research-article

Open access

Opening up new channels for scholarly review, dissemination, and assessment

Authors:

Michela Vignoli,

Clemens Blümel,

Ilire Hasani-Mavriqi,

Electra SifacakiAuthors Info & Claims

OpenSym '17: Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Open Collaboration

Article No.: 6, Pages 1 - 11

https://doi.org/10.1145/3125433.3125452

Published: 23 August 2017 Publication History

Abstract

The growing dissatisfaction with the traditional scholarly communication process and publishing practices as well as increasing usage and acceptance of ICT and Web 2.0 technologies in research have resulted in the proliferation of alternative review, publishing and bibliometric methods. The EU-funded project OpenUP addresses key aspects and challenges of the currently transforming science landscape and aspires to come up with a cohesive framework for the review-disseminate-assess phases of the research life cycle that is fit to support and promote open science. The objective of this paper is to present first results and conclusions of the landscape scan and analysis of alternative peer review, altmetrics and innovative dissemination methods done during the first project year.

References

[1]

Adie, E. and Roe, W. 2013. Altmetric: Enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics. Learned Publishing, 26/1, 11--7.

[2]

Akst, J. 2015. PubPeer Founders Revealed. The Scientist. Retrieved March 20, 2017 from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43877/title/PubPeer-Founders-Revealed/

[3]

Chowdhry, A. 2015. Gatekeepers of the academic world: a recipe for good peer review. Adv Med Educ Pract 6, 329--330.

[4]

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers 2013. Retrieved March 20, 2017 from http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines_0.pdf

[5]

Costas, R., Zahedi, Z. and Wouters, P. 2014. Do "Altmetrics" correlate with Citations? Extensive Comparison of Altmetric Indicators with Citations from a multidisciplinary Perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66/10, 2003--19.

[6]

Dineen, M. 2012. Time to rethink peer review: Evaluating scholarly work in the Internet age. University Affairs / Affairs Universitaires (UA/AU). Retrieved December 2, 2016 from http://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/time-to-rethink-peer-review/

[7]

Erdt, M., Nagarajan, A., Sin, S.-C. J. and Theng, Y.-L. 2016. Altmetrics: An analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics, 109/2, 1117--66.

Digital Library

[8]

European Commission. 2015. Validation of the results of the public consultation on Science 2.0: Science in Transition. Retrieved April 19, 2017 from https://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/science_2_0_final_report.pdf

[9]

Fenner, M. 2013. What can article-level metrics do for you?. PLoS biology, 11/10, e1001687.

[10]

Franzen, M. 2015. Der Impact Faktor war gestern. Soziale Welt, 66/2, 225--42.

[11]

Galaxy Zoo. 2017. Website. Retrieved April 19, 2017 from https://www.galaxyzoo.org/

[12]

Gauch, S. and Blümel, C. 2016. Altmetrics Status Quo: OPENing UP new methods, indicators and tools for peer review, impact measurement and dissemination of research results. OpenUP Deliverable D5.1

[13]

Gonzalez-Valiente, C. L., Pacheco-Mendoza, J. and Arencibia-Jorge, R. 2016. A review of altmetrics as an emerging discipline for research evaluation. Learned Publishing, 29/4, 229--38.

[14]

Gumpenberger, C., Glänzel, W. and Gorraiz, J. 2016. The ecstasy and the agony of the altmetric score. Scientometrics, 108/2, 977--82.

Digital Library

[15]

Haustein, S. 2016. Grand challenges in altmetrics: Heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. Scientometrics, 108/1, 413--23.

Digital Library

[16]

Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D. and Costas, R. 2016. Interpreting "altmetrics": viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories. In C. R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication, 372--405. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.

[17]

Kraker, P., Bachleitner, R., Luzi, D., Ruggieri, R., Stanciauskas, V., Vignoli, M. and Walker, M. 2017. Practices evaluation and mapping: Methods, tools and user needs. OpenUP Deliverable D4.1

[18]

Melero, R. 2015. Altmetrics - a complement to conventional metrics. Biochemia Medica, 25/2, 152--60.

[19]

Minutephysics. 2017. Youtube channel. Retrieved April 19, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/user/minutephysics

[20]

Moore, A. 2016. Altmetrics: Just measuring the "buzz"? Bioessays, 38/8, 713.

[21]

NASA. 2016. New Horizons. Retrieved April 19, 2017 from https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html

[22]

Nentwich, M., & König, R. 2012. Cyberscience 2.0. Research in the Age of Digital Social Networks. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag

[23]

Odell, J. D., Pollock, C. M. J. 2016. Open Peer Review for Digital Humanities Projects: A Modest Proposal. Retrieved December 2, 2016 from https://goo.gl/JLPtlP

[24]

Padula, D. 2016. The Role of Preprints in Journal Publishing. Scholastica. Retrieved April 20, 2017 from http://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/role-of-preprints-in-journal-publishing/

[25]

Pöschl, U. 2012. Multi-Stage Open Peer Review: Scientific Evaluation Integrating the Strengths of Traditional Peer Review with the Virtues of Transparency and Self-Regulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6.

