Using current research information systems to investigate data acquisition and data sharing practices of computer scientists – Antti Mikael Rousi, 2022

Abstract:  Without sufficient information about research data practices occurring in a particular research organisation, there is a risk of mismatching research data service efforts with the needs of its researchers. This study describes how data acquiring and data sharing occurring within a particular research organisation can be investigated by using current research information system publication data. The case study organisation’s current research information system was used to identify the sample of investigated articles. A sample of 193 journal articles published by researchers in the computer science department of the case study’s university during 2019 were extracted for scrutiny from the current research information system. For these 193 articles, a classification of the main study types was developed to accommodate the multidisciplinary nature of the case department’s research agenda. Furthermore, a coding framework was developed to capture the key elements of data acquiring and data sharing. The articles representing life sciences and computational research relatively frequently reused open data, whereas data acquisition of experimental research, human interaction studies and human intervention studies often relied on collecting original data. Data sharing also differed between the computationally intensive study types of life sciences and computational research and the study types relying on collection of original data. Research data were not available for reuse in only a minority of life science (n?=?2; 7%) and computational research (n?=?15; 14%) studies. The study types of experimental research, human interaction studies and human intervention studies less frequently made their data available for reuse. The findings suggest that research organisations representing computer sciences may include different subfields that have their own cultures of data sharing. This study demonstrates that analyses of publications listed in current research information systems provide detailed descriptions how the affiliated researchers acquire and share research data.

Decreasing Costs of Dissemination of Research Results by Publishing in Diamond Open Access Journals – PMC

“As always, you can read these articles for free, with neither you nor your institution having to pay for their access. The authors did not have to pay for publishing their manuscripts either. Food Technology and Biotechnology is a so-called diamond open access journal. It means that its budget is provided by financial supports of public institutions like the Croatian Ministry of Science and Education, Croatian Academy of Science and Arts, Croatian Society for Biotechnology, as well as the publisher – Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology of the University of Zagreb. Diamond open access journals constitute a rather small share of scientific journals in science communication spectrum in which the financiers are neither readers (through institutional library subscriptions), nor authors through article processing charges. Although the number of papers published in diamond OA journals is not high, they are often referred to as the publishing model of the future. The financial pattern in which journals are financed by public institutions, ministries or other state bodies like universities or professional associations avoids high charges imposed by private publishers, liberating more funds for direct research costs, or scientific infrastructure. The model is in line with the ultimate intentions announced by the cOAlition S and formulated in Plan S (1), although other business models for scientific publishing are discussed within this plan, as well. At first sight, diamond OA journals seem like the best solution both for the researchers aiming to publish their results without devoting much of their project funds for this purpose, and to those aiming to access them freely and easily. However, public financing may have pitfalls of their own. Stable long-term financing may be a problem for smaller professional associations whose income may vary significantly from year to year and may depend on the current leadership. Such societies may lose motivation to maintain a journal, particularly if it does not gain any income but whose publishing creates a significant expense. Universities and larger societies with higher annual income may prove as more stable financiers as scientific communication is a part of their ’core business’. Indeed, considering technical possibilities and informatics infrastructure in place at most universities, scientific publishing should not present a significant financial burden. Actually, most diamond access journals are indeed funded by universities (2). On the other hand, journals financed by state public institutions like ministries, public foundations or other bodies distributing public funds may depend on the current political option and their changes may lead to different political decisions reflecting on science budgets and, consequently, scientific journal financing. Besides, it should be noted that some of the high budget professional associations create most of their incomes through publishing activities, sometimes engaging large publishers for their journals. For these societies a turn towards diamond open access would require a significant change in the structure of their annual income. Thus, in a system in which a larger segment of scientific results would be published in diamond open access journals, finding stable sources of income would be a difficult but indispensable task for scientific journal publishers. This conclusion has been strongly corroborated by a large study funded by Science Europe in order to gain a better insight in the OA diamond landscape (2). The study estimated the number of diamond open access journals at around 29 000. Most of these journals are not included in DOAJ, they are smaller in size and publish less than 25 papers per year, many of them are issued annually, and most of them belong to social sciences and humanities. The majority of them are published in Europe and South America by small publishers who publish between 1 and 5 journals. More than 70% of diamond OA journals are published by universities, around 15% by publishing companies, while 10% belong to professional associations. Concerning their operation and financing, most diamond open access journals face operational challenges and rely heavily on the efforts of volunteers. As such, they declare a need to develop infrastructure and to increase funding to support their operations. Securing sufficient and stable funding from sources who would not gain profit from publishing may at least partly be facilitated by decreasing the costs and the overall budget of the journal. More than 70% of diamond OA journals have an annual budget lower than 10 000 euro. This, however, contradicts the increasing demands of the scientific community for fast, simple, and high-quality publishing process. A variety of informatics tools designed for handling manuscripts, correspondence among authors, editors and reviewers, as well as on-line publishing with concomitant abandoning printed versions may lead to less expensive dissemination of scientific results. Development of such tools and their distribution among journals, as w

A Compendium of Open Access/Open Science Policy Case Studies from African Higher Education Institutions | Zenodo

Abstract:  A Compendium of Open Access/Open Science Policy Case Studies from African Higher Education Institutions for the LIBSENSE Open Science policy development workshops convened as part of activities in the AfricaConnect3 programme.

