Maddi, A., Lardreau, E. & Sapinho, D. Open access in Europe: a national and regional comparison. Scientometrics (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03887-1
Open access to scientific publications has progressively become a key issue for European policy makers, resulting in concrete measures by the different country members to promote its development. The aim of paper is, after providing a quick overview of OA policies in Europe, to carry out a comparative study of OA practices within European countries, using data from the Web of Science (WoS) database. This analysis is based on two indicators: the OA share that illustrates the evolution over time, and the normalized OA indicator (NOAI) that allows spatial comparisons, taking into account disciplinary structures of countries. Results show a general trend towards the development of OA over time as expected, but with large disparities between countries, depending on how early they begin taking measures in favor of OA. While it is possible to stress the importance of policy and its influence on open access at country level, this does not appear to be the case at the regional level. There is not much variability between regions, within the same country, in terms of open access indicators.
Abstract: The amount of annually published scholarly articles is growing steadily, as is the number of indicators through which impact of publications is measured. Little is known about how the increasing variety of available metrics affects researchers’ processes of selecting literature to read. We conducted ranking experiments embedded into an online survey with 247 participating researchers, most from social sciences. Participants completed series of tasks in which they were asked to rank fictitious publications regarding their expected relevance, based on their scores regarding six prototypical metrics. Through applying logistic regression, cluster analysis, and manual coding of survey answers, we obtained detailed data on how prominent metrics for research impact influence our participants in decisions about which scientific articles to read. Survey answers revealed a combination of qualitative and quantitative characteristics that researchers consult when selecting literature, while regression analysis showed that among quantitative metrics, citation counts tend to be of highest concern, followed by Journal Impact Factors. Our results suggest a comparatively favorable view of many researchers on bibliometrics and widespread skepticism toward altmetrics. The findings underline the importance of equipping researchers with solid knowledge about specific metrics’ limitations, as they seem to play significant roles in researchers’ everyday relevance assessments.
Abstract: The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has developed a suite of open access tools to estimate dietary exposure to food-borne chemical hazards. The tools are tailored to several regulatory domains within EFSA’s remit (e.g. food and feed additives, pesticide residues, contaminants and food enzymes) and are intended for use by EFSA experts, industry applicants of regulatory product dossiers, researchers or any stakeholder with an interest in estimating dietary exposure using European food consumption data. The majority of the tools are based on FoodEx2, EFSA’s food classification and description system as well as the EFSA Comprehensive European food consumption database. This paper provides an overview of these open access tools, the regulatory framework in which they were developed as well as data sources used.
“Formed in January 2020, the California Digital Library (CDL), the Center for Research Libraries (CRL), & HathiTrust Collaboration is building on a decade of collaboration, innovation, and expertise to define a new phase of shared print built on open and interconnected infrastructure. The collection comparison tool brings together the shared print retention commitments registered in CRL’s Print Archives Preservation Registry (PAPR), HathiTrust digital collection metadata, and the local library serials data submitted by users. Users know instantly which titles in their collection have been retained by shared print collections and which have not. This tool utilizes technology included in WEST’s decision- support system, AGUA, built and supported by CDL….”
“In the beginning of 2020, CDL joined with the Center for Research Libraries (CRL) and HathiTrust to form a Collaboration for Shared Print Infrastructure. Working together, the Collaboration seeks to build on a decade of community innovation and expertise to define a new phase of shared print built on open and interconnected infrastructure.
As a first step toward that larger vision, CDL is proud to announce the launch of a new collection comparison tool realized in partnership with the Center for Research Libraries and HathiTrust. This new tool is a completely open means of comparing local serial and journal holdings against shared print commitments across North America and select digital repositories, including hundreds of thousands of HathiTrust digital serial and journal titles.
The tool can be accessed at papr.crl.edu/tools/compare. …”
Abstract: In this paper we examine how the process of collaboration works in science and literature. In the first part, we discuss the features of scientific collaboration and literary collaboration and the differences between them. In the second part, we analyze two processes of collaboration, each from a different field: the case of CERN and high-energy physics and the case of Scrittura Industriale Collettiva and its Great Open Novel. Lastly, we try to compare those two processes and deduce the common traits of a successful collaboration.
“Since there is a robust landscape of research data sharing spaces, we decided to conduct exploratory, high-level research on a number of data repositories, primarily to inform our own data deposit protocols. We regularly deposit data from the US Faculty Survey, Library Director Survey, as well as several other research projects with ICPSR. Recognizing that our research on a variety of characteristics of data repositories may yield utility for other researchers, today we are publishing a summary of our findings.
Below you can find seven repositories compared side-by-side in tabular format. We have highlighted particular factors that are key for informing decision-making: disciplinary scope, typical timelines for processing datasets, associated costs, and services offered (such as data curation)….”
Abstract: Objectives The objective of this review is to identify all preprint platforms with biomedical and medical scope and to compare and contrast the key characteristics and policies of these platforms.
Study design and setting Preprint platforms that were launched up to 25 June 2019 and have a biomedical and medical scope according to MEDLINE’s journal selection criteria were identified using existing lists, web-based searches and the expertise of both academic and non-academic publication scientists. A data extraction form was developed, pilot tested and used to collect data from each preprint platform’s webpage(s).
Results A total of 44 preprint platforms were identified as having biomedical and medical scope, 17 (39%) were hosted by the Open Science Framework preprint infrastructure, 6 (14%) were provided by F1000 Research (the Open Research Central infrastructure) and 21 (48%) were other independent preprint platforms. Preprint platforms were either owned by non-profit academic groups, scientific societies or funding organisations (n=28; 64%), owned/partly owned by for-profit publishers or companies (n=14; 32%) or owned by individuals/small communities (n=2; 5%). Twenty-four (55%) preprint platforms accepted content from all scientific fields although some of these had restrictions relating to funding source, geographical region or an affiliated journal’s remit. Thirty-three (75%) preprint platforms provided details about article screening (basic checks) and 14 (32%) of these actively involved researchers with context expertise in the screening process. Almost all preprint platforms allow submission to any peer-reviewed journal following publication, have a preservation plan for read access and most have a policy regarding reasons for retraction and the sustainability of the service.
Conclusion A large number of preprint platforms exist for use in biomedical and medical sciences, all of which offer researchers an opportunity to rapidly disseminate their research findings onto an open-access public server, subject to scope and eligibility.