1
|
Blatch-Jones AJ, Recio Saucedo A, Giddins B. The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0291627. [PMID: 37713422 PMCID: PMC10503772 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291627] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 09/17/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that is shared publicly, through a preprint server, before being submitted to a journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The scoping review explored the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle. METHODS A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017-2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022). RESULTS 379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities). CONCLUSIONS Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda Jane Blatch-Jones
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Coordinating Centre, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom
| | - Alejandra Recio Saucedo
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Coordinating Centre, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom
| | - Beth Giddins
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Coordinating Centre, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Khalil AT, Shinwari ZK, Islam A. Fostering openness in open science: An ethical discussion of risks and benefits. FRONTIERS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE 2022; 4. [DOI: 10.3389/fpos.2022.930574] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/01/2023]
Abstract
Transformation of science by embracing the concepts of open science presents a very attractive strategy to enhance the reliability of science. Open science policies embody the concepts of open data and open access that encompass sharing of resources, dissemination of ideas, and synergizing the collaborative forums of research. Despite the opportunities in openness, however, there are grave ethical concerns too, and they present a dual-use dilemma. Access to sensitive information is seen as a security risk, and it also possesses other concerns such as confidentiality, privacy, and affordability. There are arguments that open science can be harmful to marginalized groups. Through this study, we aim to discuss the opportunities of open science, as well as the ethical and security aspects, which require further deliberation before full-fledged acceptance in the science community.
Collapse
|
3
|
Zhang L, Wei Y, Huang Y, Sivertsen G. Should open access lead to closed research? The trends towards paying to perform research. Scientometrics 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04407-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
AbstractOpen Access (OA) emerged as an important transition in scholarly publishing worldwide during the past two decades. So far, this transition is increasingly based on article processing charges (APC), which create a new paywall on the researchers’ side. Publishing is part of the research process and thereby necessary to perform research. This study analyses the global trends towards paying to perform research by combing observed trends in publishing from 2015 to 2020 with an APC price list. APC expenses have sharply increased among six countries with different OA policies: the USA, China, the UK, France, the Netherlands, and Norway. The estimated global revenues from APC among major publishers now exceed 2 billion US dollars annually. Mergers and takeovers show that the industry is moving towards APC-based OA as the more profitable business model. Research publishing will be closed to those who cannot make an institution or project money payment. Our results lead to a discussion of whether APC is the best way to promote OA.
Collapse
|
4
|
Mekonnen A, Downs C, Effiom EO, Kibaja M, Lawes MJ, Omeja P, Ratsoavina FM, Razafindratsima O, Sarkar D, Stenseth NC, Chapman CA. Can I afford to publish? A dilemma for African scholars. Ecol Lett 2021; 25:711-715. [PMID: 34957647 DOI: 10.1111/ele.13949] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2021] [Revised: 11/17/2021] [Accepted: 11/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
With open-access publishing authors often pay an article processing charge and subsequently their article is freely available online. These charges are beyond the reach of most African academics. Thus, the trend towards open-access publishing will shift the business model from a pay-wall model, where access to literature is limited, to a pay-to-publish one, where African scholars cannot afford to publish. We explore the costs of publishing and the ability of African scholars to afford to publish via open access in top journals. Three-quarters of the 40 top ecology journals required payment for open-access publishing (average cost $3150). Paying such fees is a hardship for African scholars as grant funding is not available and it is not feasible to pay the fees themselves as salaries are low. We encourage funders and publishers to facilitate an equitable publishing model that allows African scholars to make their research available through open-access publishing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Addisu Mekonnen
- Department of Wildlife and Ecotourism Management, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.,Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.,Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Colleen Downs
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
| | - Edu O Effiom
- Cross River State Forestry Commission, Calabar, Nigeria
| | - Mohamed Kibaja
- Department of Zoology and Wildlife Conservation, University of Dar Essalam, Dar Essalam, Tanzania
| | - Michael J Lawes
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
| | - Patrick Omeja
- Makerere University Biological Field Station, Fort Portal, Uganda
| | | | - Onja Razafindratsima
- Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA
| | - Dipto Sarkar
- Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nils Chr Stenseth
- Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.,Department of Zoological Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
| | - Colin A Chapman
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.,Wilson Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.,Department of Anthropology, The George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.,Shaanxi Key Laboratory for Animal Conservation, Northwest University, Xi'an, China
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Abstract
Abstract
Deep learning is transforming most areas of science and technology, including electron microscopy. This review paper offers a practical perspective aimed at developers with limited familiarity. For context, we review popular applications of deep learning in electron microscopy. Following, we discuss hardware and software needed to get started with deep learning and interface with electron microscopes. We then review neural network components, popular architectures, and their optimization. Finally, we discuss future directions of deep learning in electron microscopy.
