Abstract: The emergence and wide diffusion of information and communication technologies created ever increasing opportunities for sharing and collaboration, which shortened geographic, disciplinary and expertise distances. There exist various technologies, tools and infrastructure that facilitate collaborative production processes in various social spheres, and scientific production is not an exception. Open science produces scientific knowledge in a collaborative way, including experts and non-experts and to share the outcomes of knowledge creation processes. We identify 68 open science initiatives in Argentina using different primary and secondary sources. This paper describes those experiences in terms of goals, disciplines and openness along research stages. Building on the relationship between characteristics of openness and expected benefits, we discuss policy implications in order to better support openness and collaboration in science.
“Sci-Hub remains among the most common sites via which readers circumvent article paywalls and access scholarly literature. But where exactly are its download requests coming from? And just what is being downloaded? Bastian Greshake has analysed the full Sci-Hub corpus and its request data, and found that articles are being downloaded from all over the world, more recently published papers are among the most requested, and there is a marked overrepresentation of requested articles from journals publishing on chemistry….”
“Open-access repositories took off fastest in physics and open-access journals took off fastest in biomedicine. There are fascinating cultural and economic reasons why these disciplines opened first. But let’s focus on the other end of the pack where open access is moving the slowest. Why is it moving so slowly in the humanities?
Here are nine differences between the humanities and the sciences that help explain their different rates of progress.”
“The blog of the +American Philosophical Association is reprinting my 2004 article, “Promoting open access in the humanities,” in three new blog posts.
The first of three APA posts appeared today.
Here’s the full article.
I’ve slightly revised the APA version to word things the way I’d word them today. But unfortunately I didn’t have time to update the substance. The examples and evidence are limited to what I knew in early 2004, which is close to ancient history in internet time.
For more recent examples and evidence, see the updates and supplements to my 2012 book (Open Access, MIT Press).
Also see the items tagged with “oa.humanities” and “oa.philosophy” at the Open Access Tracking Project.
These tag libraries are crowd-sourced, and you can make them more complete by taking part in the OATP. See the OATP home page for more detail.
“We harvest content from across platforms like PubMed Central, arXiv, SciELO and bring it all together in one place
One of the main features of ScienceOpen is that we are a research aggregator. We don’t select what we index based on discipline, publisher, or geography, as that just creates another silo. Enough of those exist already. What we need, and what we do, is to bring together research articles from across publishers and other platforms and into one space, where it is all treated in exactly the same way….”
Abstract: “This is the first in-depth study on the coverage of Microsoft Academic (MA). The coverage of a verified publication list of a university was analyzed on the level of individual publications in MA, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS). Citation counts were analyzed and issues related to data retrieval and data quality were examined. A Perl script was written to retrieve metadata from MA. We find that MA covers journal articles, working papers, and conference items to a substantial extent. MA surpasses Scopus and WoS clearly with respect to book-related document types and conference items but falls slightly behind Scopus with regard to journal articles. MA shows the same biases as Scopus and WoS with regard to the coverage of the social sciences and humanities, non-English publications, and open-access publications. Rank correlations of citation counts are high between MA and the benchmark databases. We find that the publication year is correct for 89.5% of all publications and the number of authors for 95.1% of the journal articles. Given the fast and ongoing development of MA, we conclude that MA is on the verge of becoming a bibliometric superpower. However, comprehensive studies on the quality of MA data are still lacking.”
“So, what is the point of eLife digests? Firstly, we see digests as part of a wider effort to make original research as open and accessible as possible. Being an open-access journal means that anyone (with an Internet connection) can freely read articles published in eLife. The digests should mean that the majority of those readers can also learn something about the latest research results reported in the journal, regardless of their background.
Secondly, eLife is a journal with a broad scope and eLife digests are one small way that we can help to foster interdisciplinary research. A plant biologist with decades of experience in research, for example, is unlikely to also be an expert in neuroscience (and vice versa). By explaining the findings of a paper in plain language, we hope that digests will help other scientists to identify new connections between different scientific disciplines….”
“This article provides a comprehensive descriptive and statistical analysis of metadata information on 1,381 research data repositories worldwide and across all research disciplines. The analyzed metadata is derived from the re3data database, enabling search and browse functionalities for the global registry of research data repositories. The analysis focuses mainly on institutions that operate research data repositories, types and subjects of research data repositories (RDR), access conditions as well as services provided by the research data repositories. RDR differ in terms of the service levels they offer, languages they support or standards they comply with. These statements are commonly acknowledged by saying the RDR landscape is heterogeneous. As expected, we found a heterogeneous RDR landscape that is mostly influenced by the repositories’ disciplinary background for which they offer services.”
“Although the report noted that scholars are keen to use online venues like Academia.edu for sharing and discovery of their research among colleagues, they are distrustful or uncertain about open access as a primary publishing model, either due to lack of appropriate open access venues in their (sub-)discipline, a perception of lower academic standards, or that it would not be recognized for tenure or promotion….”
Abstract: The explosion of open access (OA) journals in recent years has not only impacted on how libraries manage contents and budgets, but also the choice of journals for academic researcher submission of their article for publication. A study conducted at the University of Hong Kong indicated that academic researchers have a gradual tendency in shifting some of their publications toward OA journals, and interestingly the shifts are discipline specific. While OA does offer an alternative to the unsustainable pricing of serials and supports a core value of ensuring openness to knowledge, the perceived value toward the impact of OA journals are still lacking consensus among stakeholders.
The aims of this study are to better understand from the perspective of academic researchers in 4 broad disciplines—Health Science, Life Science, Physical Science and Social Science, their preferences in paper submission. Data on actual article submission trends at HKU will be analyzed together with qualitative feedback from researchers to examine the trend and incentive in shifting toward OA publishing in different disciplines. Researcher’s attitude will be understood within the context of the university’s open policy and research assessment, as well as the current OA landscape to inform the scholarly communication trend going forward.