Which Academic Search Systems are Suitable for Systematic Reviews or Meta?Analyses? Evaluating Retrieval Qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed and 26 other Resources – Gusenbauer – – Research Synthesis Methods – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  Rigorous evidence identification is essential for systematic reviews and meta?analyses (evidence syntheses), because the sample selection of relevant studies determines a review’s outcome, validity, and explanatory power. Yet, the search systems allowing access to this evidence provide varying levels of precision, recall, and reproducibility and also demand different levels of effort. To date, it remains unclear which search systems are most appropriate for evidence synthesis and why. Advice on which search engines and bibliographic databases to choose for systematic searches is limited and lacking systematic, empirical performance assessments.

This study investigates and compares the systematic search qualities of 28 widely used academic search systems, including Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science. A novel, query?based method tests how well users are able to interact and retrieve records with each system. The study is the first to show the extent to which search systems can effectively and efficiently perform (Boolean) searches with regards to precision, recall and reproducibility. We found substantial differences in the performance of search systems, meaning that their usability in systematic searches varies. Indeed, only half of the search systems analysed and only a few Open Access databases can be recommended for evidence syntheses without adding substantial caveats. Particularly, our findings demonstrate why Google Scholar is inappropriate as principal search system.

We call for database owners to recognise the requirements of evidence synthesis, and for academic journals to re?assess quality requirements for systematic reviews. Our findings aim to support researchers in conducting better searches for better evidence synthesis.

Ivissem | Information Visualization & Social Scholarly Metric

“The mere identification of the most relevant Scientific Knowledge Objects (SKOs) in a particular topic is increasingly difficult due to the existing interfaces, returning massive lists of results. It is recognized that researchers are not merely producers of knowledge. Instead they are social actors who play a preponderant role in the discovery and filtering of scientific knowledge. The data that results from this social interaction provides an important basis for the design of various usage metrics, also known as aka altmetrics.

Access to the right and relevant information is paramount for scientific discoveries. IViSSEM aims to develop and test a new altmetric, called Social Scholarly Experience Metric. This metric will result from the application of Machine Learning techniques to different combinations of altmetrics and profiles of researchers. Its application will reflect the individual preferences in the process of finding a specific topic. The current massive lists of results will be replaced by an innovative interface based on advanced visualization techniques.

 

Objectives…

To design and develop a Linked Open Data based solution architecture that ensures data interoperability, data accessibility, data integration and data analytics with full aligned with international best practices.
To dynamicaly relate SKOs and researchers with knowledge organizations systems.
To clean, transform, store and give access to collected data in a triplestore….”

 

 

Discovery and scholarly communication aspects of preprints

“The purpose of preprints is to increase the speed at which research results are disseminated. They are not a way to bypass peer review—they bypass delays resulting from the peer review process.2 They have clear benefits to the authors, as preprints allow authors to stake a claim in their research by putting a “time-stamp” on their ideas.3 The National Institutes of Health (NIH) cites both of these reasons for sharing preprints in a March 2017 Notice allowing NIH-funded researchers to cite preprints as products of NIH funding and cite them in further grant applications. It identifies additional benefits of sharing preprints: the ability to obtain feedback and offset publication bias.4….”

Rebels with a Cause? Supporting Library and Academic-led Open Access Publishing

Abstract:  The authors, who all have experience with academic publishing, outline the landscape of new university and academic-led open access publishing, before discussing four interrelated sets of challenges which are often referred when questioning the viability of such publishing ventures. They are: (1) professionalism, (2) scale, (3) quality, and (4) discoverability & dissemination. The authors provide examples of how, albeit differing in size, form and ambition, these new presses are not just adhering to conventional publishing norms but often innovating in order to surpass them.

How academic libraries can support humanities monographs

“These differences make the publishing process for monographs distinctly different. They impose greater responsibilities on the author and the press and don’t support some of the cooperative benefit of a large-scale operation that processes thousands of articles.

What I’d like you to consider, though, is that these differences also provide some amazing opportunities for libraries to be leaders and innovators in supporting the value of the humanities and OA monograph publishing….”

Archive ouverte HAL – Bibliodiversity in Practice: Developing Community-Owned, Open Infrastructures to Unleash Open Access Publishing

 

 

Abstract : Academic publishing is changing. The drive towards open access publishing, which is being powered in the UK by funding bodies (SHERPA Juliet), the requirements of REFs 2021 (UKRI) and 2027 (Hill 2018), and Europe-wide movements such as the recently-announced Plan S (‘About Plan S’), has the potential to shake up established ways of publishing academic research. Within book publishing, the traditional print formats and the conventional ways of disseminating research, which are protected and promoted by a small number of powerful incumbents, are being challenged. Academic publishing, and academic book publishing, is at a crossroads: will it find ways to accommodate open access distribution within its existing structures? Or will new systems of research dissemination be developed? And what might those new systems look like?In this article we look at the main features of the existing monograph publication and distribution ecosystem, and question the suitability of this for open access monographs. We look specifically at some of the key economic characteristics of the monograph publishing market and consider their implications for new infrastructures designed specifically to support open access titles. The key observations are that the production of monographs displays constant returns to scale, and so can (and does) support large numbers of publishing initiatives; at the same time the distribution and discovery systems for monographs display increasing returns to scale and so naturally leads to the emergence of a few large providers. We argue that in order to protect the diversity of players and outputs within the monograph publishing industry in the transition to open access it is important to create open and community-managed infrastructures and revenue flows that both cater for different business models and production workflows and are resistant to take over or control by a single (or small number) of players.

Maximizing dissemination and engaging readers: The other 50% of an author’s day: A case study – Green – – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

“Key points

 

  • Dissemination should be the other 50% of what authors do: being read and having impact will not happen by itself.
  • Authors can influence discovery and readership through owned media – i.e. their own communication activities.
  • Earned media – i.e. when influencers write about your work – is key to reaching larger and more diverse audiences.
  • There is plenty of data for tracking engagement and use of articles, but it is scattered across multiple tools and providers and can be misleading or even incorrect.
  • Listservs can have higher engagement than modern, ‘cool’, social networking tools….”