scholarly journals SIOR: An Egalitarian Scientific Agora

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (8-9) ◽  
pp. 955-961
Author(s):  
Esther Oliver ◽  
Andrea Scharnhorst ◽  
Joan Cabré ◽  
Vladia Ionescu

The Social Impact Open Repository (SIOR) has become a unique data source at the international level in which researchers can display, quote, and store the social impact of their research results. SIOR arises from the social and political needs to know and connect with scientific projects to assess their social impact, promoting transparency of science and open-access systems. This repository has been designed to allow researchers to link their social impacts with research institutions and citizens. In short, SIOR reveals possibilities for transforming scientific research through means such as developing a qualitative tool as an egalitarian scientific agora that enables assessment of social improvements derived from social sciences and humanities (SSH) research. SIOR is a qualitative and open peer-review tool that allows citizens to comment online about an investigation’s impact on society.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Ernst ◽  
Judith Schulte

Researchers not actively seeking information about Open Access and scholars who are not actively informed by their institutions might be concerned about publishing Open Access due to lack of information. Questions such as “Why is Open Access necessary and what do I gain?”, “What happens to my rights as an author?”, and “Why was I not told about this discount before I paid the full APC from my project fund?” might come up. This workshop is directed at representatives of research organizations and universities (e.g. Open Access offices, project coordinators, and interested researchers) on the topic of helping researchers finding answers to these questions and advocating for Open Access in the humanities and social sciences. The workshop seeks to discuss aspects that have been identified by participants priorly as most pressing to discuss. We therefore invite all registered participants to fill in a short survey by 12 October 2020. For any questions, please don’t hesitate contacting Elisabeth Ernst and Judith Schulte ([email protected]) OPERAS is the European Research Infrastructure for open scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities. Its Special Interest Group on “Advocacy” works on topics related to the communication and advocating of Open Access in the social sciences and humanities and of those disciplines.


Heliyon ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. e04522
Author(s):  
Thu-Trang Vuong ◽  
Manh-Toan Ho ◽  
Minh-Hoang Nguyen ◽  
Thanh-Huyen T. Nguyen ◽  
Thanh-Dung Nguyen ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Eline Vandewalle ◽  
Raf Guns ◽  
Tim C. E. Engels

This article presents an analysis of the uptake of the GPRC label (Guaranteed Peer Reviewed Content label) since its introduction in 2010 until 2019. GPRC is a label for books that have been peer reviewed introduced by the Flemish publishers association. The GPRC label allows locally published scholarly books to be included in the regional database for the Social Sciences and Humanities which is used in the Flemish performance-based research funding system. Ten years after the start of the GPRC label, this is the first systematic analysis of the uptake of the label. We use a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods. Our two main data sources are the Flemish regional database for the Social Sciences and Humanities, which currently includes 2,580 GPRC-labeled publications, and three interviews with experts on the GPRC label. Firstly, we study the importance of the label in the Flemish performance-based research funding system. Secondly, we analyse the label in terms of its possible effect on multilingualism and the local or international orientation of publications. Thirdly, we analyse to what extent the label has been used by the different disciplines. Lastly, we discuss the potential implications of the label for the peer review process among book publishers. We find that the GPRC label is of limited importance to the Flemish performance-based research funding system. However, we also conclude that the label has a specific use for locally oriented book publications and in particular for the discipline Law. Furthermore, by requiring publishers to adhere to a formalized peer review procedure, the label affects the peer review practices of local publishers because not all book publishers were using a formal system of peer review before the introduction of the label and even at those publishers who already practiced peer review, the label may have required the publishers to make these procedures more uniform.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-214
Author(s):  
Pei-Shan Chi

Abstract The usage data provided by Web of Science Core Collection (WoS) implies the scholarly interest of researchers through full text accesses and record saves on the platform. The WoS usage count has been studied for journal papers alongside citations at different levels of journal, country, and field. To extend the results of the previous studies, this study explores the WoS usage counts for book literature in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) to determine the usefulness of the usage statistics provided by the new data source and their different patterns across fields as well as document types. The correlations between WoS citations and usage counts are from weak to moderate in six selected fields. Edited books have stronger correlations between the two metrics than the other two document type groups. Usage data of aggregated book volumes in the sciences correlate with citations significantly and show higher utilization rates than citations. Their usage counts on the same platform are the supplement of WoS citations in the fields. In contrast, book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) present a different pattern of their usage to reduce its ability to coordinate citations. In addition, the low usage of books in SSH may indicate the limited access of the BKCI-SSH and probably lower effectiveness of its usage data compared to the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). However, the further investigation of altmetric usage metrics from different sources confirms an overall lower usage for books in the social sciences than in the sciences.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aysa Ekanger ◽  
Erik Lieungh

What are the main reasons for our scientists not to choose Open Access to their publications? Are the reasons just misconceptions, or are there some valid reasons as well? Adviser Aysa Ekanger at the University Library at UiT The Arctic University of Norway lays out the main reasons and some of the solutions to the concerns with Open Access. The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh. You can also read a more detailed overview of the possible obstacles on the road to Open Access in this whitepaper from @OPERASEU. OPERAS is a European research infrastructure for the development of open scholarly communication, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. This episode was first published 2 October 2018.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document