[26]

Priem, J. et al. 2010. Altmetrics: a manifesto. Retrieved April 20, 2017 from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/

[27]

Priem, J. 2013. Beyond the Paper. Nature, 495, 437--40.

[28]

Priem, J. 2014. Altmetrics: Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact.

[29]

Priem, J. and Hemminger, B. M. 2010. Scientometrics 2.0. Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday, 15/7.

[30]

Priem, J. and Hemminger, B. M. 2012. Decoupling the scholarly journal. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6.

[31]

Ross-Hellauer, T. 2016. Defining Open Peer Review: Part Two -- Seven Traits of OPR. OpenAIRE blog. Retrieved November 16, 2016 from https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1410

[32]

Schmidt, B and Görögh, E. 2017. New toolkits on the block: Peer review alternatives in scholarly communication. Paper presented at: ELPUB2017, Limassol, Cyprus, June 6-8 2017, IOS Press

[33]

Science Slam. 2017. Website. Retrieved April 19, 2017 from https://www.science-slam.com/

[34]

Segev, I., Schürmann, F. 2013. Brain projects think big. Front Young Minds, 1, 8.

[35]

SOHA. 2017. Project website. Retrieved April 19, 2017 from http://www.projetsoha.org/

[36]

Tattersall, A. 2015. For what it's worth -- the open peer review landscape. Online Information Review 39 (5), 649--663.

[37]

TED. 2017. Retrieved April 19, 2017 from https://www.ted.com/

[38]

Wilsdon, J., Bar-Ilan, J., Frodeman, R., Lex, E., Peters, I., Wouters, P. 2017. Next-generation metrics: Responsible metrics and evaluation for open science. Report of the European Commission Expert Group on Altmetrics. Retrieved April 19, 2017 from https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=altmetrics_eg

[39]

Zahedi, Z., Fenner, M. and Costas, R. 2014. How consistent are altmetric providers? Study of 1000 PLoS One publications using the PLoS ALM, Mendeley, and Altmetric.com APIs. Bloomington, USA.

[40]

Zahedi, Z. and van Eck, N. J. 2014. Visualizing readership activity of Mendeley users using VOSviewer. Bloomington, IN, USA.

[41]

ZooTeach. 2017. Website. Retrieved April 19, 2017 from https://www.zooteach.org/

[42]

Piwowar and Vision. 2013. Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ 1:e175.

Cited By

Wiechetek ŁPastuszak Z(2022)Academic social networks metrics: an effective indicator for university performance?Scientometrics10.1007/s11192-021-04258-6127:3(1381-1401)Online publication date: 27-Jan-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04258-6
Herman EAkeroyd JBequet GNicholas DWatkinson A(2020)The changed – and changing – landscape of serials publishing: Review of the literature on emerging modelsLearned Publishing10.1002/leap.128833:3(213-229)Online publication date: 17-Feb-2020
https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1288
Copiello S(2019)Research InterestScientometrics10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w120:1(351-360)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w

Recommendations

Beyond open access: the changing culture of producing and disseminating scientific knowledge
AcademicMindTrek '15: Proceedings of the 19th International Academic Mindtrek Conference

This is an extended abstract for the workshop "Beyond Open Access - The Changing Culture of Producing and Disseminating Scientific Knowledge", organized by the Open Knowledge Foundation Finland Open Science Working Group at the Academic Mindtrek ...
Developing sustainable Open Science solutions in the frame of EU funded research: the OpenUP case
OpenSym '18: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Open Collaboration

Open Access and Open Scholarship have revolutionized the way scholarly artefacts are evaluated and published, while the introduction of new technologies and media in scientific workflows has changed the "how" and to "whom" science is communicated, and ...
Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000Research post-publication open peer review publishing model

As part of moves towards open knowledge practices, making peer review open is cited as a way to enable fuller scrutiny and transparency of assessments around research. There are now many flavours of open peer review in use across scholarly publishing, ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

OpenSym '17: Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Open Collaboration

August 2017

218 pages

ISBN:9781450351874

DOI:10.1145/3125433

General Chair:
Lorraine Morgan
National University of Ireland Galway

Copyright © 2017 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 23 August 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

OpenSym '17

OpenSym '17: The 13th International Symposium on Open Collaboration

August 23 - 25, 2017

Galway, Ireland

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 108 of 195 submissions, 55%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
329
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)95
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)13

Reflects downloads up to 29 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Wiechetek ŁPastuszak Z(2022)Academic social networks metrics: an effective indicator for university performance?Scientometrics10.1007/s11192-021-04258-6127:3(1381-1401)Online publication date: 27-Jan-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04258-6
Herman EAkeroyd JBequet GNicholas DWatkinson A(2020)The changed – and changing – landscape of serials publishing: Review of the literature on emerging modelsLearned Publishing10.1002/leap.128833:3(213-229)Online publication date: 17-Feb-2020
https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1288
Copiello S(2019)Research InterestScientometrics10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w120:1(351-360)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten