Percepción de las revistas científicas españolas hacia el acceso abierto, open peer review y altmetrics / Spanish scientific journals perceptions towards open Access, open peer review and altmetrics

Segado-Boj, Francisco and Martin-Quevedo, Juan and Prieto-Gutierrez, Juan Jose Percepción de las revistas científicas españolas hacia el acceso abierto, open peer review y altmetrics / Spanish scientific journals perceptions towards open Access, open peer review and altmetrics. Ibersid: revista de sistemas de información y documentación, 2018, vol. 12, n. 1, pp. 27-32. [Journal article (Paginated)]

This is the latest version of this item.

[img]
Preview
 Text
ART_IBERSID.pdf - Published version
Download (126kB) | Preview

English abstract

This paper aims at analysing the perception and attitudes of editors of Spanish scientific journals about some of the most important advances in scholarly communication linked with ICTs and the Internet: the advantages and disadvantages attributed to open access, open peer review and alt-metrics. Fifteen indepth interviews have been conducted with the people in charge of Spanish journals indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus, attending to a fair representation of all areas of knowledge. Findings show a wide negative perception of all these tools, due to the fear of a loss of reputation for the journal which may use these innovations. Only open access is positively perceived.

Spanish abstract

Se analiza la percepción que poseen los editores de revistas académica españolas acerca de los principales cambios producidos por las tecnologías digitales y los medios sociales en la comunicación científica. Concretamente se abordan las ventajas y desventajas atribuidas al acceso abierto, a la revisión abierta por pares y a las altmetrics. Para ello se ha llevado a cabo una entrevista a 15 directores de revistas indexadas en Web of Science o en Scopus, pertenecientes tanto al área de Ciencias como de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades. Los resultados obtenidos apuntan a una percepción negativa de todas estas herramientas debido al temor al posible daño de la reputación de la revista. Tan solo el acceso abierto es percibido de manera positiva.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Scientific journals. Open access. Search engines. Altmetrics. Open review. Spain.
Subjects: I. Information treatment for information services
I. Information treatment for information services > ID. Knowledge representation.
L. Information technology and library technology
L. Information technology and library technology > LB. Computer networking.
Depositing user: Juan José Prieto-Gutiérrez
Date deposited: 30 Jun 2019 16:06
Last modified: 30 Jun 2019 16:06
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/33647

Available Versions of this Item

References

Acord, S.K.; Harley, D. (2012) Credit, time, and personality: The human challenges to sharing scholarly work using Web 2.0. // New Media & Society. 15:3, 379–387.

Al-Aufi, A; Fulton, C. (2015) Impact of social networking tools on scholarly communication: a cross-institutional study. // The Electronic Library. 33:2, 224-241.

Bohannon, J. (2013). Who's affraid of peer review. // Science. 342 :6154, 60-65. DOI: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60

Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader im- pact of research? An overview of benefits and disad- vantages of altmetrics. // Journal of informetrics. 8:4, 895- 903.

Bruce, R.; Chauvin, A.; Trinquart, L.; Ravaud, P.; Boutron, I. (2016). Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. // BMC Medicine. 14:1, 1.

Chan L.; Costa, S. Participation in the global knowledge com- mons: challenges and opportunities for research dissem- ination in developing countries.

Clarke, R. (2007). The cost profiles of alternative approaches to journal publishing. // First Monday. 12:12).

Claudio-Gonzalez, M. G.; Villarroya, A. (2015). Challenges of publishing open access journals. // Profesional de la In- formacion. 24:5, 517-525.

Craig, I. D.; Plume, A. M.; McVeigh, M. E.; Pringle, J.; Amin, M. (2007). Do open access articles have greater citation impact?: a critical review of the literature. // Journal of In- formetrics. 1:3, 239-248.

De Wolf, R.; Gao, B.; Berendt, B.; Pierson, J. (2015). The promise of audience transparency. Exploring users’ per- ceptions and behaviors towards visualizations of net- worked audiences on Facebook. // Telematics and Infor- matics. 32:4, 890-908.

Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer re- view: A review of the literature. // Journal of Scholarly Pub- lishing. 44:4, 311-326.

Gargouri, Y.; Hajjem, C.; Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Carr, L.; Brody, T.; Harnad, S. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. // PloS one. 5:10, e13636.

González-Valiente, C. L.; Pacheco-Mendoza, J.; Arencibia- Jorge, R. (2016). A review of altmetrics as an emerging discipline for research evaluation. // Learned Publishing. 29:4, 229-238.

Guèdon, J. C. (2004). The “green” and “gold” roads to open access: The case for mixing and matching. // Serials re- view. 30:4, 315-328.

Jamali, R.; Russel, H.; Nicholas, D.; Watkinson, A. (2014). Do online communities support research collaboration?. // Aslib Journal of Information Management. 66:6, 603-622.

Kovanis, M.; Trinquart, L.; Ravaud, P.; Porcher, R. (2017). Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large- scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publi- cation. // Scientometrics, p. 1-21.

Nández, G.; Borrego, Á. (2013). Use of social networks for academic purposes: a case study. // The Electronic Li- brary. 31:6, 781-791.

Nobarany, S.; Booth, K. S. (2015). Use of politeness strate- gies in signed open peer review. // Journal of the Associ- ation for Information Science and Technology. 66:5, 1048-1064.

Ollé Castellà, C., López-Borrull, A.; Abadal, E. (2016). The challenges facing library and information science journals: editors' opinions. // Learned Publishing, 29:2, 89-94.

Pai, P.; Arnott, D.C. (2013) User adoption of social networking sites: Eliciting uses and gratifications through a means– end approach. // Computers in Human Behavior. 29, 1039-1053.

Pisoschi, A. M.; Pisoschi, C. G. (2016). Is open access the solution to increase the impact of scientific journals?. // Scientometrics, 109:2. 1075-1095.

Rodríguez-Yunta, L.; Giménez-Toledo, E. (2013). Fusión, coedición o reestructuración de revistas científicas en hu- manidades y ciencias sociales. El profesional de la infor- mación. 22:1, 36-45.

Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A sys- tematic review. F1000Research, p. 6.

Siler, K. (2017). Future Challenges and opportunities in aca- demic publishing. Canadian Journal of Sociology. 42:1, 83.

Somoza-Fernández, M.; Rodríguez-Gairín, J. M.; Urbano, C. (2016). Presencia de revistas supuestamente depredado- ras en bases de datos bibliográficas: análisis de la lista de Beall. El profesional de la información. 25:5, 730-737.

Tahamtan, I.; Afshar, A. S.; Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107:3, 1195-1225.

Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K. (2015). Web indicators for research evaluation. Part 2: Social media metrics. El profesional de la información. 24:5, 607-620.

Van Rooyen, S.; Godlee, F.; Evans, S.; Black, N.; Smith, R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. Bmj. 3188175, 23-27.

Van Rooyen, S., Delamothe, T.; Evans, S. J. (2010). Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal. 41, c5729.

Walker, R.; Da Silva, P. R. (2015). Emerging trends in peer review—a survey. Frontiers in neuroscience, 9.

Williams, A. E. (2017). Altmetrics: an overview and evaluation. Online Information Review. 41:3, 311-317.

Zhu, Y. (2017). Who support open access publishing? Gen- der, discipline, seniority and other factors associated with academics’ OA practice. Scientometrics. 111:2, 557-579.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS