NUI Galway IP Policy and OER: Comparing NUI Galway and Peer Institutions in Ireland | The HardiBlog: Blog for the NUI Galway Library

by Kris Meen

I blogged recently about Open Educational Resource policies and whether NUI Galway ought to think about reviewing its own policies with an eye towards making them more OER-enabling. More recently, it occurred to me that it might be useful to have a look at some peer institutions in Ireland. and their IP policies to see if I could get an impression of how NUI Galway’s policies stack up to others’ in terms of their OER-friendliness. I went ahead and found the IP policies of five peer universities: Maynooth University, Trinity College Dublin, University College Cork, University College Dublin, and the University of Limerick. What I found was interesting: that the IP policy at NUI Galway appears to be a bit of an outlier, and in some ways would probably be considered less OER-friendly than at least some of our peers. I include links to all six IP policies (NUI Galway and five peer institutions) below as Appendix A.

 

Journal Selection Primer for Neuroradiology Researchers – ScienceDirect

“Authors can also benefit from the open-access model. Open access articles are freely available to all, including physicians, researchers, and patients. Thus, it can potentially lead to an increase in visibility, use, and citation of your article (8). However, researchers must distinguish reputable journals from predatory journals in the open-access publication model. Unfortunately, predatory journals have managed to bleed into PubMed and PubMed central databases in recent years. Therefore, we also recommend that authors check their target journals’ affiliations with reputable scholarly organizations such as the DOAJ, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (6).  Some journals (indexed or non-indexed) may also be affiliated with a reputable National Society; for instance, the American Journal of Neuroradiology (AJNR) is affiliated with the American Society of Neuroradiology (Table 4)….”

Attitudes, willingness, and resources to cover Article Publishing Charges (APC): the influence of age, position, income level country, discipline and open access habits

Abstract:  The rise of open access (OA) publishing has been followed by the expansion of the Article Publishing Charges (APC) that moves the financial burden of scholarly journal publishing from readers to authors. We introduce the results of an international randomly selected sampled survey (N=3,422) that explores attitudes towards this pay-to-publish or Gold OA model among scholars. We test the predictor role of age, professional position, discipline, and income-level country in this regard. We found that APCs are perceived more as a global threat to Science than a deterrent to personal professional careers. Academics in low and lower-middle income level countries hold the most unfavorable opinions about the APC system. The less experimental disciplines held more negative perceptions of APC compared to STEM and the Life Sciences. Age and access to external funding stood as negative predictors of refusal to pay to publish. Commitment to OA self-archiving predicted the negative global perception of the APC. We conclude that access to external research funds influences the acceptance and the particular perception of the pay to publish model, remarking the economic dimension of the problem and warning about issues in the inequality between center and periphery.

Subscription-based and open access dermatology journals: the publication model dilemma

Medical journalism and the dissemination of peer-reviewed research serve to promote and protect the integrity of scholarship. We evaluated the publication models of dermatology journals to provide a snapshot of the current state of publishing. A total of 106 actively-publishing dermatology journals were identified using the SCImago Journal Rankings (SJR) citation database. Journals were classified by publication model (subscription-based and open-access), publishing company, publisher type (commercial, professional society, and university), MEDLINE-indexing status, and SJR indicator. Of these, 65 (61.32%) dermatology journals were subscription-based and 41 (38.68%) were open-access. In addition, 59 (55.66%) journals were indexed in MEDLINE and most were subscription-based (N=51) and published by commercial entities (N=54). MEDLINE-indexing status was significantly different across publisher types (P<0.001), access-types (P<0.001), and the top four publishers (P=0.016). Distribution of SJR indicator was significantly different across publisher types (P<0.001) and access-types (all journals, P=0.001; indexed journals only, P=0.046). More than 91% of MEDLINE-indexed titles were published by commercial entities, and among them, four companies controlled the vast majority. Discontinuation of access to any one of the top publishers in dermatology can significantly and disproportionately impact education and scholarship.

