The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform

The volume of scientific output is creating an urgent need for automated tools to help scientists keep up with developments in their field. Semantic Scholar (S2) is an open data platform and website aimed at accelerating science by helping scholars discover and understand scientific literature. We combine public and proprietary data sources using state-of-theart techniques for scholarly PDF content extraction and automatic knowledge graph construction to build the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph, the largest open scientific literature graph to-date, with 200M+ papers, 80M+ authors, 550M+ paper-authorship edges, and 2.4B+ citation edges. The graph includes advanced semantic features such as structurally parsed text, natural language summaries, and vector embeddings. In this paper, we describe the components of the S2 data processing pipeline and the associated APIs offered by the platform. We will update this living document to reflect changes as we add new data offerings and improve existing services.

Gender inequality and self-publication are common among academic editors

Scientific editors shape the content of academic journals and set standards for their fields. Yet, the degree to which the gender makeup of editors reflects that of scientists, and the rate at which editors publish in their own journals, are not entirely understood. Here, we use algorithmic tools to infer the gender of 81,000 editors serving more than 1,000 journals and 15 disciplines over five decades. Only 26% of authors in our dataset are women, and we find even fewer women among editors (14%) and editors-in-chief (8%). Career length explains the gender gap among editors, but not editors-in-chief. Moreover, by analysing the publication records of 20,000 editors, we find that 12% publish at least one-fifth, and 6% publish at least one-third, of their papers in the journal they edit. Editors-in-chief tend to self-publish at a higher rate. Finally, compared with women, men have a higher increase in the rate at which they publish in a journal soon after becoming its editor.

Largest-ever study of journal editors highlights ‘self-publication’ and gender gap

The gender gap among senior journal editors is bigger than many people thought, and some editors publish a surprising number of their own papers in the journals that they edit, finds the first study to look at these issues over time across multiple disciplines.

Ukrainian wins inaugural APE Award for Innovation in Scholarly Communication – Digital Science

“Digital Science is pleased to announce that Ukrainian Vsevolod Solovyov has won the inaugural APE Award for Innovation in Scholarly Communication at the 18th Academic Publishing in Europe (APE) Conference in Berlin, Germany.

The award – supported by Digital Science, a technology company serving stakeholders across the research ecosystem – was given to Vsevolod Solovyov for his work on Prophy.Science. Prophy.Science is an online platform for recommending reviewers used by the European Research Council in their grant reviewing process, which is therefore critical to research funding across Europe….”

JSTOR and university press partners announce Path to Open Books pilot

JSTOR, part of the non-profit ITHAKA, and a cohort of leading university presses announced today Path to Open, a program to support the open access publication of new groundbreaking scholarly books that will bring diverse perspectives and research to millions of people.

 

Thoughts on AI’s Impact on Scholarly Communications? An Interview with ChatGPT – The Scholarly Kitchen

“As 2022 drew to a close, a great deal of popular attention was drawn to the latest artificial intelligence chatbot, ChatGPT, which was released in November 2022 by OpenAPI. (As an aside, the company has a had a very interesting background and funding, which has produced a number of important AI advances). Machine learning, natural language processing and textual creation have made significant advances over the past decade. When the first auto-generation of content from structured data became commercially viable about a decade ago, it was reasonably easy to discern machine generated content. This is increasingly no longer the case. Content distributors and assessors of content, be that for scholarly peer-review, for academic credentialling, or simply those who consume content should be aware of the capabilities of these tools and should not be dismissive of them.

Given the range of questions in scholarly communications around the application of AI, I thought it might be interesting to see what the ChatGPT’s response would be to some of these, along with other literary/tech questions, and to share them with you. You can review for yourself whether you think the responses are good ones or not and, if you didn’t know the source of the responses, whether you could tell that they were derived from a machine. Copied below are the questions and responses. I have not edited the responses in any way from what was output by the ChatGPT. It seems we’ve moved well beyond the “Turing Test” for assessing the intelligence of a machine. You may notice there is something formulaic to some of the responses, but it’s only discernible after looking over several of them. Though it is important to reflect that the machine doesn’t “know” whether the answers are correct or not, only that they are statically valid responses to the questions posed….”

Nature announces support for authors from over 70 countries to publish open access: Authors from low-income and lower-middle income countries to be able to publish for free in Nature and the Nature research journals

From today, primary research from authors from over 70 countries classified by the World Bank as low-income (LIC) or lower-middle-income economies (LMICs) accepted for publication in either Nature or one of the Nature research journals (e.g. Nature Chemistry, Nature Sustainability) can now be published Gold open access at no cost. This move recognises that local funding is rarely available for publishing OA in specialist journals like Nature, whose characteristics such as in-house editorial teams and low acceptance rates make it difficult for authors from these countries who are less well-funded.  

