Metrics for openness

Nichols, David M.; Twidale, Michael B.

doi:10.1002/asi.23741

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…citations and social media activity, standardised metrics relating to openness have yet to become established and standardised. Based on a review of studies measuring open access prevalence, Nichols and Twidale (2017) present several suggestions for how the openness metrics for authors could be designed in order to take into account author-level factors such as unused self-archiving potential for publications, self-archiving in breach of publisher policies, and the long-term archival capability of platforms used for self-archiving. While standards such as OAI-PMH and DOI with related metadata from Crossref are making the type of data required for calculating these types of metrics increasingly readily-accessible, publisher policies are yet to be available in a comprehensive and reliable machine-readable format.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open access in ethics research: an analysis of open access availability and author self-archiving behaviour in light of journal copyright restrictions

null

Polonioli

2018

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current state of open access to journal publications within research areas belonging to the humanities has received relatively little research attention. This study provides a detailed mapping of the bibliometric state of open access to journal publications among ethicists, taking into account not only open access publishing in journals directly, but also where and in what form ethicists make their journal articles available elsewhere on the web. As part of the study 297 ethicists affiliated with top-ranking philosophy departments were identified and their journal publication information for the years 2010-2015 were recorded (1682 unique articles). The journal articles were then queried for through Google Scholar in order to establish open access status (web locations, document versions) of each publication record. Publication records belonging to the 20 most frequently used journal outlets (subset of 597 unique articles) were put under closer inspection with regards to alignment with publisher copyright restrictions as well as measuring unused potential to share articles. The results show that slightly over half of recent journal publications are available to read for free. PhilPapers and academic social networks (Academia.edu and ResearchGate) were found to be key platforms for research dissemination in ethics research. The representation of institutional repositories as providers of access was found to be weak, receiving the second lowest frequency rating among the eight discrete web location categories. Further, the study reveals that ethicists are at the same time prone to copyright infringement and undersharing their scholarly work.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open access in ethics research: an analysis of open access availability and author self-archiving behaviour in light of journal copyright restrictions

null

Polonioli

2018

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scholarship includes multiple contribution roles, such as authors, publishers, data analysers, software developers, reviewers, and editors, with a range of complex network interactions. To generate a robust framework for measuring impact and therefore reputation, different metrics and indices would be required to reflect this participant diversity (Nichols and Twidale 2017). Thus, any future appropriate valuation system has to capture the inherent diversity in dimensions between the practitioner, the practice, and the output.…”

Section: Creating a New Prestige Economy Based On Open Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship

Agrawal¹,

Baždarić²,

Brassard³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is no clear-cut boundary between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship, and the histories, practices, and fundamental principles between the two remain complex. In this study, we critically appraise the intersections and differences between the two movements. Based on our thematic comparison here, we conclude several key things. First, there is substantial scope for new communities of practice to form within scholarly communities that place sharing and collaboration/open participation at their focus. Second, Both the principles and practices of FOSS can be more deeply ingrained within scholarship, asserting a balance between pragmatism and social ideology. Third, at the present, Open Scholarship risks being subverted and compromised by commercial players. Fourth, the shift and acceleration towards a system of Open Scholarship will be greatly enhanced by a concurrent shift in recognising a broader range of practices and outputs beyond traditional peer review and research articles. In order to achieve this, we propose the formulation of a new type of institutional mandate. We believe that there is substantial need for research funders to invest in sustainable open scholarly infrastructure, and the communities that support them, to avoid the capture and enclosure of key research services that would prevent optimal researcher behaviours. Such a shift could ultimately lead to a healthier scientific culture, and a system where competition is replaced by collaboration, resources (including time and people) are shared and acknowledged more efficiently, and the research becomes inherently more rigorous, verified, and reproducible.

show abstract

“…For more than two decades, the movement for Open Scholarship has evolved from a collection of small, localized efforts to a broad international network of institutions, organizations, governments, practitioners, advocates, and funders. While significant progress has been made on both expanding the understanding and practice of Open Scholarship (e.g., Peters et al, 2012, Friesike et al, 2013Munafo et al, 2017), Open Scholarship practices and values are not yet the norm in most research disciplines and adoption is spread unevenly around the world.…”

Section: What Is Open Scholarship?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Foundations for Open Scholarship Strategy Development

Beamer¹,

Bosman²,

Brembs³

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document aims to agree on a broad, international strategy for the implementation of open scholarship that meets the needs of different national and regional communities but works globally.Scholarly research can be idealised as an inspirational process for advancing our collective knowledge to the benefit of all humankind. However, current research practices often struggle with a range of tensions, in part due to the fact that this collective (or “commons”) ideal conflicts with the competitive system in which most scholars work, and in part because much of the infrastructure of the scholarly world is becoming largely digital. What is broadly termed as Open Scholarship is an attempt to realign modern research practices with this ideal. We do not propose a definition of Open Scholarship, but recognise that it is a holistic term that encompasses many disciplines, practices, and principles, sometimes also referred to as Open Science or Open Research. We choose the term Open Scholarship to be more inclusive of these other terms. When we refer to science in this document, we do so historically and use it as shorthand for more general scholarship.The purpose of this document is to provide a concise analysis of where the global Open Scholarship movement currently stands: what the common threads and strengths are, where the greatest opportunities and challenges lie, and how we can more effectively work together as a global community to recognise and address the top strategic priorities. This document was inspired by the Foundations for OER Strategy Development and work in the FORCE11 Scholarly Commons Working Group, and developed by an open contribution working group.Our hope is that this document will serve as a foundational resource for continuing discussions and initiatives about implementing effective strategies to help streamline the integration of Open Scholarship practices into a modern, digital research culture. Through this, we hope to extend the reach and impact of Open Scholarship into a global context, making sure that it is truly open for all. We also hope that this document will evolve as the conversations around Open Scholarship progress, and help to provide useful insight for both global co-ordination and local action. We believe this is a step forward in making Open Scholarship the norm.Ultimately, we expect the impact of widespread adoption of Open Scholarship to be diverse. We expect novel research practices to accelerate the pace of innovation, and therefore stimulate critical industries around the world. We could also expect to see an increase in public trust of science and scholarship, as transparency becomes more normative. As such, we expect interest in Open Scholarship to increase at multiple levels, due to its inherent influence on society and global economics.

show abstract

Metrics for openness

Cited by 16 publications

References 81 publications

Open access in ethics research: an analysis of open access availability and author self-archiving behaviour in light of journal copyright restrictions

Open access in ethics research: an analysis of open access availability and author self-archiving behaviour in light of journal copyright restrictions

A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship

Foundations for Open Scholarship Strategy Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About