Previous Issue

Table of Contents

Publications, Volume 7, Issue 3 (September 2019)

  • Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
  • You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
  • PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Readerexternal link to open them.
View options order results:
result details:
Displaying articles 1-12
Export citation of selected articles as:
Open AccessFeature PaperArticle
The Impact of Open Access on Teaching—How Far Have We Come?
Publications 2019, 7(3), 56; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030056
Received: 26 April 2019 / Revised: 11 July 2019 / Accepted: 16 July 2019 / Published: 1 August 2019
Viewed by 1122 | PDF Full-text (1819 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
This article seeks to understand how far the United Kingdom higher education (UK HE) sector has progressed towards open access (OA) availability of the scholarly literature it requires to support courses of study. It uses Google Scholar, Unpaywall and Open Access Button to [...] Read more.
This article seeks to understand how far the United Kingdom higher education (UK HE) sector has progressed towards open access (OA) availability of the scholarly literature it requires to support courses of study. It uses Google Scholar, Unpaywall and Open Access Button to identify OA copies of a random sample of articles copied under the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) HE Licence to support teaching. The quantitative data analysis is combined with interviews of, and a workshop with, HE practitioners to investigate four research questions. Firstly, what is the nature of the content being used to support courses of study? Secondly, do UK HE establishments regularly incorporate searches for open access availability into their acquisition processes to support teaching? Thirdly, what proportion of content used under the CLA Licence is also available on open access and appropriately licenced? Finally, what percentage of content used by UK HEIs under the CLA Licence is written by academics and thus has the potential for being made open access had there been support in place to enable this? Key findings include the fact that no interviewees incorporated OA searches into their acquisitions processes. Overall, 38% of articles required to support teaching were available as OA in some form but only 7% had a findable re-use licence; just 3% had licences that specifically permitted inclusion in an ‘electronic course-pack’. Eighty-nine percent of journal content was written by academics (34% by UK-based academics). Of these, 58% were written since 2000 and thus could arguably have been made available openly had academics been supported to do so. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Frontiers for Openness in Scholarly Publishing)
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessCase Report
The Transcript OPEN Library Political Science Model: A Sustainable Way into Open Access for E-Books in the Humanities and Social Sciences
Publications 2019, 7(3), 55; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030055
Received: 29 April 2019 / Revised: 17 June 2019 / Accepted: 16 July 2019 / Published: 1 August 2019
Viewed by 586 | PDF Full-text (624 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text | Supplementary Files
Abstract
The strategic goal of the project “National Contact Point Open Access OA2020-DE” is to create the conditions for a large-scale open-access transformation in accordance with the Alliance of German Science Organizations. In close collaboration with the publisher transcript, we developed a business [...] Read more.
The strategic goal of the project “National Contact Point Open Access OA2020-DE” is to create the conditions for a large-scale open-access transformation in accordance with the Alliance of German Science Organizations. In close collaboration with the publisher transcript, we developed a business model that strengthens the transformation process for e-books in the humanities and social sciences. It largely addresses the drawbacks of existing models. Moreover, it is manageable, sustainable, transparent, and scalable for both publishers and libraries. This case report describes the setup of the model, its successful implementation for the branch “political science” of transcript in 2019, and provides a Strengths–Weaknesses–Opportunities–Threats (SWOT) analysis. We believe that it has the potential to become one of the major open-access business models for research monographs and anthologies in the humanities and social sciences, especially for non-English e-books. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Frontiers for Openness in Scholarly Publishing)
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
The Value of Scientific Knowledge Dissemination for Scientists—A Value Capture Perspective
Publications 2019, 7(3), 54; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030054
Received: 1 May 2019 / Revised: 18 June 2019 / Accepted: 16 July 2019 / Published: 24 July 2019
Viewed by 440 | PDF Full-text (2495 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Scientific knowledge dissemination is necessary to collaboratively develop solutions to today’s challenges among scientific, public, and commercial actors. Building on this, recent concepts (e.g., Third Mission) discuss the role and value of different dissemination mechanisms for increasing societal impact. However, the value individual [...] Read more.