 The case studies in this compendium have been solicited from partners throughout Africa by the LIBSENSE policy working group. They represent a broad range of open access/open science policy development initiatives from those involved in developing and implementing them. The representative universities cover a range of public and private institutions where research activity occurs. Altogether, they give perspectives on OA/OS policy development at the institutional level, including the motivations, successes, challenges and outcomes. This compendium also includes one case study outlining policy development efforts coordinated at a regional level in Francophone Africa.

Through these workshops, LIBSENSE envisages an opportunity to align institutional level policy with ongoing efforts to deliver on national open science roadmaps as part of the broader Open Science agenda that LIBSENSE wants to achieve across Africa. It is also the impetus for its alignment with UNESCO’s Recommendations on open science, embracing its own Open Science vision on implementing UNESCO open science principles in an African context. In support of this, the compendium includes a recommended checklist for universities to follow when implementing UNESCO recommendations on open science.

Editorial Does the Scientific Community Need Another Open-Access Journal? | IEEE Journals & Magazine | IEEE Xplore

“If you are looking at the first papers published in the IEEE Open Journal of Engineering in Medicine and Biology (OJEMB) and you are wondering if the scientific community truly needed another open-access journal, you are not alone. I asked myself the same question when I was approached to serve as the Founding Editor-in-Chief of IEEE OJEMB. In fact, over the past two decades, we have witnessed the launch of a multitude of open-access journals, often lacking a well-defined scope and focus on publishing high-quality manuscripts….”

Transforming Transformative Agreements

Springer Nature (as Springer) signed its first transformative read and publish agreement in 2015. This Springer compact agreement with VSNU (Association of Universities in the Netherlands) was the first agreement of its kind to combine reading and publishing fees with the aim of transitioning traditional library subscription payments into central funding to support open access (OA) publishing. It has proved to be a pivotal moment in the transition to OA.

Since then, Springer Nature has agreed many such national agreements all around the world, including the world’s largest with Projekt DEAL in Germany. Through a series of case studies, this article will examine the role these agreements have played in facilitating the transition to OA – to bring centralized funding for OA – and analyse how their nature and characteristics have evolved and adapted to reflect the differing needs of individual customers, as well as changing views.

The paper will also consider the challenges faced by publishers, institutions, and funders in agreeing transformative agreements, consider how these ‘blockers’ can be overcome, and evaluate the future role of transformative agreements as a critical precursor to achieving open science.

 

Frontiers | Key Factors for Improving Rigor and Reproducibility: Guidelines, Peer Reviews, and Journal Technical Reviews | Cardiovascular Medicine

Abstract:  To respond to the NIH’s policy for rigor and reproducibility in preclinical research, many journals have implemented guidelines and checklists to guide authors in improving the rigor and reproducibility of their research. Transparency in developing detailed prospective experimental designs and providing raw data are essential premises of rigor and reproducibility. Standard peer reviews and journal-specific technical and statistical reviews are critical factors for enhancing rigor and reproducibility. This brief review also shares some experience from Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, an American Heart Association journal, that has implemented several mechanisms to enhance rigor and reproducibility for preclinical research….

Born Accessible: Creating Templates for Standardized, Accessible ETDs: The Serials Librarian: Vol 0, No 0

Abstract:  At the University of Southern Indiana (USI), graduate programs primarily produce physical theses and capstones. As programs expand online options, the need for electronic dissertations and theses grows. The institutional repository offered a chance for the library to collaborate with graduate studies and teaching program faculty to develop templates that would streamline workflows and improve document accessibility. Templates were created for doctor of education dissertations in APA style, along with master theses in APA, MLA, and Chicago styles that could serve multiple programs. This presentation outlined the process of working with campus stakeholders to develop the templates, as well as the steps taken to ensure accessibility of both the template and final dissertation or thesis. Presentation resources and electronic theses and dissertation (ETD) templates are available for download at http://bit.ly/born_accessible.

