Citations.” These new citations not only show how many times an article has been cited, but how it has been cited by other publications. This is done by showing the citation context from the citing article, the section of the paper the citation appears in, and whether the citing paper provides supporting or contrasting evidence to the cited claim. These Smart Citations have already been integrated by various publishers and preprint servers to help readers better contextualize and understand research findings.

With this collaboration, arXiv readers can now easily see how millions of preprints have been cited by opening the corresponding scite report. Once on the report, users can quickly read citation statements from each citing paper to see how an article and its findings have been discussed or used, find co-citations, filter by citation types (supporting, contrasting, and mentioning), and more.

To build the tool, scite has processed millions of full-text articles in order to extract and analyze citation statements. To date, scite has analyzed over 26M full-text articles and extracted and analyzed nearly 900M citation statements across a range of disciplines….”

Open Grant Proposals · Business of Knowing, summer 2021

“One of those informal frontiers is crowdfunding for scientific research. For the past year, I’ve worked on Experiment, helping hundreds of scientists design and launch crowdfunding campaigns for their research questions. Experiment has been doing this for almost a decade, with more than 1,000 successfully funded projects on the platform. The process is very different than the grant funding mechanisms set up by agencies and foundations. It’s not big money yet, as the average fundraise is still ~$5,000. But in many ways, the process is better: faster, transparent, and more encouraging to early-career scientists. Of all the lessons learned, one stands out for broader consideration: grant proposals and processes should be open by default.

Grant proposals that meet basic requirements for scientific merit and rigor should be posted online, ideally in a standardized format, in a centralized (or several) database or clearinghouse. They should include more detail than just the abstract and dollar amount totals that are currently shown now on federal databases, especially in terms of budgets and costs. The proposals should include a DOI number so that future work can point back to the original question, thinking, and scope. A link to these open grant proposals should be broadly accepted as sufficient for submission to requests from agencies or foundations….

Open proposals would make research funding project-centric, rather than funder-centric….

Open proposals would promote more accurate budgets….

Open proposals would increase the surface area of collaboration….

Open proposals would improve citation metrics….

Open proposals would create an opportunity to reward the best question-askers in addition to the best question-answerers….

Open proposals would give us a view into the whole of science, including the unfunded proposals and the experiments with null results….”

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.

Physicists lose in ARC pre-print shambles | Campus Morning Mail

“On instruction of the Senate, the Australian Research Council reported yesterday on grant applications ruled ineligible for breaking the rule against including any reference to pre-prints

17 Future Fellowship applications were excluded out of 675 and 15  out of 996 were cut from consideration for the Discovery Early Career Researcher Award.

All excluded applications were either in astronomy/space science or (mainly) from four FoR categories of physics….

As Danny Kingsley points out (CMM August 23) physicists have been using pre-prints for 30 years. “Why were the serious implications of this requirement only noticed at the point where applications were excluded?” she asks.”

From little acorns . . . A retrospective on OpenCitations | OpenCitations blog

“Now that OpenCitations is hosting over one billion freely available scholarly bibliographic citations, this is perhaps an opportune moment to look back to the start of this initiative. A little over eleven years ago, on 24 April 2010, I spoke at the Open Knowledge Foundation Conference, OKCon2010, in London, on the topic

OpenCitations: Publishing Bibliographic Citations as Linked Open Data

I reported that, earlier that same week, I had applied to Jisc for a one-year grant to fund the OpenCitations Project (opencitations.net). Jisc (at that time ‘The JISC’, the Joint Information Systems Committee) was tasked by the UK government, among other things, to support research and development in information technology for the benefit of the academic community.

The purpose of that original OpenCitations R&D project was to develop a prototype in which we:

harvested citations from the open access biomedical literature in PubMed Central;
described and linked them using CiTO, the Citation Typing Ontology [1];
encoded and organized them in an RDF triplestore; and
published them as Linked Open Data in the OpenCitations Corpus (OCC)….”

‘Devastating career event’: scientists caught out by change to Australian Research Council fine print | Research funding | The Guardian

“Researchers have been deemed ineligible for critical career grants by the Australian Research Council as the result of a rule change that has been described as punitive, “extraordinary” and out of keeping with modern scientific practices.

Researchers are devastated and angry after being ruled out for Australian Research Council (ARC) fellowships because of a new requirement that bans preprint material from being cited in funding applications, with several saying it spells the end of their careers in academia or Australian universities.

 

Guardian Australia has spoken to six researchers at four universities, in the fields of astronomy, computer science and physics, whose applications were deemed ineligible as a result of the technicality….”

What to do if you’re asked to remove a citation to a preprint – ASAPbio

“In spite of this, prohibiting citation to preprints forces authors to choose between using information that informed their work without attributing the source (which is potentially plagiarism) or having to withhold relevant information from their manuscript (which is at odds with transparency and full reporting). This does a disservice to the authors of the work under review, the authors of the original preprint, and science as a whole. In an environment in which researchers can’t cite preprints, fears of being scooped will escalate, chilling researchers’ willingness to share early and openly. A reduction in preprinting driven by regressive citation policies would not only slow down the pace of discovery, but decrease scientific rigor: without preprints, errors are less likely to be discovered. Thus, prohibiting preprint citation may, counterproductively, decrease the reliability of the published literature.

Rather than prohibit citation of the latest papers, we propose some alternative strategies. …”

What to do if you’re asked to remove a citation to a preprint – ASAPbio

“In spite of this, prohibiting citation to preprints forces authors to choose between using information that informed their work without attributing the source (which is potentially plagiarism) or having to withhold relevant information from their manuscript (which is at odds with transparency and full reporting). This does a disservice to the authors of the work under review, the authors of the original preprint, and science as a whole. In an environment in which researchers can’t cite preprints, fears of being scooped will escalate, chilling researchers’ willingness to share early and openly. A reduction in preprinting driven by regressive citation policies would not only slow down the pace of discovery, but decrease scientific rigor: without preprints, errors are less likely to be discovered. Thus, prohibiting preprint citation may, counterproductively, decrease the reliability of the published literature.

Rather than prohibit citation of the latest papers, we propose some alternative strategies. …”