In 2005, OA in the biomedical field was achieved under an umbrella of existing scholarly communication systems. Typically, OA articles were published as part of subscription journals published by scholarly societies. OA journals published by BioMed Central contributed to a small portion of all OA articles.
IntroductionThis study clarifies the trends observed in open access (OA) in the biomedical field between 2006 and 2010, and explores the possible explanations for the differences in OA rates revealed in recent surveys.MethodsThe study consists of a main survey and two supplementary surveys. In the main survey, a manual Google search was performed to investigate whether full-text versions of articles from PubMed were freely available. Target samples were articles published in 2005, 2007, and 2009; the searches were performed a year after publication in 2006, 2008, and 2010, respectively. Using the search results, we classified the OA provision methods into seven categories. The supplementary surveys calculated the OA rate using two search functions on PubMed: “LinkOut” and “Limits.”ResultsThe main survey concluded that the OA rate increased significantly between 2006 and 2010: the OA rate in 2010 (50.2%) was twice that in 2006 (26.3%). Furthermore, majority of OA articles were available from OA journal (OAJ) websites, indicating that OAJs have consistently been a significant contributor to OA throughout the period. OA availability through the PubMed Central (PMC) repository also increased significantly. OA rates obtained from two supplementary surveys were lower than those found in the main survey. “LinkOut” could find only 40% of OA articles in the main survey.DiscussionOA articles in the biomedical field have more than a 50% share. OA has been achieved through OAJs. The reason why the OA rates in our surveys are different from those in recent surveys seems to be the difference in sampling methods and verification procedures.
This article aims to provide an overview of researchers' practices and perceptions on data use and sharing. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 23 Japanese researchers in the natural sciences to identify their research practices and data use, including data sharing. We divided the interview scripts into meaningful phrases as a unit of analysis. Next, we focused on 406 statements on research data and reanalyzed them based on four aspects: stance on research data, practices and perceptions of data use, range of data sharing, and data type. A cluster analysis identified 14 clusters, which were divided into five groups: open access for data, restricted access for data, data interpretation, data processing and preservation, and data infrastructure. Our results reveal the complexity and diversity of the relationship between data and research practices. That is, the practice of research data sharing is heterogeneous, with no "one size fits all" between and among researchers.
Information Practice research emphasises on contextual factors such as the situation, social roles, collaborators, or communications of information behaviour. This wider scope allows us to gain enriched, deeper, and complex understanding of how people interact with information in various contexts. However, this also poses researchers many challenges in data collection and analyses, since conventional methods such as observations, interviews, surveys might not either possible or complete. Meanwhile, a range of wearable devices have become commodity and collecting a large amount of personal lifelog data has become much easier than before. On the other hand, the researchers who are familiar with qualitative methods and computational methods do not often communicate, although they are likely to have common research agenda.
This proposed panel provides a unique opportunity to invite panellists from the two research communities, and discusses how lifelogging technologies may (or may not!) contribute and transform information practice research. The panel will also involve the audience in sharing their personal or scientific experience with lifelogging technologies, or their expectations or concerns regarding the use of lifelogging technologies in their research. Outcomes from the panel discussion should yield some clear pointers that can facilitate multimethod research in Information Practices.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.