Collapse
|
6
|
Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. PUBLICATIONS 2021. [DOI: 10.3390/publications9010012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 133] [Impact Index Per Article: 44.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Nowadays, the importance of bibliographic databases (DBs) has increased enormously, as they are the main providers of publication metadata and bibliometric indicators universally used both for research assessment practices and for performing daily tasks. Because the reliability of these tasks firstly depends on the data source, all users of the DBs should be able to choose the most suitable one. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus are the two main bibliographic DBs. The comprehensive evaluation of the DBs’ coverage is practically impossible without extensive bibliometric analyses or literature reviews, but most DBs users do not have bibliometric competence and/or are not willing to invest additional time for such evaluations. Apart from that, the convenience of the DB’s interface, performance, provided impact indicators and additional tools may also influence the users’ choice. The main goal of this work is to provide all of the potential users with an all-inclusive description of the two main bibliographic DBs by gathering the findings that are presented in the most recent literature and information provided by the owners of the DBs at one place. This overview should aid all stakeholders employing publication and citation data in selecting the most suitable DB.
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
The exploratory analysis of the differences between preprints and the corresponding peer reviewed journal articles for ten studies first published on ChemRxiv and on Preprints, though statistically non-significant, suggests outcomes of relevance for chemistry researchers and educators. The full transition to open science requires new education of doctoral students and young researchers on scholarly communication in the digital age. The preliminary findings of this study will contribute to inform the curriculum of the aforementioned new courses for young chemists, eventually promoting accelerated innovation in a science that, unique amid all basic sciences, originates a huge industry central to the wealth of nations.
Collapse
|
8
|
Bibliometric analysis of a controversial paper on predatory publishing. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND METRICS 2020. [DOI: 10.1108/pmm-03-2020-0015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
PurposeIn 2017, one study (Derek Pyne; Journal of Scholarly Publishing; DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137; University of Toronto Press) in the “predatory” publishing literature attracted global media attention. Now, over three years, according to adjusted Google Scholar data, with 53 citations (34 in Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science), that paper became that author's most cited paper, accounting for one-third of his Google Scholar citations.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of the authors who cited that paper.FindingsWe found that out of the 39 English peer-reviewed journal papers, 11 papers (28%) critically assessed Pyne's findings, some of which even refuted those findings. The 2019 citations of the Pyne (2017) paper caused a 43% increase in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2019 Journal Impact Factor, which was 0.956, and a 7.7% increase in the 2019 CiteScore.Originality/valueThe authors are of the opinion that scholars and numerous media that cited the Pyne (2017) paper were unaware of its flawed findings.
Collapse
|
9
|
Heck T, Peters I, Mazarakis A, Scherp A, Blümel I. Open science practices in higher education: Discussion of survey results from research and teaching staff in Germany. EDUCATION FOR INFORMATION 2020. [DOI: 10.3233/efi-190272] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Aspects of open science and scholarly practices are often discussed with a focus on research and research dissemination processes. There is currently less discussion on open science and its influence on learning and teaching in higher education, and reversely. This paper discusses open science in relation to educational practices and resources and reports on a study to investigate current educational practices from the perspective of open science. We argue that offering students opportunities via open educational practices raises their awareness of future open science goals and teaches them the skills needed to reach those goals. We present online survey results from 210 participants with teaching responsibility at higher education institutions in Germany. While some of them try to establish more open learning and teaching settings, most respondents apply rather traditional ways of learning and teaching. 60% do not use open educational resources – many have not even heard of them – nor do they make their courses open for an online audience. Participants’ priority lies in resource accuracy and quality and we still see a gap between the benefit of open practices and their practicability and applicability. The paper contributes to the general discussion of open practices in higher education by looking at open science practices and their adaptation to the learning and teaching environment. It formulates recommendations for improvements of open practice support and infrastructure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tamara Heck
- Information Center for Education, DIPF, Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education, Frankfurt a. M., Germany
| | - Isabella Peters
- Kiel University and ZBW, Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, Kiel, Germany
| | - Athanasios Mazarakis
- Kiel University and ZBW, Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, Kiel, Germany
| | - Ansgar Scherp
- Computing Science and Mathematics, University of Stirling, Scotland, UK
| | - Ina Blümel
- German National Library of Science and Technology, Hannover University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Hannover, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Kosmarski A, Gordiychuk N. Token‐curated registry in a scholarly journal: Can blockchain support journal communities? LEARNED PUBLISHING 2020. [DOI: 10.1002/leap.1302] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Artyom Kosmarski
