What’s Wrong with Social Science and How to Fix It: Reflections After Reading 2578 Papers | Fantastic Anachronism

[Some recommendations:]

Ignore citation counts. Given that citations are unrelated to (easily-predictable) replicability, let alone any subtler quality aspects, their use as an evaluative tool should stop immediately.
Open data, enforced by the NSF/NIH. There are problems with privacy but I would be tempted to go as far as possible with this. Open data helps detect fraud. And let’s have everyone share their code, too—anything that makes replication/reproduction easier is a step in the right direction.
Financial incentives for universities and journals to police fraud. It’s not easy to structure this well because on the one hand you want to incentivize them to minimize the frauds published, but on the other hand you want to maximize the frauds being caught. Beware Goodhart’s law!
Why not do away with the journal system altogether? The NSF could run its own centralized, open website; grants would require publication there. Journals are objectively not doing their job as gatekeepers of quality or truth, so what even is a journal? A combination of taxonomy and reputation. The former is better solved by a simple tag system, and the latter is actually misleading. Peer review is unpaid work anyway, it could continue as is. Attach a replication prediction market (with the estimated probability displayed in gargantuan neon-red font right next to the paper title) and you’re golden. Without the crutch of “high ranked journals” maybe we could move to better ways of evaluating scientific output. No more editors refusing to publish replications. You can’t shift the incentives: academics want to publish in “high-impact” journals, and journals want to selectively publish “high-impact” research. So just make it impossible. Plus as a bonus side-effect this would finally sink Elsevier….”

New Approaches to Evaluate Researchers’ Impact

“The second Basel Sustainable Publishing Forum (BSPF) will be held virtually on 26–27 October 2020. Until then, due to the current COVID-19 situation, we would like to offer you some of the conference topics via webinars! In the weeks and months preceding the conference, selected speakers will discuss various aspects on Open-Access publishing. The first webinar in the series was already held on 2 July 2020. It touched upon topics such as Plan S and Price Transparency and consisted of talks from different publishers. The webinar website and the full recording can be found here.

Now, the second webinar within the framework of the Basel Sustainable Publishing Forum will be held on 11 September 2020 at 2:00 pm (CEST). The topic is “New Approaches to Evaluate Researchers’ Impact” and Prof. Dr. Ed Constable from the University of Basel and co-chair of the BSPF 2020 will moderate the webinar. So do not miss out on this webinar and register now! …”

More Readers in More Places: The benefits of open access for scholarly books | Zenodo

“Open access to scholarly contents has grown substantially in recent years. This includes the number of books published open access online. However, there is limited study on how usage patterns (via downloads, citations and web visibility) of these books may differ from their closed counterparts. Such information is not only important for book publishers, but also for researchers in disciplines where books are the norm. This article reports on findings from comparing samples of books published by Springer Nature to shed light on differences in usage patterns across open access and closed books. The study includes a selection of 281 open access books and a sample of 3,653 closed books (drawn from 21,059 closed books using stratified random sampling). The books are stratified by combinations of book type, discipline and year of publication to enable likewise comparisons within each stratum and to maximise statistical power of the sample. The results show higher geographic diversity of usage, higher numbers of downloads and more citations for open access books across all strata. Importantly, open access books have increased access and usage for traditionally under-served populations.”

Diversifying Readership Through Open Access | Open research | Springer Nature

“Diversifying readership through open access: A usage analysis for OA books is a new white paper by Springer Nature and COARD based on usage data for 3,934 books, including 281 open access books.

This white paper presents the analysis of that data, exploring what effect, if any, publishing OA has on the geographic usage of books. The findings will be of interest to researchers, authors, librarians and publishers alike. …”

Diversifying Readership through open access: A usage analysis for open access books | Corporate Affairs Homepage | Springer Nature

“Open access (OA) books are reaching more countries and have greater usage and higher citation numbers than non-OA books. A new analysis collaboratively produced by Springer Nature and COARD (Collaborative Open Access Research & Development) presents these and other key findings in a new white paper that explores how OA affects the geographical diversity of readers. 

It shows that OA books have substantially more readers in low-income and lower-middle-income countries and that OA also helps to increase attention to scholarship about these countries. The study is to date the largest and most comprehensive of its kind; the underlying dataset is based on 3,934 books published by Springer Nature, including 281 OA books.

Confirming previous research looking at the potential usage benefits of OA, this analysis shows more downloads and more citations for every type of book, in every discipline, in each of the three years of publication (2015, 2016, 2017) included in the sample. The report finds that OA books on average achieve ten times more downloads and 2.4 times more citations than non-OA books. Furthermore, download numbers from the open web are generally around double those from institutional network points….”

scite Reference Check: an easy way to check the reliability of your references | by scite | scite | Aug, 2020 | Medium

“Imagine you’re putting together a publication. You’ve spent countless hours pouring over research literature as you connected the dots leading up to your latest discovery. Knowing that the references you choose to cite create the support for the work you’ve done, you want to be confident that these studies are reliable.

Now imagine you’re an editor or a reviewer. You find time in the middle of an already busy day to review a paper that was recently submitted. Beyond critically reading the draft and giving the authors meaningful feedback, you want to protect the integrity of your journal and make sure someone doesn’t submit a paper that cites previously retracted work. Or maybe even heavily disputed work without proper acknowledgment of the debate.

On both sides of the coin, and to the broader scientific institution, the quality of references is paramount. What if you could check the reliability of references at the click of a button?

Today, we’re happy to introduce a new feature we’ve been working on at scite: Reference Check….”

Trends of Publications’ Citations and Altmetrics Based on Open Access Types | Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries in 2020

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.

Trends of Publications’ Citations and Altmetrics Based on Open Access Types | Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries in 2020

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.

Giving credit where credit is due: how to cite preprints – ASAPbio

“We sometimes get queries about whether preprints can be cited in journal publications, and while we make a brief mention to this in our FAQ, we thought it would be useful to offer a deeper dive. We believe it is important for articles to give credit to any sources the authors used as part of the conceptualization, development or interpretation of their work, independent of the scope or peer-reviewed status of the research object. Preprints are legitimate research outputs and should be afforded fair credit and attribution in the context of citation practice….”