Data sharing policies in scholarly publications: interdisciplinary comparisons on JSTOR

Abstract:  Digital sharing of research data is becoming an important research integrity norm. Data sharing is promoted in different avenues, one being the scholarly publication process: journals serve as gatekeepers, recommending or mandating data sharing as a condition for publication. While there is now a sizeable corpus of research assessing the pervasiveness and efficacy of journal data sharing policies in various disciplines, available research is largely piecemeal and mitigates against meaningful comparisons across disciplines. A major contribution of the present research is that it makes direct across-discipline comparisons employing a common methodology. The paper opens with a discussion of the arguments aired in favour and against data sharing (with an emphasis on ethical issues, which stand behind these policies). The websites of 150 journals, drawn from 15 disciplines, were examined for information on data sharing. The results consolidate the notion of the primacy of biomedical sciences in the implementation of data sharing norms and the lagging implementation in the arts and humanities. More surprisingly, they attest to similar levels of norms adoption in the physical and social sciences. The results point to the overlooked status of the formal sciences, which demonstrate low levels of data sharing implementation. The study also examines the policies of the major journal publishers. The paper concludes with a presentation of the current preferences for different data sharing solutions in different fields, in specialized repositories, general repositories, or publishers’ hosting area.

 

The next generation discovery citation indexes — a review of the landscape in 2020 (I) | by Aaron Tay | Academic librarians and open access | Oct, 2020 | Medium

“In terms of cross disciplinary citation indexes that are used for discovery, everyone knows of the two incumbants — Web of Science and Scopus(2004). Joined by the large web scale Google Scholar (2004), these three reigned as the “Big 3” of citation indexes for roughly a decade more or less unchallenged.

However 10 years later, around 2015 and in the years after, a new generation of citation indexes started to emerge to challenge the big 3 in a variety of ways .

As of time of writing in 2020, some of these new challengers have had a couple of years of development. How do things look now?

First off, using newer techniques and paradigms, we have for-profit companies like Digital Science launching Dimensions (2018) which strike me as challengers to Scopus and Web of Science in the arena of citation/bibliometric assessment, just as Scopus itself was a challenge to the older Web of Science back in 2004.

On the other end of the spectrum we have the rise of more “open” citation indexes . In particular, a very important player in this area is the relaunched Microsoft Academic(2016) which not only uses web crawling style technologies like Google Scholar to scour the web, applies the latest in Natural Language Processing (NLP) /“semantic” technologies and makes the dataset dubbed Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) available with open licenses.

Semantic Scholar(2015) is yet another project with Microsoft ties ( funded by the Allen Institute for AI) that play in the same area and releases data with open licenses. One of the more “Semantic” features of this search engine is that it types citations into whether the cite is for citing of background, methods or results using machine learning.

While scite (2018) a new citation index by a startup does not provide open data, it’s selling point is the use of NLP to type citation relationships into “Supporting”, “Disputing” and “Neutral” cites which is yet another way of contextualizing research by describin citation relationships.

Besides the two above mentioned well funded think tanks projects, we also see more grassroot like movements like 2017’s I4OC (Intiative for open Citations) — an amazingly successful push to get publishers to deposit and make references open in Crossref as well as efforts by OpenCitations.net (a founding member of I4OC) to extract citations from open access papers from PMC to produce the OpenCitations Corpus (OCC), which have served to further increase the pool of Scholarly meta-data and citations that are available in the public domain/CCO….”

Pledging intellectual property for COVID-19 | Nature Biotechnology

“Voluntary pledges to make intellectual property broadly available to address urgent public health crises can overcome administrative and legal hurdles faced by more elaborate legal arrangements such as patent pools and achieve greater acceptance than governmental compulsory licensing….”

The Varying Openness of Digital Open Science Tools | Zenodo

Abstract:  Digital tools that support Open Science practices play a key role in the seamless accumulation, archiving and dissemination of scholarly data, outcomes and conclusions. Despite their integration into Open Science practices, the providence and design of these digital tools are rarely explicitly scrutinized. This means that influential factors, such as the funding models of the parent organizations, their geographic location, and the dependency on digital infrastructures are rarely considered. Suggestions from literature and anecdotal evidence already draw attention to the impact of these factors, and raise the question of whether the Open Science ecosystem can realise the aspiration to become a truly “unlimited digital commons” in its current structure. 

In an online research approach, we compiled and analysed the geolocation, terms and conditions as well as funding models of 242 digital tools increasingly being used by researchers in various disciplines. Our findings indicate that design decisions and restrictions are biased towards researchers in North American and European scholarly communities. In order to make the future Open Science ecosystem inclusive and operable for researchers in all world regions including Africa, Latin America, Asia and Oceania, those should be actively included in design decision processes. 

 

Digital Open Science Tools carry the promise of enabling collaboration across disciplines, world regions and language groups through responsive design. We therefore encourage long term funding mechanisms and ethnically as well as culturally inclusive approaches serving local prerequisites and conditions to tool design and construction allowing a globally connected digital research infrastructure to evolve in a regionally balanced manner.