Comparative Analyses of Medicinal Chemistry and Cheminformatics Filters with Accessible Implementation in Konstanz Information Miner (KNIME)

Abstract:  High-throughput virtual screening (HTVS) is, in conjunction with rapid advances in computer hardware, becoming a staple in drug design research campaigns and cheminformatics. In this context, virtual compound library design becomes crucial as it generally constitutes the first step where quality filtered databases are essential for the efficient downstream research. Therefore, multiple filters for compound library design were devised and reported in the scientific literature. We collected the most common filters in medicinal chemistry (PAINS, REOS, Aggregators, van de Waterbeemd, Oprea, Fichert, Ghose, Mozzicconacci, Muegge, Egan, Murcko, Veber, Ro3, Ro4, and Ro5) to facilitate their open access use and compared them. Then, we implemented these filters in the open platform Konstanz Information Miner (KNIME) as a freely accessible and simple workflow compatible with small or large compound databases for the benefit of the readers and for the help in the early drug design steps. View Full-Text

 

Plan S Journal Comparison Service: open for publishers to register and deposit price and service data | Plan S

cOAlition S is excited to release today the Journal Comparison Service (JCS), a secure, free and long-anticipated digital service, that aims to shed light on publishing fees and services.

Starting from today, publishers can register with the JCS publisher portal. After signing a service agreement, publishers can share information, at journal level, highlighting the services they provide and the prices they charge in line with one of the Plan S approved price and service transparency frameworks. These data are then made available to librarians via a secure online system.  Examples of data that will be made available through the service include information about the publication frequency, the peer review process, times from submission to acceptance, the range of list prices for APCs, subscription prices, and how the price is allocated over a defined set of services.

 

A comparison of scientometric data and publication policies of ophthalmology journals

Abstract: Purpose: 

This retrospective database analysis study aims to present the scientometric data of journals publishing in the field of ophthalmology and to compare the scientometric data of ophthalmology journals according to the open access (OA) publishing policies.

Methods: 

The scientometric data of 48 journals were obtained from Clarivate Analytics InCites and Scimago Journal & Country Rank websites. Journal impact factor (JIF), Eigenfactor score (ES), scientific journal ranking (SJR), and Hirsch index (HI) were included. The OA publishing policies were separated into full OA with publishing fees, full OA without fees, and hybrid OA. The fees were stated as US dollars (USD).

Results: 

Four scientometric indexes had strong positive correlations; the highest correlation coefficients were observed between the SJR and JIF (R = 0.906) and the SJR and HI (R = 0.798). However, journals in the first quartile according to JIF were in the second and third quartiles according to the SJR and HI and in the fourth quartile in the ES. The OA articles published in hybrid journals received a median of 1.17-fold (0.15–2.71) more citations. Only HI was higher in hybrid OA; other scientometric indexes were similar with full OA journals. Full OA journals charged a median of 1525 USD lower than hybrid journals.

Conclusion: 

Full OA model in ophthalmology journals does not have a positive effect on the scientometric indexes. In hybrid OA journals, choosing to publish OA may increase citations, but it would be more accurate to evaluate this on a journal basis.

Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases | SpringerLink

Abstract:  This paper introduces a novel scientometrics method and applies it to estimate the subject coverages of many of the popular English-focused bibliographic databases in academia. The method uses query results as a common denominator to compare a wide variety of search engines, repositories, digital libraries, and other bibliographic databases. The method extends existing sampling-based approaches that analyze smaller sets of database coverages. The findings show the relative and absolute subject coverages of 56 databases—information that has often not been available before. Knowing the databases’ absolute subject coverage allows the selection of the most comprehensive databases for searches requiring high recall/sensitivity, particularly relevant in lookup or exploratory searches. Knowing the databases’ relative subject coverage allows the selection of specialized databases for searches requiring high precision/specificity, particularly relevant in systematic searches. The findings illustrate not only differences in the disciplinary coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science, but also of less frequently analyzed databases. For example, researchers might be surprised how Meta (discontinued), Embase, or Europe PMC are found to cover more records than PubMed in Medicine and other health subjects. These findings should encourage researchers to re-evaluate their go-to databases, also against newly introduced options. Searching with more comprehensive databases can improve finding, particularly when selecting the most fitting databases needs particular thought, such as in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This comparison can also help librarians and other information experts re-evaluate expensive database procurement strategies. Researchers without institutional access learn which open databases are likely most comprehensive in their disciplines.

