Ouvrir la Science – Activités de Knowledge Exchange | Partenaires pour améliorer le service à l’ESR

Knowledge Exchange (KE) brings together six organizations from six countries. Their common objective is to examine the issues related to research support and infrastructure and service development.

Members:

CNRS (France),
CSC (Finland),
DEIC (Denmark),
DFG   (Germany),
JISC (United Kingdom),
SURF (Netherlands).

Recent results:

About monographs;

A landscape study on open access and monographs –  DOI: 10.5281 / zenodo.815932
Knowledge Exchange Survey on Open Access Monographs – DOI: 10.5281 / zenodo.1475446
Towards a Roadmap for Open Access Monographs – DOI: 10.5281 / zenodo.3238545

Preprints

Accelerating scholarly communication – The transformative role of preprints – DOI: 10.5281 / zenodo.3357727

Economy of Open Science

Insights into the Economy of Open Scholarship: A Collection of Interviews – DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2840171
Open Scholarship and the need for collective action – DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3454688

 

Use of author identifier services (ORCID, ResearcherID) and academic social networks (Academia.edu, ResearchGate) by the researchers of the University of Caen Normandy (France): A case study

Abstract:  The purpose of this paper was to assess the presence of researchers on two author identifier services (ORCID and ResearcherID) and to compare the results with two academic social networks (Academia.edu and ResearchGate) using the categories of discipline, career advancement, and gender in a medium sized multidisciplinary university in France (University of Caen Normandy). Metrics such as number of publications per researcher, h-indexes, and average number of citations were also assessed. Of the 1,047 researchers studied, 673 (64.3%) had at least one profile on the four sites, and the number of researchers having multiple profiles decreased as more sites were studied. Researchers with only one profile numbered 385 (36.8%), while 204 (19.5%) had two, 68 (6.5%) had three, and only 16 (1.5%) had four. ResearchGate had by far the highest number of researchers present, with 569 (54.3%), whereas presence on the other sites was about 15%. We found that, apart from Academia.edu, researchers in Sciences, Technology, and Medicine (STM) were over-represented. Overall, experienced male researchers were over-represented on the sites studied. Our results show that, because of the numerous profiles lacking publication references (particularly on ORCID) and a low presence of researchers on the four sites studied (except for ResearchGate), assessing the number of publications, h-indexes, or average number of citations per article of individuals or institutions remains challenging. Finally, our data showed that French researchers have not adopted the use of the two author identifier sites (i.e. ORCID and ResearcherID). As long as French researchers remain reticent, these sites will not be able to provide the services for which they were created: addressing the problem of author misidentification, consequently providing exhaustive access to scientific production and bibliometric indicators of individual researchers and their institutions.

 

Use of author identifier services (ORCID, ResearcherID) and academic social networks (Academia.edu, ResearchGate) by the researchers of the University of Caen Normandy (France): A case study

Abstract:  The purpose of this paper was to assess the presence of researchers on two author identifier services (ORCID and ResearcherID) and to compare the results with two academic social networks (Academia.edu and ResearchGate) using the categories of discipline, career advancement, and gender in a medium sized multidisciplinary university in France (University of Caen Normandy). Metrics such as number of publications per researcher, h-indexes, and average number of citations were also assessed. Of the 1,047 researchers studied, 673 (64.3%) had at least one profile on the four sites, and the number of researchers having multiple profiles decreased as more sites were studied. Researchers with only one profile numbered 385 (36.8%), while 204 (19.5%) had two, 68 (6.5%) had three, and only 16 (1.5%) had four. ResearchGate had by far the highest number of researchers present, with 569 (54.3%), whereas presence on the other sites was about 15%. We found that, apart from Academia.edu, researchers in Sciences, Technology, and Medicine (STM) were over-represented. Overall, experienced male researchers were over-represented on the sites studied. Our results show that, because of the numerous profiles lacking publication references (particularly on ORCID) and a low presence of researchers on the four sites studied (except for ResearchGate), assessing the number of publications, h-indexes, or average number of citations per article of individuals or institutions remains challenging. Finally, our data showed that French researchers have not adopted the use of the two author identifier sites (i.e. ORCID and ResearcherID). As long as French researchers remain reticent, these sites will not be able to provide the services for which they were created: addressing the problem of author misidentification, consequently providing exhaustive access to scientific production and bibliometric indicators of individual researchers and their institutions.