Scientific knowledge dissemination is necessary to collaboratively develop solutions to today’s challenges among scientific, public, and commercial actors. Building on this, recent concepts (e.g., Third Mission) discuss the role and value of different dissemination mechanisms for increasing societal impact. However, the value individual scientists receive in exchange for disseminating knowledge differs across these mechanisms, which, consequently, affects their selection. So far, value capture mechanisms have mainly been described as appropriating monetary rewards in exchange for scientists’ knowledge (e.g., patenting). However, most knowledge dissemination activities in science do not directly result in capturing monetary value (e.g., social engagement). By taking a value capture perspective, this article conceptualizes and explores how individual scientists capture value from disseminating their knowledge. Results from our qualitative study indicate that scientists’ value capture consists of a measureable objective part (e.g., career promotion) and a still unconsidered subjective part (e.g., social recognition), which is perceived as valuable due to scientists’ needs. By advancing our understanding of value capture in science, scientists’ selection of dissemination mechanisms can be incentivized to increase both the value captured by themselves and society. Hence, policy makers and university managers can contribute to overcoming institutional and ecosystem barriers and foster scientists’ engagement with society. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Third Mission and Societal Impact)
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessReview
Replication Papers
Publications 2019, 7(3), 53; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030053
Received: 31 December 2018 / Revised: 5 July 2019 / Accepted: 17 July 2019 / Published: 22 July 2019
Viewed by 329 | PDF Full-text (185 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Reproductions and replications of experiments and surveys are important for ensuring the healthy development of modern science. The so-called replication crisis is a problem that needs to be addressed in various ways. In this paper, we propose to make a special category for [...] Read more.
Reproductions and replications of experiments and surveys are important for ensuring the healthy development of modern science. The so-called replication crisis is a problem that needs to be addressed in various ways. In this paper, we propose to make a special category for replication papers, where the focus should be to verify or falsify the results of previously-published experiments or surveys. We also propose some guidelines for the types and content of replication papers. Full article
Open AccessArticle
Rinse and Repeat: Understanding the Value of Replication across Different Ways of Knowing
Publications 2019, 7(3), 52; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030052
Received: 21 March 2019 / Revised: 1 July 2019 / Accepted: 15 July 2019 / Published: 17 July 2019
Viewed by 758 | PDF Full-text (766 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The increasing pursuit of replicable research and actual replication of research is a political project that articulates a very specific technology of accountability for science. This project was initiated in response to concerns about the openness and trustworthiness of science. Though applicable and [...] Read more.
The increasing pursuit of replicable research and actual replication of research is a political project that articulates a very specific technology of accountability for science. This project was initiated in response to concerns about the openness and trustworthiness of science. Though applicable and valuable in many fields, here we argue that this value cannot be extended everywhere, since the epistemic content of fields, as well as their accountability infrastructures, differ. Furthermore, we argue that there are limits to replicability across all fields; but in some fields, including parts of the humanities, these limits severely undermine the value of replication to account for the value of research. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Frontiers for Openness in Scholarly Publishing)
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Curation and Publication of Simulation Data in DesignSafe, a Natural Hazards Engineering Open Platform and Repository
Publications 2019, 7(3), 51; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030051
Received: 14 March 2019 / Revised: 31 May 2019 / Accepted: 27 June 2019 / Published: 9 July 2019
Viewed by 330 | PDF Full-text (5398 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Most open repositories present a similar interface and workflow to publish data resultant from different types of research methods. Publishing simulation datasets is challenging due to the iterative nature of simulations that generate large numbers and sizes of files, and their need for [...] Read more.
Most open repositories present a similar interface and workflow to publish data resultant from different types of research methods. Publishing simulation datasets is challenging due to the iterative nature of simulations that generate large numbers and sizes of files, and their need for detailed documentation. DesignSafe is a web-based open platform for natural hazards engineering research where users can conduct simulations in high performance computing resources, curate, and publish their data. Working closely with experts, we completed a data design project for curation and representation of simulation datasets. The design involved the creation of a data and metadata model that captures the main processes, data, and documentation used in natural hazards simulation research. The model became the foundation to design an interactive curation pipeline integrated with the rest of the platform functions. In the curation interface, users are guided to move, select, categorize, describe, and register relations between files corresponding to the simulation model, the inputs and the outputs categories. Curation steps can be undertaken at any time during active research. To engage users, the web interactions were designed to facilitate managing large numbers of files. The resultant data landing pages show the structure and metadata of a simulation process both as a tree, and a browsing interface for understandability and ease of access. To evaluate the design, we mapped real simulation data to interactive mockups and sought out experts’ feed-back. Upon implementing a first release of the pipeline, we evaluated the data publications and made necessary enhancements. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from Open Repositories 2018)
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
DRAS-TIC Linked Data: Evenly Distributing the Past
Publications 2019, 7(3), 50; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030050
Received: 1 March 2019 / Revised: 12 June 2019 / Accepted: 27 June 2019 / Published: 4 July 2019
Viewed by 366 | PDF Full-text (9237 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Memory institutions must be able to grow a fully-functional repository incrementally as collections grow, without expensive enterprise storage, massive data migrations, and the performance limits that stem from the vertical storage strategies. The Digital Repository at Scale that Invites Computation (DRAS-TIC) Fedora research [...] Read more.