- Laboratory for the Study of Blockchain in Education and Science (LIBON) State Academic University for the Humanities (GAUGN) Maronovskiy Lane 26, Moscow 119049 Russia
| | - Nikolay Gordiychuk
- Laboratory for the Study of Blockchain in Education and Science (LIBON) State Academic University for the Humanities (GAUGN) Maronovskiy Lane 26, Moscow 119049 Russia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Herman E, Akeroyd J, Bequet G, Nicholas D, Watkinson A. The changed – and changing – landscape of serials publishing: Review of the literature on emerging models. LEARNED PUBLISHING 2020. [DOI: 10.1002/leap.1288] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Eti Herman
- CIBER Research Ltd Newbury, Berkshire RG147RU UK
| | - John Akeroyd
- CIBER Research Ltd Newbury, Berkshire RG147RU UK
| | - Gaelle Bequet
- ISSN International Centre/CIEPS/Centro internacional del ISSN 45 Rue de Turbigo, 75003 Paris France
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Business as Usual with Article Processing Charges in the Transition towards OA Publishing: A Case Study Based on Elsevier. PUBLICATIONS 2020. [DOI: 10.3390/publications8010003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
This paper addresses the topic of the article processing charges (APCs) that are paid when publishing articles using the open access (OA) option. Building on the Elsevier OA price list, company balance sheet figures, and ScienceDirect data, tentative answers to three questions are outlined using a Monte Carlo approach to deal with the uncertainty inherent in the inputs. The first question refers to the level of APCs from the market perspective, under the hypothesis that all the articles published in Elsevier journals exploit the OA model so that the subscription to ScienceDirect becomes worthless. The second question is how much Elsevier should charge for publishing all the articles under the OA model, assuming the profit margin reduces and adheres to the market benchmark. The third issue is how many articles would have to be accepted, in an OA-only publishing landscape, so that the publisher benefits from the same revenue and profit margin as in the recent past. The results point to high APCs, nearly twice the current level, being required to preserve the publisher’s profit margin. Otherwise, by relaxing that constraint, a downward shift of APCs can be expected so they would tend to get close to current values. Accordingly, the article acceptance rate could be likely to grow from 26–27% to about 35–55%.
Collapse
|
13
|
Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J, Tsigaris P, Al-Khatib A. Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: An assessment. JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP 2019. [DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102071] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
|
14
|
Green T. Maximizing dissemination and engaging readers: The other 50% of an author's day: A case study. LEARNED PUBLISHING 2019. [DOI: 10.1002/leap.1251] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Toby Green
- OECD Publishing, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2 rue André Pascal Paris 75775 Cedex 16 France
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
|
16
|
Chiarelli A, Johnson R, Pinfield S, Richens E. Preprints and Scholarly Communication: Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers. F1000Res 2019; 8:971. [PMID: 32055396 PMCID: PMC6961415 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.19619.2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/11/2019] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Since 2013, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of preprint servers available online. To date, little is known about the position of researchers, funders, research performing organisations and other stakeholders with respect to this fast-paced landscape. In this article, we explore the benefits and challenges of preprint posting, along with issues such as infrastructure and financial sustainability. We also discuss the definition of a 'preprint' in different communities, and the impact this has on further uptake. Methods: This study is based on 38 detailed semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders based on a purposive heterogeneous sampling approach. Interviews were undertaken between October 2018 and January 2019. These were recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis to identify trends. Interview questions were designed based on Innovation Diffusion Theory, which is also used to interpret the results of this study. Results: Our study is the first using empirical data to understand the new wave of preprint servers and found that early and fast dissemination is the most appealing feature of the practice. The main concerns are related to the lack of quality assurance and the 'Ingelfinger rule'. We identified trust as an essential enabler of preprint posting and stress the enabling role of Twitter in showcasing preprints and enabling comments on these. Conclusions: The preprints landscape is evolving fast and disciplinary communities are at different stages in the innovation diffusion process. The landscape is characterised by significant experimentation, which leads to the conclusion that a one-size-fits-all approach to preprints is not feasible. Cooperation and active engagement between the stakeholders involved will play an important role in the future. In our paper, we share questions for the further development of the preprints landscape, with the most important being whether preprint posting will develop as a publisher- or researcher-centric practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Rob Johnson
- Research Consulting Limited, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, UK
| | - Stephen Pinfield
- Information School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DP, UK
| | - Emma Richens
- Research Consulting Limited, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
|