hiig_bf
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 21, 2016 at 11:21 am in reply to: Could #Blockchain provide the technical fix to solve science’s reproducibility crisis? #4060
Soenke Bartling and Benedikt Fecher on the use of blockchain technology in research.
Currently blockchain is being hyped. Many claim that the blockchain revolution will affect not only our online life, but will profoundly change many more aspects of our society. Many foresee these changes as potentially being more far-reaching than those brought by the internet in the last two decades. If this holds true, it is certain that research and knowledge creation will also be affected by this. So, what is blockchain all about? More importantly, could knowledge creation benefit from it? One potential area it could be useful is in addressing the credibility and reproducibility crisis in science.
June 24, 2016 at 2:48 pm in reply to: Article on #openaccess scholarly innovation and research infrastructure #4056In this article Benedikt Fecher and Gert Wagner argue that the current endeavors to achieve open access in scientific literature require a discussion about innovation in scholarly publishing and research infrastructure. Drawing on path dependence theory and addressing different open access (OA) models and recent political endeavors, the authors argue that academia is once again running the risk of outsourcing the organization of its content.Wikimedia Germany offers fellowships for Open-Science-practitioners.
April 18, 2016 at 1:48 pm in reply to: Perceptions and Practices of #Replication by Social and Behavioral Scientists: Results from a Survey #4049Researchers from the German Institute of Economic research in Berlin present the results of a recent survey among social and behavioral researchers on data sharing and replication. Working paper out now.
April 5, 2016 at 9:39 pm in reply to: Research data explored: an extended analysis of citations and altmetrics #4047In this study, we explore the citedness of research data, its distribution over time and its relation to the availability of a digital object identifier (DOI) in the Thomson Reuters database Data Citation Index (DCI). We investigate if cited research data “impacts” the (social) web, reflected by altmetrics scores, and if there is any relationship between the number of citations and the sum of altmetrics scores from various social media platforms. Three tools are used to collect altmetrics scores, namely PlumX, ImpactStory, and Altmetric.com, and the corresponding results are compared. We found that out of the three altmetrics tools, PlumX has the best coverage. Our experiments revealed that research data remain mostly uncited (about 85 %), although there has been an increase in citing data sets published since 2008. The percentage of the number of cited research data with a DOI in DCI has decreased in the last years. Only nine repositories are responsible for research data with DOIs and two or more citations. The number of cited research data with altmetrics “foot-prints” is even lower (4–9 %) but shows a higher coverage of research data from the last decade. In our study, we also found no correlation between the number of citations and the total number of altmetrics scores. Yet, certain data types (i.e. survey, aggregate data, and sequence data) are more often cited and also receive higher altmetrics scores. Additionally, we performed citation and altmetric analyses of all research data published between 2011 and 2013 in four different disciplines covered by the DCI. In general, these results correspond very well with the ones obtained for research data cited at least twice and also show low numbers in citations and in altmetrics. Finally, we observed that there are disciplinary differences in the availability and extent of altmetrics scores.
Peter Suber’s excellent readings on Open Access; of course free to download.
Benedikt Fecher and Gert Wagner in a recent Science letter on credit for academic data sharing.
February 24, 2016 at 10:58 am in reply to: Misconceptions about academic data sharing #datasharing #openscience #4037Gert Wagner and Benedikt Fecher reply to an editorial about data sharing in medicine.
Longo and Drazen miss the very point of scientific research when they write, that the researchers may «even use the data to try to disprove what the original investigators had posited«. It is at the core of the scientific paradigm that researchers take nothing as final truth. This is what Popper proposed in his critical rationalism and Merton in his conceptualization of skepticism.
Last week, Longo and Drazen published a frantic editorial in the New England Journal of Medicing on academic data sharing, implying that researchers that use data from other researcher are “research parasites”. The journal replied:
We want to clarify, given recent concern about our policy, that the Journal is committed to data sharing in the setting of clinical trials. As stated in the Institute of Medicine report from the committee1 on which I served and the recent editorial by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE),2 we believe there is a moral obligation to the people who volunteer to participate in these trials to ensure that their data are widely and responsibly used.
January 15, 2016 at 9:58 am in reply to: Launch of Digital Archive for Historical Research #digitalhumanities #4032Today Cendari (Collaborative European Digital Archive Infrastructure) has been launched. It is featured as a “powerful toolkit for digital historical research”.
Wiki4R will create an innovative virtual research environment (VRE) for Open Science at scale, engaging both professional researchers and citizen data scientists in new and potentially transformative forms of collaboration.
November 24, 2015 at 9:58 am in reply to: Science for a sustainable and just world: a new framework for global science policy? #openscience #4022Hackmann and Boulton on challenges for science and how to react
November 18, 2015 at 1:18 pm in reply to: The case of Lingua/Glossa should make us think about Open Access (text in German only) #4020Letzte Woche trat das Editorial Board der linguistischen Fachzeitschrift Lingua geschlossen zurück. Die Gruppe um den Chefredakteur Johan Rooryck, Sprachwissenschaftler an der Universität Leiden, kündigte an, ein neues Journal unter dem Namen Glossa zu gründen. Rooryck begründet den Rücktritt des Editorial Board damit, dass das Verlagshaus Elsevier, bei dem Lingua erscheint, nicht auf deren Open-Access-Bedingungen eingehen will. Lingua existiert seit 1949 und ist auf Google-Scholar immerhin unter den wichtigsten drei sprachwissenschaftlichen Fachzeitschriftenzu finden.
Good news: Representatives from the Austrian research organizations presented a plan for full open access by 2025.
-
AuthorPosts