Memory institutions must be able to grow a fully-functional repository incrementally as collections grow, without expensive enterprise storage, massive data migrations, and the performance limits that stem from the vertical storage strategies. The Digital Repository at Scale that Invites Computation (DRAS-TIC) Fedora research project, funded by a two-year National Digital Platform grant from the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS), is producing open-source software, tested cluster configurations, documentation, and best-practice guides that enable institutions to manage linked data repositories with petabyte-scale collections reliably. DRAS-TIC is a research initiative at the University of Maryland (UMD). The first DRAS-TIC repository system, named Indigo, was developed in 2015 and 2016 through a collaboration between U.K.-based storage company, Archive Analytics Ltd., and the UMD iSchool Digital Curation Innovation Center (DCIC), through funding from an NSF DIBBs (Data Infrastructure Building Blocks) grant (NCSA “Brown Dog”). DRAS-TIC Indigo leverages industry standard distributed database technology, in the form of Apache Cassandra, to provide open-ended scaling of repository storage without performance degradation. With the DRAS-TIC Fedora initiative, we make use of the Trellis Linked Data Platform (LDP), developed by Aaron Coburn at Amherst College, to add the LDP API over similar Apache Cassandra storage. This paper will explain our partner use cases, explore the system components, and showcase our performance-oriented approach, with the most emphasis given to performance measures available through the analytical dashboard on our testbed website. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from Open Repositories 2018)
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle
Open Access Routes Dichotomy and Opportunities: Consolidation, Analysis and Trends at the Spanish National Research Council
Publications 2019, 7(3), 49; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030049
Received: 30 April 2019 / Revised: 19 June 2019 / Accepted: 28 June 2019 / Published: 3 July 2019
Viewed by 1000 | PDF Full-text (2474 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
This article gives a comprehensive overview of recent Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) publications available in Open Access. With a focus on research articles from the last decade (2008–2018), this work aims to fill the gap in previous studies about publishing trends and [...] Read more.
This article gives a comprehensive overview of recent Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) publications available in Open Access. With a focus on research articles from the last decade (2008–2018), this work aims to fill the gap in previous studies about publishing trends and impact monitoring of publications by researchers from the Spanish National Research Council. Evolution and main trends of Green and Gold Open Access routes at CSIC are addressed through a close insight into DIGITAL.CSIC repository and institutional Open Access Publishing Support Programme. The article draws on major conclusions at a time when an institutional Open Access mandate has just entered into force. The article also relates findings about performance of institutional Open Access Publishing Initiative and total volume of CSIC articles published in Open Access with an estimation of overall costs on article processing charges during these years. Furthermore, the data serve as a basis to make preliminary considerations as to opportunities to move from a subscription-based model to one fully aligned with Gold Open Access publishing. The data analyzed come from a variety of sources, including public information and internal records maintained by the CSIC E-resources Subscription programme, DIGITAL.CSIC and data retrieved from GesBIB, an internal, in-house development tool that integrates bibliographic information about CSIC publications as well as data from several external APIs, including Unpaywall, DOAJ and Sherpa Romeo. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Frontiers for Openness in Scholarly Publishing)
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Contributorship, Not Authorship: Use CRediT to Indicate Who Did What
Publications 2019, 7(3), 48; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030048
Received: 21 May 2019 / Revised: 11 June 2019 / Accepted: 27 June 2019 / Published: 2 July 2019
Viewed by 864 | PDF Full-text (496 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Participation in the writing or revising of a manuscript is, according to many journal guidelines, necessary to be listed as an author of the resulting article. This is the traditional concept of authorship. But there are good reasons to shift to a contributorship [...] Read more.