A Short Introduction to DOAJ

The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) was founded by Lars Bjørnshauge in 2003; the current managing director is Joanna Ball. A cornerstone in the global Open Science landscape, DOAJ currently lists more than 18,000 peer-reviewed, strictly open access journals (Gold or Diamond). Dominic Mitchell, who has worked for DOAJ for the last ten years, explains how the indexing process is managed by a combination of volunteers and salaried staff like himself, how they work to exclude predatory journals from the list, and how DOAJ is financed. Furthermore, DOAJ is involved in several collaborative projects promoting high-quality scholarly publishing, including The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (4th ed., 2022).

The Preprint Club – A cross-institutional, community-based approach to peer reviewing | bioRxiv

The academic community has been increasingly using preprints to disseminate their latest research findings quickly and openly. This early and open access of non-peer reviewed research warrants new means from the scientific community to efficiently assess and provide feedback to preprints. Yet, most peer review of scientific studies performed today are still managed by journals, each having their own peer review policy and transparency. However, approaches to uncouple the peer review process from journal publication are emerging. Additionally, formal education of early career researchers (ECRs) in peer reviewing is rarely available, hampering the quality of peer review feedback. Here, we introduce the Preprint Club, a cross-institutional, community-based approach to peer reviewing, founded by ECRs from the University of Oxford, Karolinska Institutet and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Over the past two years and using the collaborative setting of the Preprint Club, we have been discussing, assessing, and providing feedback on recent preprints in the field of immunology. In this article, we provide a blueprint of the Preprint Club basic structure, demonstrate its effectiveness, and detail the lessons we learned on its impact on peer review training and preprint author’s perception.

University Scholarly Communication Officer and Director of Open Scholarship and Research Data Services, Harvard Library | Harvard University

“Harvard Library seeks a dynamic and visionary leader to advance equitable, high impact models of scholarly communication across the University. The incumbent provides appreciative leadership for the newly formed department, Open Scholarship and Research Data Services. This new department merges two high-performing units, the Office for Scholarly Communication and the Research Data Management Program, to support Harvard Library’s aspirations, on behalf of researchers, to be global leaders in expanding world knowledge and intellectual exploration through the creation, promotion, and support of new and existing models of sharing research outputs.

Open Scholarship and Research Data Services focuses on shifting the information landscape towards a more equitable, diverse ecosystem of trustworthy resources, where impactful research is freely available to all who need it. Its staff offer and support other units in offering custom support to researchers across the lifecycle of their research outputs; implement the open-access policies adopted by faculty at every Harvard school; advise on the orderly deposit and archiving of research outputs in the most appropriate repository or repositories; promote standards in metadata schema and description practices to enhance discovery; investigate and implement a variety of aspects of new models for scholarly publishing, including services and infrastructure leveraging current repository work; and design forward-looking repository models in collaboration with peers to provide open access to scholarship.”

 

 

 

R= Making all research work visible

“This is a lightning talk I gave for the QUEST Center virtual brainstorm on “The future of scholarly communication: A virtual brainstorming discussion between early career researchers and scientific publishers” (2023-01-04). Specifically, this is a brief talk about ResearchEquals’s principles. This is the first time I am making a presentation in the new iA Presenter software – you can find the original file as a supporting file in case you’d like to reuse this.”

Do open-access dermatology articles have higher citation counts than those with subscription-based access? | PLOS ONE

 

 

Open-access (OA) publishing is increasingly prevalent in dermatology, and many journals now offer hybrid options, including conventional (subscription-based access [SA]) publishing or OA (with an author publishing charge) in a subscription journal. OA publishing has been noted in many disciplines, but this has been rarely studied in dermatology.

Methods

Using the Clarivate Journal Citation Report, we compiled a list of English-language dermatology hybrid OA journals containing more than 5% OA articles. We sampled any OA review or original research article in 4 issues from 2018 to 2019 and matched an equal number of SA articles. Citation count, citation count excluding self-citations and view counts found using Scopus and Altmetrics score were recorded for each article. Statistical analyses were performed using logistic and negative binomial models using R software.

Results

Twenty-seven hybrid dermatology journals were found, and 538 articles were sampled (269 OA, 269 SA). For both original research and review articles, OA articles had significantly higher mean citation counts (mean 13.2, standard deviation [SD] 17.0) compared to SA articles (mean 7.9, SD 8.8) (odds ratio [OR] 1.04; 95% CI 1.02–1.05; P < .001) including when adjusted for time from publication. Original research OA articles had significantly higher citation counts than original research SA articles (excluding self-citations; OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01–1.05; P = .003), and review articles also had OA citation advantage than review SA articles (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02–1.11; P = .008). There was, however, no significant difference in citation counts between review articles and original research articles (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.19–5.31; P = 1.000).

There was no significant difference seen in view counts (OA: mean±SD 17.7±10.8; SA: mean±SD 17.1±12.4) and Altmetric score (OA: mean±SD 13.2±47.8; SA: mean±SD 6.3±25.0) between OA and SA articles. Potential confounders included the fact that more OA articles were published in Europe than in Asia, and pharmaceutical-funded articles were more likely to be published OA.

Conclusions

We noted a higher citation count for OA articles than SA articles in dermatology hybrid journals. However, dermatology researchers should take into account confounding factors when deciding whether to increase the impact of their work by selecting OA over SA publishing.