 

Implementing the Declaration on Research Assessment: a publisher case study

Abstract:  There has been much debate around the role of metrics in scholarly communication, with particular focus on the misapplication of journal metrics, such as the impact factor in the assessment of research and researchers. Various initiatives have advocated for a change in this culture, including the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which invites stakeholders throughout the scholarly communication ecosystem to sign up and show their support for practices designed to address the misuse of metrics. This case study provides an overview of the process undertaken by a large academic publisher (Taylor & Francis Group) in signing up to DORA and implementing some of its key practices in the hope that it will provide some guidance to others considering becoming a signatory. Our experience suggests that research, consultation and flexibility are crucial components of the process. Additionally, approaching signing with a project mindset versus a ‘sign and forget’ mentality can help organizations to understand the practical implications of signing, to anticipate and mitigate potential obstacles and to support cultural change.

 

Successful implementation of Open Access strategies at Universities of Science & Technology

“While the CWTS Leiden ranking has been available since 2011/2012, it is only in 2019 that a first attempt was made at ranking institutions by Open Access-related indicators. This was due to the arrival of Unpaywall as a tool to measure openly available institutional research outputs – either via the Green or the Gold OA routes – for a specific institution.

The CWTS Leiden ranking by percentage of the institutional research output published Open Access effectively meant the first opportunity for institutions worldwide to be ranked by the depth of their Open Access implementation strategies brushing aside aspects like their size. This provided an interesting way to map the progress of CESAER Member institutions that were part of the Task Force Open Science 2020-2021 Open Access Working Group (OAWG) towards the objective stated by Plan S of achieving 100% Open Access of research outputs.

The OAWG then set out to map the situation of the Member institutions represented in it on this Open Access ranking and to track their evolution on subsequent editions of this ranking. The idea behind this analysis was not so much to introduce an element of competition across institutions but to explore whether progress was taking place in the percentage of openly available institutional research outputs year on year.

The results of this analysis – shown in figures within this paper for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 editions – show strong differences across Member institutions that are part of the OAWG. From internal discussions within the group, it became evident that these differences could be explained through a number of factors that contributed to a successful Open Access implementation at an institutional level. This provided the basis for this work.

The document identifies four key factors that contribute to a successful OA implementation at institutions, and hence to achieving a good position on the CWTS Leiden ranking for Open Access. These factors are:

• Open Access policies. This aspect is highlighted as the key driver for a successful OA implementation: high-ranked institutions typically implement strong OA policies, whereas low-ranked ones often lack a specific policy beyond the (common) one issued by the European Commission for its framework programmes.

• Institutional system configuration (repositories and/or current research information system (CRIS) systems). The way institutional systems support OA implementation are configured is also a critical element for a high ranking. High-ranked institutions within the OAWG often have an interconnected institutional repository and a CRIS. Other institutions only operate a repository and some have neither.

• Institutional research support staff. A strong OA policy and an adequately configured set of institutional systems may not be enough to guarantee a successful OA implementation if the research support staff behind such work is not numerous or well-trained enough.

• Open Access advocacy strategies. One of the key areas of activity for such staff is the communication with researchers to highlight the relevance of Open Access implementation at a given institution and to provide the required support workflows….”

Investigating the Effectiveness of the Open Data Badge Policy at Psychological Science Through Computational Reproducibility

Abstract:  In April 2019, Psychological Science published its first issue in which all research articles received the Open Data badge. We used that issue to investigate the effectiveness of this badge, focusing on the adherence to its stated aim at Psychological Science: ensuring reproducibility of results. Twelve researchers of varying experience levels attempted to reproduce the results of the empirical articles in the target issue (at least three researchers per article). We found that all articles provided at least some data, 6/14 articles provided analysis code or scripts, only 1/14 articles was rated to be exactly reproducible, and 3/14 essentially reproducible with minor deviations. We recommend that Psychological Science require a check of reproducibility at the peer review stage before awarding badges, and that the Open Data badge be renamed “Open Data and Code” to avoid confusion and encourage researchers to adhere to this higher standard.

 

The Mechanics Behind A Precipitous Rise In Impact Factor: A Case Study From the British Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract:  The impact factor is a popular but highly flawed proxy for the importance of academic journals. A variety of techniques exist to increase an individual journal’s impact factor but are usually described in abstract terms. Here, we investigate two of those: (1) the preferential publication of brief, citable, non-substantive academic content, and likewise for (2) review or meta-analytic content in the historical publications of the British Journal of Sports Medicine. Simple content analysis reveals an exponential rise in published editorial and other brief content, a persistent growth in ‘highly citable’ content, and dramatic drop in the proportion of empirical research published. These changes parallel the changes in impact factor over the time period available. The implications of this are discussed.