 

The methodological quality of physical therapy related trial… : American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation

Abstract:  Objective 

We aimed to compare the methodological quality of physical therapy-related trials published in open access with that of trials published in subscription-based journals, adjusting for subdiscipline, intervention type, endorsement of the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT), impact factor, and publication language.

Design 

In this meta-epidemiological study, we searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) on May 8, 2021, to include any physical therapy-related trials published from January 1, 2020. We extracted variables such as CONSORT endorsement, the PEDro score, and publication type. We compared the PEDro score between the publication types using a multivariable generalized estimating equation (GEE) by adjusting for covariates.

Results 

A total of 2,743 trials were included, with a mean total PEDro score (SD) of 5.8 (±1.5). Trials from open access journals had a lower total PEDro score than those from subscription-based journals (5.5 ± 1.5 vs. 5.9 ± 1.5, mean difference [MD]: ?0.4; 95% confidence interval: 0.3–0.5). GEE revealed that open access publication was significantly associated with the total PEDro score (MD: ?0.42; P < 0.001).

Conclusions 

In the recent physical therapy-related trials, open access publications demonstrated lower methodological quality than subscription-based publications, although with a small difference.

The effect of data sources on the measurement of open access: A comparison of Dimensions and the Web of Science

Abstract:  With the growing number of open access (OA) mandates, the accurate measurement of OA publishing is an important policy issue. Existing studies have provided estimates of the prevalence of OA publications ranging from 27.9% to 53.7%, depending on the data source and period of investigation. This paper aims at providing a comparison of the proportion of OA publishing as represented in two major bibliometric databases, Web of Science (WoS) and Dimensions, and assesses how the choice of database affects the measurement of OA across different countries. Results show that a higher proportion of publications indexed in Dimensions are OA than those indexed by WoS, and that this is particularly true for publications originating from outside North America and Europe. The paper concludes with a discussion of the cause and consequences of these differences, motivating the use of more inclusive databases when examining OA, especially for publications originating beyond North America and Europe.

 

Generalist Repository Comparison Chart

“This chart is designed to assist researchers in finding a generalist repository should no domain repository be available to preserve their research data. Generalist repositories accept data regardless of data type, format, content, or disciplinary focus. For this chart, we included a repository available to all researchers specific to clinical trials (Vivli) to bring awareness to those in this field.” Undated.

Journal Comparison Service: deadline for publisher registrations extended | Plan S

In the Summer of 2022, cOAlition S will launch the Journal Comparison Service (JCS), a secure online platform that will help registered users from the research community better understand if the publishing fees they pay are commensurate with the services delivered, and to gain better insight into the elements of those services. Ahead of this date, publishers will be invited to register with the JCS, sign the participation agreement and share their 2021 price and service data through the platform.

Data sharing practices across knowledge domains: a dynamic examination of data availability statements in PLOS ONE publications

Abstract:  As the importance of research data gradually grows in sciences, data sharing has come to be encouraged and even mandated by journals and funders in recent years. Following this trend, the data availability statement has been increasingly embraced by academic communities as a means of sharing research data as part of research articles. This paper presents a quantitative study of which mechanisms and repositories are used to share research data in PLOS ONE articles. We offer a dynamic examination of this topic from the disciplinary and temporal perspectives based on all statements in English-language research articles published between 2014 and 2020 in the journal. We find a slow yet steady growth in the use of data repositories to share data over time, as opposed to sharing data in the paper or supplementary materials; this indicates improved compliance with the journal’s data sharing policies. We also find that multidisciplinary data repositories have been increasingly used over time, whereas some disciplinary repositories show a decreasing trend. Our findings can help academic publishers and funders to improve their data sharing policies and serve as an important baseline dataset for future studies on data sharing activities.

 

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.