Mécénat scientifique : les plateformes de diffusion des résultats - Afis - Association française pour l'information scientifique

ab1630's bookmarks 2018-04-12


Google English: "Scientific sponsorship: platforms for dissemination of results

by Hervé Maisonneuve - SPS n ° 322, October / December 2017

Is the old model of journals mainly controlled by learned societies and editorial boards endangered? This question is worth asking with the arrival of new models for disseminating the results associated with scientific sponsorship.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has announced for September / October 2017 the launch of Gates Open Research (gatesopenresearch.org). It is a question of proposing (to impose?) To the researchers financed by this foundation to deposit their manuscripts as soon as possible on a platform, and this for all the projects whatever the results.

Manuscript management is outsourced to a known platform: F1000Research (life sciences). This open access platform has been running since 2013 with a fee paid by the authors ($ 1,000 from 2,500 words). The deadline for posting is one week and the deposit is accepted provided that the methods are complete, that the source data is attached, that there is no breach of ethical rules and that the text is intelligible .

The manuscript is peer-reviewed by authors and peer volunteers. Any readers who wish can comment. Most reviewers come from a pool that some subscribe to alerts informing them of the deposit of a manuscript interesting them. Notices are posted, and signed, so everything is transparent. Authors can modify their manuscript taking into account notices and can update their manuscript over time. There is no formal intervention by an editorial board on the manuscripts which all remain online, with all successive versions.

It is not a scientific journal and no impact factor is assigned. The F1000Research policy can be summed up in a few points: quick publication, total transparency, publication of all searches, opening of source data.

This platform model is not new. A major research foundation, the Wellcome Trust in the United Kingdom, has adopted it (Wellcome Open Research, wellcomeopenresearch.org). The benefits of this model have been described for researchers (authors and not editors decide to publish, authors choose reviewers, all research is published), for research (change in how to evaluate who is not more correlated to an impact factor or a reputation of review, but on the intrinsic value of the presented works) and for the society (collaboration facilitated thanks to the transparency and the making available of the source data, decrease of the waste and reduction of the biases ).

Is this an evolution in the way of disseminating the results of all research? Is it a model for funders who want to disseminate the results of all their research? In principle, a publication on these platforms should not be duplicated by submission to a scientific journal. In case of co-financing of a research, what will the authors do? Is it a model specific to the sciences of life? The future will tell.

These platforms should not be confused with open archives that are used in many disciplines and allow the deposit of manuscripts accepted by journal editorial boards (or awaiting review). Institutions have created such archives, as for example, in France, HAL (Hyper online articles, hal.archives-ouvertes.fr)."



From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » ab1630's bookmarks


oa.new oa.french oa.societies oa.publishing oa.publishers oa.gold oa.f1000research oa.gates_foundation oa.platforms oa.funders oa.open_science oa.journals

Date tagged:

04/12/2018, 17:07

Date published:

04/12/2018, 13:07