Cinq thèmes sont suivis dans ce scoop.it : le libre accès (Open Access), la science citoyenne (citizen science), la science en ligne (Open Science), la science 2.0 et les cours en ligne gratuits (MOOCs).
With the rise of Wikipedia as a first-stop source for scientific knowledge, it is important to compare its representation of that knowledge to that of the academic literature. This article approaches such a comparison through academic references made within the worlds 50 largest Wikipedias. Previous studies have raised concerns that Wikipedia editors may simply use the most easily accessible academic sources rather than sources of the highest academic status. We test this claim by identifying the 250 most heavily used journals in each of 26 research fields (4,721 journals, 19.4M articles in total) indexed by the Scopus database, and modeling whether topic, academic status, and accessibility make articles from these journals more or less likely to be referenced on Wikipedia. We find that, controlling for field and impact factor, the odds that an open access journal is referenced on the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to closed access journals. Moreover, in most of the worlds Wikipedias a journals high status (impact factor) and accessibility (open access policy) both greatly increase the probability of referencing. Among the implications of this study is that the chief effect of open access policies may be to significantly amplify the diffusion of science, through an intermediary like Wikipedia, to a broad public audience.
f publishing within the institution’s IR is recognized as one of the rewards of being a student and doing great research, couldn’t the IR be a recruiting tool in addition to a powerful retention tool? Scott Walter, University Librarian at DePaul, thinks so and together with the campus’s Division of Enrollment Management & Marketing (EM&M) they are using the publishing capabilities of Digital Commons to support the EM&M Center for Access and Attainment’s work of student recruitment.
According to DePaul, the Center for Access and Attainment “serves as a focal point for dialogue, strategy and action concerning the university’s mission-based commitment to higher education opportunity.” The Center has a number of outreach efforts to potential students including a program for International Baccalaureate students in Chicago Public Schools. Select high school students (first generation immigrant students) are brought to campus for college-prep coursework, part of which is conducting oral history interviews with their community.
The oral histories produced in this program will now be showcased in DePaul’s IR, Via Sapientiae, providing a new type of library support for Enrollment Management & Marketing. This innovative collaboration underpins the DePaul University Library’s outreach strategy. Scott is creating partnerships above and beyond traditional ones in order to demonstrate how the library is contributing to the larger strategic goals of the institution.
All you ever wanted to know about open science but were afraid to ask.
So be prepared for this trip to the future, which has yet to unfold in your day-to-day life as a researcher, policy makers or science enthusiast.
It is no longer a matter of whether science will be fully open, but rather of when. This may take longer than anticipated. But one thing is sure, one day, the term open science will become redundant as all science will be that way. And we all have a part to play in ensuring that this will happen.
Find out how by reading this special issue of EuroScientist and sharing it as widely as possible in your circles.
The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers’ high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as well as its evolution over time and across various disciplines, has not yet been analyzed. This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1
Organizations around the world denounce Elsevier’s new policy that impedes open access and sharing
On April 30, 2015, Elsevier announced a new sharing and hosting policy for Elsevier journal articles. This policy represents a significant obstacle to the dissemination and use of research knowledge, and creates unnecessary barriers for Elsevier published authors in complying with funders’ open access policies. In addition, the policy has been adopted without any evidence that immediate sharing of articles has a negative impact on publishers subscriptions.
Despite the claim by Elsevier that the policy advances sharing, it actually does the opposite. The policy imposes unacceptably long embargo periods of up to 48 months for some journals. It also requires authors to apply a “non-commercial and no derivative works” license for each article deposited into a repository, greatly inhibiting the re-use value of these articles. Any delay in the open availability of research articles curtails scientific progress and places unnecessary constraints on delivering the benefits of research back to the public.
Furthermore, the policy applies to “all articles previously published and those published in the future” making it even more punitive for both authors and institutions. This may also lead to articles that are currently available being suddenly embargoed and inaccessible to readers.
As organizations committed to the principle that access to information advances discovery, accelerates innovation and improves education, we support the adoption of policies and practices that enable the immediate, barrier free access to and reuse of scholarly articles. This policy is in direct conflict with the global trend towards open access and serves only to dilute the benefits of openly sharing research results.
We strongly urge Elsevier to reconsider this policy and we encourage other organizations and individuals to express their opinions.
Ce rapport du groupe de travail sur le libre accès définit le concept du libre accès, son origine, ainsi que son déploiement ici et ailleurs. Il présente les avantages pour le réseau de l’Université du Québec de soutenir et d’envisager le développement du libre accès. Finalement, il présente des conditions et des pistes d’actions à mettre en place pour favoriser le déploiement du libre accès.
The current university set up has led to a deep malaise. The culture of retreat and lack of an inclusive commitment has fed public perceptions that universities are unapproachable. Michael Stewart argues that thinking more creatively about impact and problem-based learning could help overcome these failures. The management terminology is brittle and ugly, but all impact means is that we are engaged with the world, trying to make it a better place to live in.
I present the core principles of the “Self-Journal of Science” (SJS), an open repository as well as a new paradigm of scientific publication. Rooted in Science ethics, a full and consistent solution is proposed to address the many flaws in current systems. SJS implements an optimal peer review, which itself becomes a measurable process, and builds an objective and unfalsifiable evaluation system. In addition, it can operate at very low costs. One of the essential features of SJS is to allow every scientist to play his full role as a member of the scientific community and to be credited for all contributions – whether as author, referee, or editor. The output is the responsibility of each scientist, and no subgroup can dictate scientific policy to all. By fully opening up the process of publication, peer pressure becomes the force that drives output towards the highest quality in a virtuous self-regulating circle. SJS also provides a self-organizing and scalable solution to handle an ever-increasing number of articles.