 

DataCite Commons – Exploiting the Power of PIDs and the PID Graph

“Today DataCite is proud to announce the launch of DataCite Commons, available at https://commons.datacite.org. DataCite Commons is a discovery service that enables simple searches while giving users a comprehensive overview of connections between entities in the research landscape. This means that DataCite members registering DOIs with us will have easier access to information about the use of their DOIs and can discover and track connections between their DOIs and other entities. DataCite Commons was developed as part of the EC-funded project Freya and will form the basis of new DataCite services….

We integrate with both the ORCID and ROR (Research Organization Registry) APIs to enable a search for (10 million) people and (100,000) organizations and to show the associated content. For funding, we take advantage of the inclusion of Crossref Funder IDs in ROR metadata. We combine these connections, showing a funder, research organization, or researcher not only their content but also the citations and views and downloads if available, together with aggregate statistics such as numbers by year or content type….”

Celebrating the Five Year Anniversary of the UK ORCID Consortium – Jisc scholarly communications

“August 2020 sees the 5-year anniversary of the UK ORCID consortium. The evolution of ORCID and the UK Consortium can be viewed as a change programme. If we look back and reflect, what have been the drivers for change and what improvements can we celebrate?…

The range and complexity of outputs that ORCID identifiers are associated with has expanded as well, as new systems and ways of capturing information emerge – especially as we move to a data rich, information-centric open science model of scholarship. As such, the power of interconnected PIDs with the personal identifier of ORCID ID embedded, gives deeply intertwined and more useful information. These potential benefits can be realised as the various systems and identifiers mature and adoption improves. Examples of associations with unique persistent person identities are: works (e.g. works identified with a DOI); organisations (identified, for example with a ROR id); affiliations and workflows which can be examined via the events captured in PID Graphs. A project identifier such as RAiD allows you to associate people, data, works and funding with a long term effort, track the impact of efforts over the long term, and focus on the narrative, rather than a particular researcher or funding stream. This evolving landscape of interconnection allows us to build better, more effective scholarly machines, to do open research on a better, more cohesive and collaborative scale….”

Persistent identifiers and Open Access in the UK: The way forward

“By providing information on the use of persistent identifiers (PIDs) in the research ecosystem, you agree that you have asked us to process it as described in our standard privacy notice at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice. You may instruct us to stop processing it at any time by emailing help@jisc.ac.uk. Until then, we’ll use it to inform work being carried out by Jisc to support the UK’s compliance with Plan S. …”

Persistent identifiers and open access in the UK: the way forward | Jisc

“Today, more than ever, a resilient and efficient research infrastructure is critically important. Persistent identifiers (PIDs) are an essential element of global research data infrastructures and have become central to building and maintaining reliable and robust links between people, communities and infrastructures.

Professor Adam Tickell’s 2018 independent advice to the UK government on open access to research publications, included a recommendation for Jisc to “lead on selecting and promoting a range of unique identifiers … in collaboration with sector leaders with relevant partner organisations”.

During this online event, we will share progress made towards implementing this recommendation and establishing a persistent identifier roadmap for open access – and open research more broadly – in in the UK. We will highlight the role PIDs can play in improving open access workflows, in the context of Plan S requirements and the recently published UKRI OA review.

You will hear from practitioners, as well as from the Jisc team working on the project. And we want to hear from you too, so there will be plenty of time for Q&A….”

SciENcv and ORCID to Streamline NIH and NSF Grant Applications – LYRASIS NOW

“SciENcv is a tool managed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that allows researchers to create a biographical sketch (biosketch) to submit with their grant proposals for funding from NIH, and it can now also be used when seeking funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF).

As of October 5, 2020 the National Science Foundation (NSF) will require researchers to submit a biosketch that meets specific format requirements as part of their grant proposal. Researchers are encouraged to use SciENcv to create biosketches, as SciENcv offers a NSF-approved tool that is integrated with ORCID. Researchers can connect their ORCID iD with their SciENcv profile in order to transfer data from their ORCID record into SciENcv by clicking a button, rather than having to manually retype all of their information….”