Open Science; Scholarly communication; Institutional repositories; Green road; Gold road; OA; APC; Open peer reviewing; predatory publisher
Résumé :
[en] • Purpose
This article aims at describing the evolution of scientific communication, largely represented by the publication process. It notes the disappearance of the traditional publication on paper and its progressive replacement by electronic publishing, a new paradigm implying radical changes in the whole mechanism. It aims also at warning the scientific community about the dangers of some new avenues and why, rather than subcontracting an essential part of its work, it must take back a full control of its production.
• Design/methodology/approach
The article reviews the emerging concepts in scholarly publication and aims to answer frequently asked questions concerning free access to scientific literature as well as to data, science and knowledge in general.
• Findings
The article provides new observations concerning the level of compliance to institutional open access mandates and the poor relevance of journal prestige for quality evaluation of research and researchers. The results of introducing an open access policy at the University of Liège are noted.
• Social implications
Open access is, for the first time in human history, an opportunity to provide free access to knowledge universally, regardless of either the wealth or the social status of the potentially interested readers. It is an essential breakthrough for developing countries.
• Value
Open access and Open Science in general must be considered as common values that should be shared freely. Free access to publicly generated knowledge should be explicitly included in universal human rights. There are still a number of obstacles hampering this goal, mostly the greed of intermediaries who persuade researchers to give their work for free, in exchange for prestige. The worldwide cause of Open Knowledge is thus a major universal issue for the 21st Century.
Disciplines :
Bibliothéconomie & sciences de l’information
Auteur, co-auteur :
Rentier, Bernard ; Université de Liège > Département des sciences de la vie > Département des sciences de la vie
Brembs, B., Button, K. and Munafò, M. (2013), “Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank”, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, Vol. 7, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291 (accessed 5 June 2016).
Fang, F.C., Casadevall, A. and Morrison, R.P. (2011), “Retracted science and the retraction index”, Infection and Immunity, Vol. 79 No. 10, pp. 3855-3859, available at: http://iai.asm.org/content/79/10/3855.full (accessed 5 June 2016).
Harnad, S. (2007), “The green road to open access: a leveraged transition”, in Gacs, A. (Eds), The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age, L’Harmattan, pp. 99-106, available at: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/265753/ (accessed 5 June 2016).
Harnad, S. (2015), “Open access: what, where, when, how and why”, in Holbrook, J.B. and Mitcham, C. (Eds), Ethics, Science, Technology, and Engineering: An International Resource, 2nd ed., Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics, MacMillan Reference, Farmington Hills MI, available at: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/361704/1/ESTEarticle-OA-Harnad.pdf (accessed 5 June 2016).
Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H. and Hilf, E. (2004), “The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access”, Serials Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2004.09.013, available at: www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/21.html (accessed 5 June 2016).
Hitchcock, S. (2013), “The effect of open access and downloads (‘hits’) on citation impact: a bibliography of studies”, Open Citation Project, available at: http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html (accessed 5 June 2016).
Lehky, S. (2011), “Peer evaluation and selection systems. adaptation and maladaptation of individuals and groups through peer review”, Google Books, available at: https://books.google.be/books?id=SW_6Q_I5R-cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Serge+Lehky%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4xpeI973LAhWBkQ8KHSqPD8UQ6AEICjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed 5 June 2016).
Link, A. (1998), “US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias”, JAMA, Vol. 280 No. 3, pp. 246-247, doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.246, available at: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187751 (accessed 5 June 2016).
Matosin, N., Franck, E. and Newell, K.A. (2014), “Negativity towards negative results: a discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture”, Disease Models & Mechanisms, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 171-173, doi: 10.1242/dmm.015123, available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917235/#__ffn_sectitle.html (accessed 5 June 2016).
Neuberger, J. and Counsell, C. (2002), “Impact factors: uses and abuses”, European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 209-211, available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11953682 (accessed 5 June 2016).
Pinfield, S., Salter, J. and Bath, P.A. (2015), “The ‘total cost of publication’ in a hybrid open-access environment: institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions”, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, doi: 10.1002/asi.23446, available at: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/83525/ (accessed 5 June 2016).
Piwowar, H.A., Day, R.S. and Fridsma, D.B. (2007), “Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate”, PLOS One, Vol. 2 No. 3, p. 308, available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000308 (accessed 5 June 2016).
PLOS Medicine Editors (2006), “The impact factor game”, PLOS Medicine, Vol. 3 No. 6, p. 291, available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291 (accessed 5 June 2016).
Pontika, N., Knoth, P., Cancellieri, M. and Pearce, S. (2015), “Fostering Open Science to research using a taxonomy and an eLearning portal”, I-Know ‘15 - Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Knowledge Technologies and Data-driven Business, ACM, New York, NY, available at: https://doc-00-20-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/sq1ounatsavblpihi1q2k079l07vgcgk/1459152000000/08925338233553404531/*/0ByewXV9UyaMtVnFVd3FWNklBNTA?e=download (accessed 5 June 2016).
Seglen, P.O. (1997), “Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 314 No. 7079, pp. 498-502, available at: www.bmj.com/content/314/7079/497.1; www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2126010/pdf/9056804.pdf (accessed 5 June 2016).
Suber, P. (2012), “Open access”, The Book, Essential knowledge Series, MIT Press, available at: http://bit.ly/oa-book (accessed 5 June 2016).
Swan, A. (2012), Policy Guidelines for the Development and Promotion of Open Access, UNESCO, Paris, p. 76, available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002158/215863e.pdf (accessed 5 June 2016).
Van Noorden, R. (2015), “Sluggish data sharing hampers reproducibility effort”, Nature, Vol. 483, pp. 531-533, doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17694, available at: www.nature.com/news/sluggish-data-sharing-hampers-reproducibility-effort-1.17694 (accessed 5 June 2016).
Wennerås, C. and Wold, A. (1997), “Nepotism and sexism in peer-review”, Nature, Vol. 387, pp. 341-343, doi: 10.1038/387341a0, availableat: www.nature.com/nature/journal/v387/n6631/full/387341a0; www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mckinley/notes/ww-nature-1997.pdf (accessed 5 June 2016).
Whyte, A. and Tedds, J. (2011), “Making the case for research data management”, DCC Briefing Papers, Digital Curation Centre, Edinburgh, available at: www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/briefing-papers (accessed 5 June 2016).
Matthews, D. (2016), “High rejection rates by journals ‘pointless’. Analysis suggests higher selectivity fails to increase journals’ impact factors”, Times Higher Education, available at: www.timeshighereducation.com/news/high-rejection-rates-by-journals-pointless (accessed 5 June 2016).
Renaville, F. (2013), “A mandate for open access: the university of Liège (ULg) and ULg Library”, Ex Libris Initiatives Blog, available at:http://initiatives.exlibrisgroup.com/2013/05/a-mandate-for-open-access-university-of.html (accessed 5 June 2016).
Swan, A. (2010), The Open Access Citation Advantage: Studies and Results to Date, University of Southampton, available at: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/268516/ (accessed 5 June 2016).
Wagner, B. (2010), “Open access citation advantage: an annotated bibliography”, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, No. 60, available at: www.istl.org/10-winter/article2.html (accessed 5 June 2016).