Report on Integrating Digital Humanities into the Web of Scholarship with SHARE – Association of Research Libraries

“The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) released today a white paper that reports the findings of a two-year project investigating the value SHARE could have for digital humanities scholars. SHARE is an open-source community that develops tools and services to connect related research outputs for new kinds of scholarly discovery.

This project, partly funded by a grant from the US National Endowment for the Humanities, explored how scholars promote discovery of their own digital humanities work, and how they find digital scholarship or its components for their own use….”

Webinar: Getting up to Speed on Repository Discovery and Deposit Services – COAR

“Having trouble keeping track of the increasing number of discovery services? Want to learn more about how they work, who are their main users, and how to ensure your repository content is visible in these services?

You are invited to participate in a webinar that will feature two of these discovery services: Unpaywall  and Open Knowledge Maps, as well as a new service called Share Your Paper, which helps researchers easily deposit their content into repositories. Presenters will give participants an overview of their services and also provide an opportunity for attendees to engage with questions and comments.

Join us for this 1.5 hour long webinar on 25th November, Monday at 8:00 PST, 11:00 EST, 16:00 GMT, 17:00 CET….”

Mapping the Publishing Challenges for an Open Access University Press

Abstract:  Managing a New University Press (NUP) is often a one-person operation and, with limits on time and resources, efficiency and effectiveness are key to having a successful production process and providing a high level of author, editor and reader services. This article looks at the challenges faced by open access (OA) university presses throughout the publishing journey and considers ways in which these challenges can be addressed. In particular, the article focuses on six key stages throughout the lifecycle of an open access publication: commissioning; review; production; discoverability; marketing; analytics. Approached from the point of view of the University of Huddersfield Press, this article also draws on discussions and experiences of other NUPs from community-led forums and events. By highlighting the issues faced, and the potential solutions to them, this research recognises the need for a tailored and formalised production workflow within NUPs and also provides guidance how to begin implementing possible solutions. 

 

How to add academic journal articles to PubMed: An overview for publishers

“If you work with journals in the biomedical or life sciences, getting the articles you publish added to PubMed to make them more discoverable is likely one of your top goals. But, you may be wondering how to go about it.

We caught up with PubMed Central (PMC) Program Manager Kathryn Funk to get answers to some of the most common questions that we hear from journal publishers about PubMed and the related literature databases at the National Library of Medicine (NLM), MEDLINE and PMC. Read on to learn more about how the PubMed database works and how to apply to have a journal included in MEDLINE or PMC in order to make its articles searchable via PubMed….”

How journals are using overlay publishing models to facilitate equitable OA

“Preprint repositories have traditionally served as platforms to share copies of working papers prior to publication. But today they are being used for so much more, like posting datasets, archiving final versions of articles to make them Green Open Access, and another major development — publishing academic journals. Over the past 20 years, the concept of overlay publishing, or layering journals on top of existing repository platforms, has developed from a pilot project idea to a recognized and growing publishing model.

In the overlay publishing model, a journal performs refereeing services, but it doesn’t publish articles on its website. Rather, the journal’s website links to final article versions hosted on an online repository….”

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….”