TRIPLE USER RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE

“The following questionnaire is part of the user research conducted for the European H2020 project TRIPLE. The questionnaire is aimed at researchers/academics in Social Sciences and Humanities at any stage of their careers.

In the following you will be asked mainly a number of questions about your discoverability research work practices and about the future of TRIPLE.

The questionnaire contains 21 questions and it should take between 10 to 15 minutes to complete.

TRIPLE was launched on 7 October 2019. It will be one of the dedicated services of OPERAS, the Research Infrastructure supporting open scholarly communication in the Social Sciences and Humanities in the European Research Area. At the heart of the project is the development of the TRIPLE platform, an innovative multilingual and multicultural discovery solution….”

Lost or Found? Discovering Data Needed for Research · Harvard Data Science Review

Abstract:  Finding data is a necessary precursor to being able to reuse data, although relatively little large-scale empirical evidence exists about how researchers discover, make sense of, and (re)use data for research. This study presents evidence from the largest known survey investigating how researchers discover and use data that they do not create themselves. We examine the data needs and discovery strategies of respondents, propose a typology for data reuse, and probe the role of social interactions and literature search in data discovery. We consider how data communities can be conceptualized according to data uses and propose practical applications of our findings for designers of data discovery systems and repositories. Specifically, we consider how to design for a diversity of practices, how communities of use can serve as an entry point for design and the role of metadata in supporting both sensemaking and social interactions.

Lost or Found? Discovering Data Needed for Research · Harvard Data Science Review

Abstract:  Finding data is a necessary precursor to being able to reuse data, although relatively little large-scale empirical evidence exists about how researchers discover, make sense of, and (re)use data for research. This study presents evidence from the largest known survey investigating how researchers discover and use data that they do not create themselves. We examine the data needs and discovery strategies of respondents, propose a typology for data reuse, and probe the role of social interactions and literature search in data discovery. We consider how data communities can be conceptualized according to data uses and propose practical applications of our findings for designers of data discovery systems and repositories. Specifically, we consider how to design for a diversity of practices, how communities of use can serve as an entry point for design and the role of metadata in supporting both sensemaking and social interactions.

Directory of preprint server policies and practices – ASAPbio

“Given the growth of preprint servers and alternative platforms, it is increasingly important to describe their disciplinary scope and compare and contrast policies including governance, licensing, archiving strategies and the nature of any screening checks. These practices are important to both researchers and policymakers.

Here we present searchable information about preprint platforms relevant to life sciences, biomedical, and clinical research….”

A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting | bioRxiv

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. We also aim to provide a searchable database to enable relevant stakeholders to compare between platforms. Study Design and Setting: Preprint platforms that were launched up to 25th 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). Data collected were in relation to scope and ownership; content-specific characteristics and information relating to submission, journal transfer options, and external discoverability; screening, moderation, and permanence of content; usage metrics and metadata. Where possible, all online data were verified by the platform owner or representative by correspondence. 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, six (14%) were provided by F1000 Research Ltd (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. The three most common screening checks related to the scope of the article, plagiarism and legal/ethical/societal issues and compliance. 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. Forty-one (93%) platforms currently have usage metrics, with the most common metric being the number of downloads presented on the abstract page. 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. However, the process by which content is screened before online posting and withdrawn or removed after posting varies between platforms, which may be associated with platform operation, ownership, governance and financing.

 

NIST and OSTP Launch Effort to Improve Search Engines for COVID-19 Research | NIST

“Today, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) launched a joint effort to support the development of search engines for research that will help in the fight against COVID-19. The project was developed in response to the March 16 White House Call to Action to the Tech Community on New Machine Readable COVID-19 Dataset….”

Navigating the NIH Public Access Policy for Peer-Reviewed Manuscripts – Why and How to get a PMCID Number

“Manuscripts are required to be publicly available no later than 12 months following original publication date depending on the embargo period of the publisher; however, manuscripts are non-compliant if the PubMed Central Identification (PMCID) number has not been acquired 90 days after the original publication date. Steps to acquire a PMCID are provided below. Embargo periods for each journal in PMC can be found in the “Free Access” column on the PMC Journal List. The exact release date for each article under embargo is displayed in PMC search results, on the table of contents for the issue, or in the corresponding PubMed record. To obtain access to an article prior to its availability in PMC, individuals must contact the respective journal publisher directly….”