tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:/hub_feeds/3991/feed_itemsmdelhaye's bookmarks2023-10-26T11:43:26-04:00TagTeam social RSS aggregratortag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/89664402023-10-26T11:43:26-04:002023-10-26T11:43:26-04:00“I Am in a Privileged Situation”: Examining the Factors Promoting Inequity in Open Access Publishing - Ayeni - 2023 - Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology - Wiley Online Library<p>Despite increasing advocacy for open access (OA), the uptake of OA in some disciplines has remained low. Existing studies have linked the low uptake in OA publishing in the humanities and social sciences (HSS) to disciplinary norm, limited funding to pay for article processing charges (APCs), and researchers' preferences. However, there is a growing concern about inequity in OA scholarly communication, as it has remained inaccessible and unaffordable to many researchers. This study therefore investigated inequity in OA publishing in Canada. Using semi-structured interviews, qualitative data was collected from 20 professors from the HSS disciplines of research-intensive universities in Canada. Data was analyzed with NVivo software following the reflexive thematic analysis approach. Findings revealed three main causes of inequity in OA publishing among the participants. These are the cost of APCs, unequal privileges, and gender disparities. Hence, there is a need for concerted efforts by funding agencies, stakeholders, higher education institutions, and researchers to promote equity in OA scholarly communication. Some recommendations for improving equity in OA publishing are provided in this paper.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/89649062023-10-26T09:50:48-04:002023-10-26T09:50:48-04:00A snapshot of the academic research culture in 2023 and how it might be improved<p>Our evaluation revealed a wide variety of barriers to more open sharing of research. While some are related to perceived or experienced biases based on personal characteristics such as gender or inequitable access to support, most result from a research culture that primarily assesses achievement and quality through traditional, peer-reviewed papers. This focus, and the resulting competition, encourages researchers to hide their work at least until a traditional journal paper is published. In some situations, these pressures lead to questionable research practices (QRPs), such as data manipulation to achieve an “interesting” or statistically significant result more likely to appeal to a journal with higher impact metrics or perceived “impact”. In general, open research practices are viewed as not beneficial, or even detrimental, to job security and career advancement. This is especially true given competing demands and the need for academics to prioritise their time on outputs that count in assessments that they are subject to.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/87009032023-10-02T09:24:59-04:002023-10-02T09:24:59-04:00Incorporating open science into ANR projects: a practical guide | Zenodo<p>This guide is available to researchers submitting an ANR project, or those considering it. It aims to help project coordinators plan ahead to comply with open science requirements and guidelines, as it can sometimes be too late to start reflecting on this once a project has been awarded funding. It can also be used to support project coordinators throughout their projects’ lifecycles, providing answers to questions that may crop up along the way. Used at a project’s planning stage, it aims to improve feasibility in projects that are submitted and awarded funding, to facilitate collaboration between partners in the field of open science, to help hone a water-tight, ambitious open science strategy, to plan ahead for risk management, and to budget (data storage and any potential APCs for example). Finally, it is a time-saving tool, in that it raises a certain number of questions as early as possible in the project’s lifecycle, rather than as the project progresses.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/52329392022-09-14T06:50:35-04:002022-09-14T08:53:28-04:00"Open Access Publishing Biases OER" by Chelsee Dickson and Christina Holm<p>Knowing that the peer review process can introduce issues of bias, what then of other aspects of the publishing cycle? For example, what of the subvention funding provided by some institutions to support their faculty in pursuing dissemination of research in Open Access (OA) journals? This Open Educational Resource (OER) will present an overview of the OA landscape and provide learners with tools to develop their own inquiries into the inequities present within the OA publishing industry. All assignments include suggested grading rubrics and build upon one another in a cumulative manner.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/43111592022-06-13T04:22:41-04:002022-06-13T12:50:55-04:00Attitudes, willingness, and resources to cover Article Publishing Charges (APC): the influence of age, position, income level country, discipline and open access habitsAbstract: 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.