Systematize information on journal policies and practices – A call to action – Leiden Madtrics

In most research fields, journals play a dominant role in the scholarly communication system. However, the availability of systematic information on the policies and practices of journals, for instance with respect to peer review and open access publishing, is surprisingly limited and scattered. Of course we have the journal impact factor, as well as a range of other citation-based journal metrics (e.g., CiteScore, SNIP, SJR, and Eigenfactor), but these metrics provide information only on one very specific aspect of a journal. As is widely recognized, there is a strong need for a wider range of information on journals (see for instance here and here). Such information is for instance needed to facilitate responsible evaluation practices, to promote open access publishing, and to improve journal peer review.

Open Access Transformation in Switzerland & Germany > ./scidecode

“Christian Gutknecht published an exciting posting on the Swiss EUR 57 million Elsevier deal in which he outlines the transformative Open Access agreement between Elsevier and swissuniversities. Since Germany has been trying for years to reach such a contract with Elsevier, it is worth comparing it with the two transformative contracts with Wiley and Springer Nature in Germany, which were reached and coordinated by Project DEAL. Both German agreements were discussed here before just as other transformative Open Access agreements. For those in a hurry: At the end of the posting there is a synopsis of the costs and Open Access components of the Open Access Transformation in Switzerland & Germany. At the very beginning I would like to thank Christian Gutknecht very much for sharing and discussing information that went into this posting….”

National comparisons of early career researchers’ scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours – Jamali – – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  The paper compares the scholarly communication attitudes and practices of early career researchers (ECRs) in eight countries concerning discovery, reading, publishing, authorship, open access, and social media. The data are taken from the most recent investigation in the 4?year?long Harbingers project. A survey was undertaken to establish whether the scholarly communication behaviours of the new wave of researchers are uniform, progressing, or changing in the same overall direction or whether they are impacted significantly by national and cultural differences. A multilingual questionnaire hosted on SurveyMonkey was distributed in 2019 via social media networks of researchers, academic publishers, and key ECR platforms in the UK, USA, France, China, Spain, Russia, Malaysia, and Poland. Over a thousand responses were obtained, and the main findings are that there is a significant degree of diversity in terms of scholarly communication attitudes and practices of ECRs from the various countries represented in the study, which cannot be solely explained by the different make?up of the samples. China, Russia, France, and Malaysia were more likely to be different in respect to a scholarly activity, and responses from the UK and USA were relatively similar.

 

National comparisons of early career researchers’ scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours – Jamali – – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  The paper compares the scholarly communication attitudes and practices of early career researchers (ECRs) in eight countries concerning discovery, reading, publishing, authorship, open access, and social media. The data are taken from the most recent investigation in the 4?year?long Harbingers project. A survey was undertaken to establish whether the scholarly communication behaviours of the new wave of researchers are uniform, progressing, or changing in the same overall direction or whether they are impacted significantly by national and cultural differences. A multilingual questionnaire hosted on SurveyMonkey was distributed in 2019 via social media networks of researchers, academic publishers, and key ECR platforms in the UK, USA, France, China, Spain, Russia, Malaysia, and Poland. Over a thousand responses were obtained, and the main findings are that there is a significant degree of diversity in terms of scholarly communication attitudes and practices of ECRs from the various countries represented in the study, which cannot be solely explained by the different make?up of the samples. China, Russia, France, and Malaysia were more likely to be different in respect to a scholarly activity, and responses from the UK and USA were relatively similar.

 

Publishing computational research – a review of infrastructures for reproducible and transparent scholarly communication | Research Integrity and Peer Review | Full Text

Abstract:  Background

The trend toward open science increases the pressure on authors to provide access to the source code and data they used to compute the results reported in their scientific papers. Since sharing materials reproducibly is challenging, several projects have developed solutions to support the release of executable analyses alongside articles.

Methods

We reviewed 11 applications that can assist researchers in adhering to reproducibility principles. The applications were found through a literature search and interactions with the reproducible research community. An application was included in our analysis if it (i) was actively maintained at the time the data for this paper was collected, (ii) supports the publication of executable code and data, (iii) is connected to the scholarly publication process. By investigating the software documentation and published articles, we compared the applications across 19 criteria, such as deployment options and features that support authors in creating and readers in studying executable papers.

Results

From the 11 applications, eight allow publishers to self-host the system for free, whereas three provide paid services. Authors can submit an executable analysis using Jupyter Notebooks or R Markdown documents (10 applications support these formats). All approaches provide features to assist readers in studying the materials, e.g., one-click reproducible results or tools for manipulating the analysis parameters. Six applications allow for modifying materials after publication.

Conclusions

The applications support authors to publish reproducible research predominantly with literate programming. Concerning readers, most applications provide user interfaces to inspect and manipulate the computational analysis. The next step is to investigate the gaps identified in this review, such as the costs publishers have to expect when hosting an application, the consideration of sensitive data, and impacts on the review process.