Pour ce document de travail, RatSWD a interrogé 2 661 chercheurs universitaires de toutes les disciplines et de divers pays sur le rapport qu'ils entretiennent avec les données, sur leurs pratiques en matière de publication et sur leurs motivations à partager, ou à retenir, leurs données de recherche.
Des 1 564 réponses valides, les résultats montrent que les chercheurs de toutes les disciplines reconnaissent les avantages que représente l'obtention des données de recherche pour leur propre travail (62 %) et pour le progrès scientifique dans son ensemble (83 %). Toutefois, ils partagent leurs données avec modération (35 %). Le principal facteur était la crainte que les autres chercheurs ne publient avant eux (80 %).
Pour expliquer cette constatation, les auteurs avancent que le système universitaire n'est pas motivé par des incitations financières, ni par le désir de progresser sur le plan scientifique, mais plutôt par la réputation des personnes, laquelle est exprimée en nombre de publications dans les revues prestigieuses.
Le qualificatif donné par les auteurs à ce système est économie de réputation. Cette économie explique les résultats qui montrent que les chercheurs considèrent qu'ils reçoivent une reconnaissance officielle adéquate en ce qui concerne le partage des données par les pairs, avec citation à l'appui, plutôt qu'avec une demande de statut de coauteur laquelle, dans certaines disciplines, pourrait être perçue comme s'opposant à l'éthique.
Le partage de données ne sera largement adopté par les chercheurs que s'il est payant en matière de réputation.
Ainsi, les mesures politiques qui entendent favoriser la collaboration des chercheurs doivent faire l'objet d'une compréhension de la part du milieu universitaire qui doit considérer cette collaboration comme une économie de réputation. Des mesures efficaces doivent valoriser plus fortement les données secondaires de recherche. Pour ce faire, elles doivent tout d'abord pouvoir être citées et retracées.
Transparency and reproducibility are cornerstones of how science creates knowledge. Evidence for scientific claims should be shared openly so others can evaluate, question, replicate, or extend scientific studies. When evidence cannot be reproduced independently, then it should not be accepted as credible evidence. Despite their importance, transparency and reproducibility are not often rewarded. Lack of transparency reduces the credibility of published results, which in turn undercuts the efficient and effective use of funding to support scientific advancement. To improve research transparency, the scientific community is undertaking a series of reforms. The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) is expressing its commitment to the principles of transparency in scientific research and is joining this effort to reform research and publishing practices...
We were at the fantastic ‘Open Repositories’ conference last week and as usual it was a great mix of developer chat and bigger picture thinking. Our main focus at the conference was to discuss workflows with existing institutional infrastructure, such as their institutional repository (IR). A number of institutions have spent years developing their IRs to keep them user-friendly and full of open access papers. With recent changes to funder mandates and policies, institutions are faced with the need for systems to better manage all of the other digital products of research. In order to be compliant with the funder mandates, we have been providing IRs for institutions who either do not have an IR at the moment, or feel it is more efficient in terms of time and money to use the ‘figshare for institutions’ set up over massive customizations to repositories like ePrints or DSpace. -
Academic publishing is a multi-million dollar business dominated by just a few major publishing houses. Many academics and open access advocates believe that’s unfair—publishers simply take researchers’ work and sell it back to them, they say. Stan Correy takes a look at the state of play.
Momentum for open access has been growing as numerous funding agencies and institutions worldwide implement open access policies. In Canada, the recent release of the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications requires grant recipients, as of May 2015, to take steps to ensure that peer-reviewed journal publications arising from supported research are made freely accessible within 12 months of publication. As a means of supporting open access initiatives, in 2012 the Leddy Library launched a digital institutional repository Scholarship at UWindsor, which is available to assist Windsor researchers in meeting the requirements of the Tri-Council (CIHR, NSERC, SSHRC) and other funding agencies.
In recognition of the importance of providing open access to Windsor research and building on the momentum of the Tri-Council Policy, on Friday May 8th, University Senate passed the University of Windsor's own open access policy. All authors across campus are strongly encouraged to post a copy of their peer-reviewed journal articles in Scholarship at UWindsor. Author’s whose articles must be made available open access as a result of the Tri-Council OA policy are also required to place a copy of those articles in Scholarship at UWindsor.
The current review process of scientific articles is outdated. Only a few reviewers assess the quality of papers before publication. Many more experts read them after publication, have a strong opinion about their contents, but are hardly able to share it to a wide audience. Academics would greatly benefit from crowdreviewing, a post-publication peer review (PPPR) process in which anyone who has read a scientific article is asked to review it according to a standardized set of questions. Today’s consumers themselves decide whether the consumed good meets their quality standards, and this is quickly and easily shared with the rest of the world. Others can then let their demand for the reviewed good depend on the reviews. Interested people observe the articles’ quality (and the reasons why) at a glance. Visibility of the reviews, including comments and remarks, will even have an upward effect on the quality of future research. The sharing economy at its finest, applied to academia.
Sharing your scoops to your social media accounts is a must to distribute your curated content. Not only will it drive traffic and leads through your content, but it will help show your expertise with your followers.
How to integrate my topics' content to my website?
Integrating your curated content to your website or blog will allow you to increase your website visitors’ engagement, boost SEO and acquire new visitors. By redirecting your social media traffic to your website, Scoop.it will also help you generate more qualified traffic and leads from your curation work.
Distributing your curated content through a newsletter is a great way to nurture and engage your email subscribers will developing your traffic and visibility.
Creating engaging newsletters with your curated content is really easy.