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/42836882022-06-09T07:42:16-04:002022-06-09T07:42:16-04:00Ten strategies to foster open science in psychology and beyond<p>The scientific community has long recognized the benefits of open science. Today, governments and research agencies worldwide are increasingly promoting and mandating open practices for scientific research. However, for open science to become the by-default model for scientific research, researchers must perceive open practices as accessible and achievable. A significant obstacle is the lack of resources providing a clear direction on how researchers can integrate open science practices in their day-to-day workflows. This article outlines and discusses ten concrete strategies that can help researchers use and disseminate open science. The first five strategies address basic ways of getting started in open science that researchers can put into practice today. The last five strategies are for researchers who are more advanced in open practices to advocate for open science. Our paper will help researchers navigate the transition to open science practices and support others in shifting toward openness, thus contributing to building a better science.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/33247992021-11-08T12:50:28-05:002021-11-08T12:50:28-05:00Scientists are Working Overtime and at the Weekends: Comparison of Publication Downloading from Copyrighted and Pirated Platforms<p>In this study, we track and analyze publication downloads from both copyrighted and pirated platforms to reconstruct scientists' activity patterns from a holistic perspective. Scientists around the world are working overtime, but scientists in different countries have different working patterns. Scientists' preferences for different platforms are influenced by a variety of factors such as working times and workplace arrangements. There are variations by country in terms of whether scientists prefer to work overtime at night, at the weekend, or both at night and on the weekend. When scientists are working overtime, they prefer to use Sci-Hub rather than copyrighted platforms to access scholarly publications This may be because of the transition in their working scenarios as they move from the office to home outside of work hours.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/30293082021-05-19T10:24:11-04:002021-05-19T10:24:11-04:00Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design | The National Academies Press<div>
<p>In the last twenty years, citizen science has blossomed as a way to engage a broad range of individuals in doing science. Citizen science projects focus on, but are not limited to, nonscientists participating in the processes of scientific research, with the intended goal of advancing and using scientific knowledge. A rich range of projects extend this focus in myriad directions, and the boundaries of citizen science as a field are not clearly delineated. Citizen science involves a growing community of professional practitioners, participants, and stakeholders, and a thriving collection of projects. While citizen science is often recognized for its potential to engage the public in science, it is also uniquely positioned to support and extend participants’ learning in science.</p>
<p>Contemporary understandings of science learning continue to advance. Indeed, modern theories of learning recognize that science learning is complex and multifaceted. Learning is affected by factors that are individual, social, cultural, and institutional, and learning occurs in virtually any context and at every age. Current understandings of science learning also suggest that science learning extends well beyond content knowledge in a domain to include understanding of the nature and methods of science.</p>
<p><em>Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design</em> discusses the potential of citizen science to support science learning and identifies promising practices and programs that exemplify the promising practices. This report also lays out a research agenda that can fill gaps in the current understanding of how citizen science can support science learning and enhance science education.</p>
</div>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/28040612020-10-30T09:21:47-04:002020-10-30T09:21:47-04:00Scoping the Open Science Infrastructure Landscape in Europe | Zenodo<p>"We see a diverse, interconnected, open, professional and viable, developing OS ecosystem in Europe on solid ground; one that is worth investing in. At the same time, this developing ecosystem faces a range of issues that challenge its path to a more open and sustainable future." This is a core conclusion of this new SPARC Europe report; the work is a result of a recent in-depth survey of infrastructure and/or services that are part of the European Open Science infrastructure (OSI) landscape.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/28016522020-10-27T10:28:03-04:002020-10-27T10:28:03-04:00Je publie, quels sont mes droits ? (I'm publishing, what are my rights ?)<p>The guide lists the questions that authors of scientific publications should ask themselves when they decide to publish their work. It provides advice and possible options to be applied throughout the publication process.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/28016512020-10-27T10:16:12-04:002020-10-27T10:16:12-04:00Investigating the article processing charge of journals in the gold open access market: A game theory approach - Yuan - 2020 - Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology - Wiley Online Library<p>As a promising solution for enhancing knowledge communication as well as alleviating financial pressure of institutional libraries, gold open access (gold OA) has attracted wide attention all over the world. But it is a hard work to fully disclose how the equilibrium article processing charge is established in the gold OA market. To deal with this challenge, this paper firstly formulates the competition among journals in this market as a three‐stage Hotelling duopoly game, which is able to reveal its dynamic and competitive features affected by academic reputation, publication delays and article processing charges of journals. Then backward induction is applied to derive the market equilibria. Finally, an empirical study with 1,346 journals is conducted to verify the credibility of the theoretical solutions. The results show that gold OA journal with relatively higher academic reputation and shorter publication delay could charge higher article processing charge. And the publication delays of gold OA journals tend to cluster together in a limited time interval.