Participation in the writing or revising of a manuscript is, according to many journal guidelines, necessary to be listed as an author of the resulting article. This is the traditional concept of authorship. But there are good reasons to shift to a contributorship model, under which it is not necessary to contribute to the writing or revision of a manuscript, and all those who make substantial contributions to a project are credited. Many journals and publishers have already taken steps in this direction, and further adoption will have several benefits. This article makes the case for continuing to move down that path. Use of a contributorship model should improve the ability of universities and funders to identify effective individual researchers and improving their ability to identify the right mix of researchers needed to advance modern science. Other benefits should include facilitating the formation of productive collaborations and the creation of important scientific tools and software. The CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) taxonomy is a machine-readable standard already incorporated into some journal management systems and it allows incremental transition toward contributorship. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessFeature PaperEditorial
Editorial: Publishing Research Internationally: Multilingual Perspectives from Research and Practice
Publications 2019, 7(3), 47; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030047
Received: 17 June 2019 / Accepted: 26 June 2019 / Published: 2 July 2019
Viewed by 453 | PDF Full-text (182 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The ten contributions (nine articles and an interview) that make up this special issue of Publications revisit and interrogate many of the questions that have challenged participants in successive conferences under the title PRISEAL (Publishing Research Internationally: Issues for speakers of English as [...] Read more.
The ten contributions (nine articles and an interview) that make up this special issue of Publications revisit and interrogate many of the questions that have challenged participants in successive conferences under the title PRISEAL (Publishing Research Internationally: Issues for speakers of English as an additional language), most recently the conference held at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik in September 2018 [...] Full article
Open AccessFeature PaperReview
The Economic Impacts of Open Science: A Rapid Evidence Assessment
Publications 2019, 7(3), 46; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030046
Received: 24 May 2019 / Revised: 14 June 2019 / Accepted: 26 June 2019 / Published: 1 July 2019
Viewed by 940 | PDF Full-text (708 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text | Supplementary Files
Abstract
A common motivation for increasing open access to research findings and data is the potential to create economic benefits—but evidence is patchy and diverse. This study systematically reviewed the evidence on what kinds of economic impacts (positive and negative) open science can have, [...] Read more.
A common motivation for increasing open access to research findings and data is the potential to create economic benefits—but evidence is patchy and diverse. This study systematically reviewed the evidence on what kinds of economic impacts (positive and negative) open science can have, how these comes about, and how benefits could be maximized. Use of open science outputs often leaves no obvious trace, so most evidence of impacts is based on interviews, surveys, inference based on existing costs, and modelling approaches. There is indicative evidence that open access to findings/data can lead to savings in access costs, labour costs and transaction costs. There are examples of open science enabling new products, services, companies, research and collaborations. Modelling studies suggest higher returns to R&D if open access permits greater accessibility and efficiency of use of findings. Barriers include lack of skills capacity in search, interpretation and text mining, and lack of clarity around where benefits accrue. There are also contextual considerations around who benefits most from open science (e.g., sectors, small vs. larger companies, types of dataset). Recommendations captured in the review include more research, monitoring and evaluation (including developing metrics), promoting benefits, capacity building and making outputs more audience-friendly. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
The DOAJ Spring Cleaning 2016 and What Was Removed—Tragic Loss or Good Riddance?
Publications 2019, 7(3), 45; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030045
Received: 22 January 2019 / Revised: 8 May 2019 / Accepted: 28 May 2019 / Published: 27 June 2019
Viewed by 572 | PDF Full-text (239 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text | Supplementary Files
Abstract
In December 2012, DOAJ’s (The Directory of Open Access Journals) parent company, IS4OA, announced they would introduce new criteria for inclusion in DOAJ and that DOAJ would collect vastly more information from journals as part of the accreditation process—journals already included would need [...] Read more.
In December 2012, DOAJ’s (The Directory of Open Access Journals) parent company, IS4OA, announced they would introduce new criteria for inclusion in DOAJ and that DOAJ would collect vastly more information from journals as part of the accreditation process—journals already included would need to reapply in order to be kept in the registry. My working hypothesis was that the journals removed from DOAJ on May 9th 2016 would chiefly be journals from small publishers (mostly single journal publishers) and that DOAJ journal metadata information would reveal that they were journals with a lower level of publishing competence than those that would remain in the DOAJ. Among indicators of publishing competence could be the use of APCs (Article Processing Charges), permanent article identifiers, journal licenses, article level metadata deposited with DOAJ, archiving policy/solutions and/or having a policy in SHERPA/RoMEO, the database containing self-archiving policies for more than 30,000 journals. The analysis shows my concerns to be correct. Full article
Publications EISSN 2304-6775 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top