Open Access: A State of the Art

Sitek, Dagmar; Bertelmann, Roland

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_9

Cited by 19 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These ‘schools’ are all intended to address perceived deficiencies in the current system: slow publication speeds; academic reward systems that use imperfect measures (such as journal impact factor) and disincentivize the publication of negative results or replication studies; journal subscription models that limit access to research; closed and ineffective peer review processes; and the absence of tools and incentives to share data, code, methods, and analysis techniques (Hey & Payne, ; Nosek & Bar‐Anan, ; Ross & Krumholz, ). The megajournal approach, with its commitment to OA and a review process that seeks to evaluate only the soundness of the research, is seen by some as a means of addressing a number of these issues (Nosek et al , ; Sitek & Bertelmann, ).…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 1: Motivations)

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

which publish a megajournal), this paper reports how the term 'megajournal' is understood and publishers' rationale and motivations for launching (or not launching) an OAMJ. We find that while there is general agreement on the common characteristics of megajournals, there is not yet a consensus on their relative importance. We also find seven motivating factors that were said to drive the launch of an OAMJ and link each of these factors to potential societal and business benefits. These results suggest that the often polarized debate surrounding OAMJs is a consequence of the extent to which observers perceive publishers to be motivated by these societal or business benefits.

show abstract

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 1: Motivations)

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The requirements Open Data and Open Access are supporting the collaborative environment while they address different scientific problems. Open Access portrays free access to knowledge, for example, scientific publications (Cribb and Sari, 2010;Rufai et al, 2011;Sitek and Bertelmann, 2014). Quite often, research publications are behind a paywall with continuously increasing costs (Carroll, 2011) that can hinder researchers and the general public from reading and citing them; ironically, research is often funded by tax money.…”

Section: Requirement Analysis For An Infrastructurementioning

confidence: 99%

A Review on Blockchain Technology and Blockchain Projects Fostering Open Science

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many sectors, like finance, medicine, manufacturing, and education, use blockchain applications to profit from the unique bundle of characteristics of this technology. Blockchain technology (BT) promises benefits in trustability, collaboration, organization, identification, credibility, and transparency. In this paper, we conduct an analysis in which we show how open science can benefit from this technology and its properties. For this, we determined the requirements of an open science ecosystem and compared them with the characteristics of BT to prove that the technology suits as an infrastructure. We also review literature and promising blockchain-based projects for open science to describe the current research situation. To this end, we examine the projects in particular for their relevance and contribution to open science and categorize them afterwards according to their primary purpose. Several of them already provide functionalities that can have a positive impact on current research workflows. So, BT offers promising possibilities for its use in science, but why is it then not used on a large-scale in that area? To answer this question, we point out various shortcomings, challenges, unanswered questions, and research potentials that we found in the literature and identified during our analysis. These topics shall serve as starting points for future research to foster the BT for open science and beyond, especially in the long-term.

show abstract

“…The way research is published has changed significantly during the last decades Rowlands et al 2011;Sitek & Bertelmann 2014). For decades, research has been mainly published by research societies and their respective journals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Digital journals still mimic their print counterparts and publishing houses keep to make big profit . Not until the 2000s the idea of open access journals became more accepted (Sitek & Bertelmann 2014) and nowadays open access publishing, self-archiving in institutional archives, subject dependent archives or academic network sites have become more common (Mikki et al 2018;Piwowar et al 2018;Van Noorden 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social media uptake of academic publications: Differences due to availability, subject and demographic parameters

Lorenz

Mikki

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study we evaluate the social media uptake of Norwegian articles for the years 2011-2015. We analyse the difference regarding open availability, subject, gender and age. Our dataset consist of over 70000 publications taken from CERES the National Center for Systems and Services in Norway. The dataset from CERES provides a unique possibility to learn more about the differences in gender and age when it comes to social media uptake. It contains information about subject category, gender and age of contributing authors. Open availability is tested with Google Scholar and the information about social media uptake is taken from altmetric.com. We analyses the popular services Facebook and Twitter as well as blog posts and news outlets. We find that open availability increases social media uptake. Articles within Medicine and Health sciences receive by far the highest coverage in social media followed by Natural sciences and Technology. Publications authored by women seem to receive more social media coverage but with a lower intensity. Well-established scholars receive most media attention, the differences with regard to gender and age are however very small. Even though our study is limited to publications in Norway our study covers a wide range of fields, and we believe it is representative for other countries. Our results can be used to inform the research community on how to disseminate research findings, get visible and maximize research impact.

show abstract

Open Access: A State of the Art

Abstract: Free access to knowledge is a central module within the context of Science 2.0. Rapid development within the area of Open

Cited by 19 publications

References 21 publications

Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 1: Motivations)

Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 1: Motivations)

A Review on Blockchain Technology and Blockchain Projects Fostering Open Science

Social media uptake of academic publications: Differences due to availability, subject and demographic parameters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About