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/27960022020-10-20T09:19:41-04:002020-10-20T09:19:41-04:00The prices of open access publishing : the composition of APC across different fields of sciences<p>Modern media technologies paved the way to the open access movement. Instead of the traditional academic subscription and publishing model, which allowed few big publishers to charge excessive publishing fees, the open access model raises the hope for a fair system, where scientific content is freely accessible and thus the dissemination of research work becomes possible at little cost. However, previous literature pointed out that big publishers seem to be able to preserve their market power when going from the subscription-based model to the open access model. In this paper, we take a closer look at the differences across disciplines. The publication routines in Social Sciences, Physical Sciences, Life Sciences and Health Sciences differ to a substantial extent. On these grounds, we test whether there are also differences in the explanations for the article processing charges (APC) across these disciplines. For doing so, we combined various data sources such as the dataset of the “Directory of Open Access”, the “OpenAPC Initiative” and the “CiteScore Metrics”. Our regression results show that the differences across the four fields in terms of publication habits and endowment levels allow publishers to exploit their market power to different extents.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/27959952020-10-20T09:14:39-04:002020-10-20T09:14:39-04:00Improving open and rigorous science: ten key future research opportunities related to rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in scientific research<p>Background: As part of a coordinated effort to expand research activity around rigor, reproducibility, and transparency (RRT) across scientific disciplines, a team of investigators at the Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington hosted a workshop in October 2019 with international leaders to discuss key opportunities for RRT research. Objective: The workshop aimed to identify research priorities and opportunities related to RRT. Design: Over two-days, workshop attendees gave presentations and participated in three working groups: (1) Improving Education & Training in RRT, (2) Reducing Statistical Errors and Increasing Analytic Transparency, and (3) Looking Outward: Increasing Truthfulness and Accuracy of Research Communications. Following small-group discussions, the working groups presented their findings, and participants discussed the research opportunities identified. The investigators compiled a list of research priorities, which were circulated to all participants for feedback. Results: Participants identified the following priority research questions: (1) Can RRT-focused statistics and mathematical modeling courses improve statistics practice?; (2) Can specialized training in scientific writing improve transparency?; (3) Does modality (e.g. face to face, online) affect the efficacy RRT-related education?; (4) How can automated programs help identify errors more efficiently?; (5) What is the prevalence and impact of errors in scientific publications (e.g., analytic inconsistencies, statistical errors, and other objective errors)?; (6) Do error prevention workflows reduce errors?; (7) How do we encourage post-publication error correction?; (8) How does ‘spin’ in research communication affect stakeholder understanding and use of research evidence?; (9) Do tools to aid writing research reports increase comprehensiveness and clarity of research reports?; and (10) Is it possible to inculcate scientific values and norms related to truthful, rigorous, accurate, and comprehensive scientific reporting? Conclusion: Participants identified important and relatively unexplored questions related to improving RRT. This list may be useful to the scientific community and investigators seeking to advance meta-science (i.e. research on research).</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/27959902020-10-20T09:11:57-04:002020-10-20T09:11:57-04:00PsyArXiv Preprints | Practice what you preach: Credibility-enhancing displays and the growth of open science<p>How can individual scientists most effectively spread the adoption of open science practices? Engaging in open science practices presents a social dilemma because they are individually costly (given the current incentive schemes in academia) but collectively beneficial (due to production of higher quality and more accessible science). Mechanisms for promoting cooperation in social dilemmas typically rely on normativity—but open science practices are still comparatively rare. Further, individuals may be tempted to dishonestly “virtue signal” due to growing support for open science. We formulate a solution based on the theory of credibility-enhancing displays: advocates who are known to themselves practice the behavior they are advocating for (particularly if they are prestigious) are more effective at convincing others—specifically because their actions provide an honest signal of their belief in the behavior’s value. Thus, advocates for open science practices should find ways to engage in those practices visibly and often.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/27720372020-09-17T07:37:16-04:002020-09-17T07:37:16-04:00Doctorant·e·s, bienvenue en science ouverte ! [Doctoral students, welcome to open science !]<p>[From Deepl's French]</p>
<p>You are at the beginning of your thesis and an apprentice researcher? You have heard about open science but have not yet stepped over its frontier or just started exploring its territories? The Passport to Open Science is the guide designed to support you every step of the way, from the beginning of your research to the dissemination of your results!
To help you discover good practices and reliable solutions, to show you useful and usable tools, the University of Lille and the Competence and Training College of the Committee for Open Science have produced this Passport to Open Science for you by talking to doctoral students to better meet your needs, and with the help of experts to encourage you to practice open science on a daily basis.
