Abstract: This study investigates the attitudes of Chinese PhD students toward predatory journals. Data were gathered using an online questionnaire to which 332 Chinese PhD students responded. Our main conclusions are 1) in the sciences, technology, and medicine, respondents frequently confused predatory journals with open access journals; 2) in the humanities and social sciences, the respondents identified only Chinese-language (not English-language) journals as predatory and made a number of misidentifications; and 3) most respondents indicated that they would not submit papers to predatory journals, mainly because doing so would hurt their reputation, yet the minority who were willing to do so mentioned easy acceptance and a short wait time for publication as the top reasons for considering it.
“This Editorial will summarize some of the recent tendencies of publication explored in a recent Wiley Society Newsletter on the open access movement: http://s1133198723.t.en25.com/e/es?s=1133198723&e=6599750&elqTrackId=be52ad97a9d24b6c8db9974cd2051faf&elq=fef810d97dae4c9c9b098792bf9de575&elqaid=48002&elqat=1 . As it turns out, in a recent survey about Society Publications, Wiley determined that no?cost or open access to Society content is the top desire for most researchers. They also found that making journal articles more accessible to nonacademic audiences, greater transparency around peer review, and improving how we measure the impact of research are also highly important. https://www.wiley.com/network/societyleaders/member?engagement/members?say?open?data?is?more?important?now?than?it?was?12?months?ago?elq_mid=48002&elq_cid=12309687&utm_campaign=30355&utm_source=eloquaEmail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Email%206?RC?SOCM?MS?XX?Global?W26M4?October%20Newsletter.
While three?quarters of members are mostly satisfied with the access to society content that they personally receive as members, only a little more than half are happy with their society’s engagement with open access publishing….”
Abstract: Background: Data sharing is an encouraged practice to support research in all fields. For that purpose, it is important to examine perceptions and concerns of researchers about biomedical data sharing, which was investigated in the current study.
Methods: This is a cross-sectional survey study that was distributed among biomedical researchers in Jordan, as an example of developing countries. The study survey consisted of questions about demographics and about respondent’s attitudes toward sharing of biomedical data.
Results: Among study participants, 46.9% (n=82) were positive regarding making their research data available to the public, whereas 53.1% refused the idea. The reasons for refusing to publicly share their data included “lack of regulations” (33.5%), “access to research data should be limited to the research team” (29.5%), “no place to deposit the data” (6.5%), and “lack of funding for data deposition” (6.0%). Agreement with the idea of making data available was associated with academic rank (P=0.003). Moreover, gender (P-value=0.043) and number of publications (P-value=0.005) were associated with a time frame for data sharing (ie, agreeing to share data before vs after publication).
Conclusion: About half of the respondents reported a positive attitude toward biomedical data sharing. Proper regulations and facilitation data deposition can enhance data sharing in Jordan.
Abstract: Recent contributions have questioned the credibility of quantitative communication research. While questionable research practices are believed to be widespread, evidence for this claim is primarily derived from other disciplines. Before change in communication research can happen, it is important to document the extent to which QRPs are used and whether researchers are open to the changes proposed by the so-called open science agenda. We conducted a large survey among authors of papers published in the top-20 journals in communication science in the last ten years (N=1039). A non-trivial percent of researchers report using one or more QRPs. While QRPs are generally considered unacceptable, researchers perceive QRPs to be common among their colleagues. At the same time, we find optimism about the use of open science practices in communication research. We end with a series of recommendations outlining what journals, institutions and researchers can do moving forward.
Abstract: In 2018, the Swedish library consortium, Bibsam, decided to cancel big deal subscriptions with Elsevier. Many researchers (n = 4,221) let their voices be heard in a survey on the consequences of the cancellation. Almost a third of them (n = 1,241) chose to leave free-text responses to the survey question ‘Is there anything you would like to add?’. A content analysis on these responses resulted in six themes and from these, three main conclusions are drawn. First, there is no consensus among researchers on whether the cancellation was for good or evil. The most common argument in favour of the cancellation was the principle. The most common argument against cancellation was that it harms researchers and research. A third of the free-text responses expressed ambivalence towards the cancellation, typically as a conflict between wanting to change the current publishing system and simultaneously suffering from the consequences of the cancellation. The general support for open access in principle reveals a flawed publishing system, as most feel the pressure to publish in prestigious journals behind paywalls in practice. Second, it was difficult for researchers to take a position for or against cancellation due to their limited knowledge of the ongoing work of higher education institutions and library consortia. Finally, there are indications that the cancellation made researchers reflect on open access and to some extent alter their publication pattern through their choice of copyright licence and publication channel.
With the prevalence of user-generated content on the internet, this study aims to propose a cognitive-affective-conative model to examine how users create and share their content online. The moderating role of gender differences is also tested in the model.
This study collects a representative sample of 873 internet users via a nation-wide survey in Taiwan.
The results show that hedonic value has a positive impact on internet satisfaction, and social value affects life satisfaction and internet satisfaction positively. Both life satisfaction and internet satisfaction are positively related to content sharing on the internet. In particular, the positive effect of life satisfaction on online content sharing is greater for male users than for female users.
This study contributes to the existing literature by investigating online content sharing behavior from the cognitive-affective-conative perspective. This study also provides a better understanding of this behavior by simultaneously examining life satisfaction and internet satisfaction as two underlying mechanisms. Furthermore, gender differences play an important role in determining content sharing on the internet.
For digital marketing practitioners, this study suggests several online editing and social mechanisms for encouraging users’ engagement in content sharing behavior on the internet.
This study is one of the first that examines a cognitive-affective-conative framework of content sharing behavior on the internet. This study also demonstrates boundary conditions of this framework by testing the moderating role of gender differences.
“Our survey revealed a significant shift towards publishing through open access and sharing links to supporting datasets as the type of change that researchers are considering – from 29% in 2019 to 51% in 2020….
On the topic of open data, it was unsurprising that half of all respondents (and as many as 61% in North America) were concerned over datasets that contain sensitive or personal information that is inappropriate or unethical to share openly.
For some, there also appears to be a lack of clarity on how to share data, with 7% of respondents admitting that they did not know how to do this. At the regional level, this increases to 16% of respondents in the Middle East and North Africa who were unfamiliar with data sharing….”
Abstract: This work analyses the perception and practice of sharing, reusing, and facilitating access to research data in the field of food science and technology. The study involved the coordination of a focus group discussion and an online survey, to understand and evince the behaviour of researchers regarding data management in that field. Both the discussion group and the survey were performed with researchers from several institutes of the Spanish National Research Council. The lack of a data sharing culture, the fear of being scooped, and confusion between the concepts of the working plan and the data management plan were some of the issues that emerged in the focus group. Respondents’ previous experience with sharing their research data has been mainly in the form of appendices to peer?reviewed publications. From the survey (101 responses), the most important motivations for publishing research data were found to be facilitating the reproducibility of the research, increasing the likelihood of citations of the article, and compliance with funding body mandates. Legal constraints, intellectual property, data ownership, data rights, potential commercial exploitation, and misuse of data were the main barriers to publishing data as open data. Citation in publications, certification, compliance with standards, and the reputation of the data providers were the most relevant factors affecting the use of other researchers’ data. Being recent or recently updated, well documented, with quality metadata and ease of access were the most valued attributes of open research data.