Using Research to Expand the Transformative Agreement: A LYRASIS Case Study

Abstract:  In 2020, LYRASIS conducted a survey of their members to better understand predominantly U.S. institutional attitudes towards open content, including Open Access (OA) scholarship. The survey revealed several findings indicating that U.S. institutions cannot conform to the same OA models and strategies as their international counterparts. Likewise, a significant portion of institutions cannot participate in transformative agreements, at least not by the current definition. This presentation described the survey findings and how strategists from LYRASIS used what they learned to introduce OA into their negotiations in a way that increased participation from institutions of different sizes, missions, and research outputs, thus expanding the definition of the transformative agreement.

 

Moving Koha library catalogue into linked data using the LODRefine | Emerald Insight

Abstract:  Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to investigate connected data through the use of open-source technology. It demonstrates the transformation process from library bibliographic data to linked data, which allows for easy searching across numerous collections of information.

Design/methodology/approach

In generating this file, a high-level operating system such as Ubuntu, which is based on the LAMP architecture, is used. It is required to use open-source strategies in building the relevant information. LODRefine is being used to convert all of Koha’s bibliographic data into linked data that is now available on the Web. This framework has been conceptualized and formulated based on linked data principles and search algorithms accordingly.

Findings

Linked data services have been made publicly available to library users by using a variety of different forms of data. Information may be sought quickly and easily using this interface built on numerous search structures. Aside from that, it also meets the needs of users who use the linked data search mechanism to find information. Through modern scripts and algorithms, it is now possible for library users to easily search the linked data enables services.

Originality/value

This paper demonstrates how quickly and easily related data from bibliographic details may be developed and generated using a spreadsheet. The entire procedure culminates in the presence of specialists in the library setting. A further advantage of the SPARQL system is that it allows visitors to group distinct concepts and aspects using independent URIs and URLs instead of the SPARQL endpoint.

Dissemination of Plastic Surgery Research: An Analysis of PR… : Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open

Abstract:  Background: 

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) recently developed an open access counterpart, PRS Global Open (PRS-GO), to increase dissemination of research in an efficient and widespread manner. We aimed to (1) examine the differences in the dissemination of research published in PRS and PRS-GO, and (2) identify differences in the authorship between the journals.

Methods: 

We extracted data on Altmetric Attention Scores, article mentions, citations, and author characteristics using the Altmetric Explorer Database from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2020. We stratified research outputs into traditional dissemination and social media dissemination. Additionally, multivariable linear regression models were used to examine differences in dissemination between the journals.

Results: 

A total of 1798 articles were included in the analysis (PRS = 1031, PRS-GO = 767). The average Altmetric Attention Score was higher for PRS compared with PRS-GO (PRS = 15.2, PRS-GO = 8.1). Articles in PRS had a greater Altmetric Attention Score (?-coefficient: 7.50, P < 0.001), higher measures of traditional dissemination (?-coefficient: 3.11, P < 0.001), and higher measures of social media dissemination than articles in PRS-GO (?-coefficient: 4.38, P = 0.73).

Conclusions: 

Despite being an open access journal, PRS-GO had significantly fewer measures of social media and traditional dissemination compared with PRS. Given that numerous factors may influence the dissemination of scientific literature, it is imperative that publications identify specific ways to provide a fair advantage for both researchers and readers. Additional initiatives to engage readership for open access may include creative campaigns targeting an appropriate audience.

Dissemination of Plastic Surgery Research: An Analysis of PR… : Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open

Abstract:  Background: 

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) recently developed an open access counterpart, PRS Global Open (PRS-GO), to increase dissemination of research in an efficient and widespread manner. We aimed to (1) examine the differences in the dissemination of research published in PRS and PRS-GO, and (2) identify differences in the authorship between the journals.

Methods: 

We extracted data on Altmetric Attention Scores, article mentions, citations, and author characteristics using the Altmetric Explorer Database from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2020. We stratified research outputs into traditional dissemination and social media dissemination. Additionally, multivariable linear regression models were used to examine differences in dissemination between the journals.

Results: 

A total of 1798 articles were included in the analysis (PRS = 1031, PRS-GO = 767). The average Altmetric Attention Score was higher for PRS compared with PRS-GO (PRS = 15.2, PRS-GO = 8.1). Articles in PRS had a greater Altmetric Attention Score (?-coefficient: 7.50, P < 0.001), higher measures of traditional dissemination (?-coefficient: 3.11, P < 0.001), and higher measures of social media dissemination than articles in PRS-GO (?-coefficient: 4.38, P = 0.73).

Conclusions: 

Despite being an open access journal, PRS-GO had significantly fewer measures of social media and traditional dissemination compared with PRS. Given that numerous factors may influence the dissemination of scientific literature, it is imperative that publications identify specific ways to provide a fair advantage for both researchers and readers. Additional initiatives to engage readership for open access may include creative campaigns targeting an appropriate audience.