You will find the digital version on the website, distributed under Creative Commons BY-SA license, and the printed version at your doctoral school.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/27706622020-09-15T10:26:38-04:002020-09-15T10:26:38-04:00"Open Data and Open Access Articles in the Life Sciences" by Sarah C. Williams<p>The findings indicate that Gold OA in hybrid journals does not appear to be a popular option, even for articles connected to open data, and this study emphasizes the importance of data repositories providing DOIs, since the related articles frequently used DOIs to point to the Illinois Data Bank datasets. This study also revealed concerns about free (not licensed OA) access to articles on publisher websites, which will be a significant topic for future research.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/27706612020-09-15T10:24:15-04:002020-09-15T10:24:15-04:00Development of a Peer-Reviewed Open-Access Undergraduate Research Journal<p>Dissemination of results is a fundamental aspect of the scientific process and requires an avenue for publication that is specifically designed to suit the nature of the research being communicated. Undergraduate research journals provide a unique forum for students to report scientific findings and ideas while learning about the complete scientific process. We have developed a peer-reviewed, open-access, international undergraduate research journal that is linked to a course-based undergraduate research experience. We reflect on lessons learned and recommend effective approaches for the implementation and operation of a successful undergraduate research journal.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/27706602020-09-15T10:22:54-04:002020-09-15T10:22:54-04:00An open-access occurrence database for Andean bears in Peru<p>The Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus) is listed as a vulnerable species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature; however, the lack of knowledge regarding different aspects of its ecology, biogeography, and abundance hinders the conservation efforts of researchers and managers. To address the high cost of acquiring information and the lack of systematized data, we created a database for records of this species in Peru. We compiled Andean bear occurrence records in Peru for the years 1980–2018 from different sources, including direct observations, indirect observations (footprints, food remains, bear beds and scats), and camera-trap photographs from published literature, gray literature, and environmental impact studies. With collaboration from many colleagues, we obtained 973 records and created an open access database by using the Global Biodiversity Information Facility data repository. We encourage the use, publication, and sharing of raw data from studies and opportunistic observations to gain better knowledge and support for the conservation of the Andean bear and other threatened species.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/27501402020-08-12T10:56:54-04:002020-08-12T10:56:54-04:00Open science for responsible innovation in Australia: understanding the expectations and priorities of scientists and researchers<p>Recent arguments for responsible innovation to progress beyond the narrow focus on open access and toward open science present the opportunity for a deliberate global transition to a culture of transparent and open scientific conduct that will deliver greater societal benefit. This paper presents results from a survey of 171 Australian scientists, researchers and other professionals on their expectations and perspectives of transparency and openness in current scientific research practice. The results suggest that for this cultural transition to occur, the responsibility for strengthening transparency and openness must be undertaken not only by scientists and researchers, but also research funding and delivery agencies, and even those beyond the research and innovation sector. These findings are a first step towards defining and understanding what open science means in an Australian context, and what shifts are needed from researchers, research institutions and policy makers to move toward open science for responsible innovation.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/27500682020-08-12T06:19:28-04:002020-08-12T06:19:28-04:00Towards an Open Platform for Legal Information | Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries in 2020<p>Recent advances in the area of legal information systems have led to a variety of applications that promise support in processing and accessing legal documents. Unfortunately, these applications have various limitations, e.g., regarding scope or extensibility. Furthermore, we do not observe a trend towards open access in digital libraries in the legal domain as we observe in other domains, e.g., economics of computer science. To improve open access in the legal domain, we present our approach for an open source platform to transparently process and access Legal Open Data. This enables the sustainable development of legal applications by offering a single technology stack. Moreover, the approach facilitates the development and deployment of new technologies. As proof of concept, we implemented six technologies and generated metadata for more than 250,000 German laws and court decisions. Thus, we can provide users of our platform not only access to legal documents, but also the contained information.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/27485522020-08-09T15:53:52-04:002020-08-09T15:53:52-04:00Full article: The Open Innovation in Science research field: a collaborative conceptualisation approach<p>Openness and collaboration in scientific research are attracting increasing attention from scholars and practitioners alike. However, a common understanding of these phenomena is hindered by disciplinary boundaries and disconnected research streams. We link dispersed knowledge on Open Innovation, Open Science, and related concepts such as Responsible Research and Innovation by proposing a unifying Open Innovation in Science (OIS) Research Framework. This framework captures the antecedents, contingencies, and consequences of open and collaborative practices along the entire process of generating and disseminating scientific insights and translating them into innovation. Moreover, it elucidates individual-, team-, organisation-, field-, and society‐level factors shaping OIS practices. To conceptualise the framework, we employed a collaborative approach involving 47 scholars from multiple disciplines, highlighting both tensions and commonalities between existing approaches. The OIS Research Framework thus serves as a basis for future research, informs policy discussions, and provides guidance to scientists and practitioners.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/27485512020-08-09T15:51:23-04:002020-08-09T15:51:23-04:00Developing Open Science in Africa: Barriers, Solutions and Opportunities<p>The paper argues for the development of open science in Africa as a means of energising national science systems and their roles in supporting public and private sectors and the general public. It focuses on the complexity of the social and economic challenges created by climate change and the demographic explosion and the difficulty of confronting them in the absence of an adequate digital infrastructure. Although a well-coordinated, federated multi-state open science system would be a means of overcoming this barrier, African science systems largely operate independently of each other, creating siloes of incompatible policies, practices and data sets that are not mutually consistent or inter-operable. Africa’s linguistic chasms of English, French, Portuguese, Spanish and indigenous languages create further barriers. As international science moves towards greater openness and data sharing to address the complexity inherent in major global challenges, Africa’s stance needs radical overhaul. The paper draws on the questionnaire data from 15 African Science Granting Councils and the state-of-the-art Report to them on “Open Science in Research and Innovation for Development in Africa”. It concludes that a well-developed Open Science system for Africa, would develop and enhance collaborations and partnerships among Africans to tackle the challenges that they face and accelerate innovation and development.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/27485492020-08-09T15:44:24-04:002020-08-10T08:30:17-04:00Trends of Publications' Citations and Altmetrics Based on Open Access Types | Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries in 2020<p>This paper analyzes trends of citation and altmetrics with respect to different OA types (e.g., gold, hybrid, green). The analysis based on Unpaywall, Altmetric, and COCI shows that articles with a green license obtain more citations than other OA types. Regarding patents, hybrid, green, and bronze articles get more mentions compared to closed and gold articles. In terms of social media (e.g., Twitter and Facebook), bronze articles receive the most mentions.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/27485502020-08-09T15:46:42-04:002020-08-10T08:27:38-04:00OAR@UM: Academics’ perspective of open access and institutional repositories, University of Malta : a case study<p>Abstract: This research explores factors affecting academics’ willingness towards self-archiving in their University’s IR. Academics are the main contributors of Institutional Repositories (IRs). Whatsoever, voluntary contributions from their end lacks, which is a problem faced by Universities globally. Since the situation at the University of Malta (UM) is of no exception to such hindrance to its IR (OAR@UM) content and potential, this study specifically tackled UM academics. Both positive and negative drivers towards self-archiving in OAR@UM were investigated in terms of perceptions, awareness, practice and knowledge. Apart from the IR, OA publishing in general was also considered. Also, from the reviewed literature a gap was identified. Thus, this study attempted to fill such gap by extending its scope to also explore the academics’ willingness towards engaging in knowledge sharing activities along with, related preferences such as, venue and material type. This study adopted the Willingness Indicator Model, a new research model based upon the Theory of Planned Behaviour and that was specifically developed by this researcher for the purpose of this study. A quantitative research design using online questionnaire survey was employed albeit questions that derive both quantitative and qualitative information were incorporated. Findings transpired that despite low contribution, overall, participants did positively perceive OAR@UM to be a high quality venue, acknowledged access benefits, recognised that it benefits the UM and regarded it as the majorly preferred self-archiving venue. They also overall acknowledged that it benefits the UM. Among others, the major inspiring factors towards depositing respectively were the prospect of increased professional visibility and altruism in terms of benefiting other researchers. On the other hand, among others, major inhibiting factors respectively were, not finding the time, self-archiving being unusual practice within discipline, and copyright concerns. High awareness about the availability of OA and OAR@UM showed. Nonetheless, a lack of OA and self-archiving concept knowledge along with, knowledge related to OAR@UM in relation to concept and related services emerged. To this effect, low OAR@UM contributors resulted. As concluded, this particularly occurred as a consequence of negative perceptions, unrecognised benefits and concerns which most were unfounded ones and that thus, could simply cease through the acquisition of appropriate concept related knowledge that of course could only be derived through appropriate education, promotion and communication.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/27450722020-08-04T05:28:20-04:002020-08-04T05:28:20-04:00Society for the Teaching of Psychology - Open science and critical thinking across the psychology curriculum: More important now than ever<p>Here, we outline ways to talk about open science in any course, including introductory psychology, and then introduce more advanced ideas suitable for a research or capstone course. This integration of open science can enhance students’ ability to think critically about science from all kinds of sources.</p>