Identifying scientific publications countrywide and measuring their open access: The case of the French Open Science Barometer (BSO)

Chaignon, Lauranne; Egret, D.

doi:10.1162/qss_a_00179

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the national level, the French Open Science Monitor 163 164 has been developed using a text mining 165 and machine learning approach 166 . It allows to evaluate the openness of French publications 167 and will soon be enriched with openness indicators about data and research software, along with other French research productions. These studies have been conducted by using only openly available data and show that amongst the French publications in 2021 that mention the production of data, 22% are referring to sharing a dataset, while it amounts to 20% for research software.…”

Section: Some First Beta Results From the French Open Science Monitor...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Report of the G7 Open Science - Research on Research Sub-Working Group

Cloutier,

Dacos

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The G7 Open Science Working Group (OSWG) was established to share open science policies, explore supportive incentive structures, and identify good practices for promoting increasing access to the results of publicly funded research, including scientific data and publications [...] To inform the deliberations of the G7 OSWG, three sub-working groups were created to explore key Open Science topics and formulate policy recommendations: ●Interoperability and Sustainability of Infrastructures ●Research Assessment and Incentives ●Research on Research This report pertains to the topic of Research on Research on Open Science. The mandate of the G7 OSWG Research on Research Sub-Working Group consisted of: ●Examining questions at the intersection of Research on Research and Open Science, which are relevant to the adoption of Open Science practices. ●Helping to mobilize existing Research on Research knowledge to build more evidence-based Open Science policies. ●Identifying knowledge gaps in Research on Research that should be filled, drafting a first attempt of Research on Research agenda, to define more efficient Open Science policies. ●Proposing actions based on lessons learned, to inform decision-making and accelerate the Open Science journey. The report was informed by two workshops held by the G7 OSWG Research on Research Sub-Working Group, which convened Open Science experts from across the world to discuss topics such as data-sharing, reproducibility, and research evaluation (October 2021), as well as academic, societal, and economic impacts of Open Science (June 2022). It was also informed through Research on Research itself, as well as discussions and knowledge-sharing between all three G7 OSWG Sub-Working Groups (Research on Research, Interoperability and Sustainability of Infrastructures, and Research Assessment and Incentives). The report was also informed by exchanges with individual researchers (see the list of all contributors at the end of the report). It consists of an overview of the Research on Research landscape on Open Science, as well as research recommendations on behalf of the G7 OSWG Research on Research Sub-Working Group. After more than 10 years of Open Science policies, 20 years of Open Science debates and 30 years after the first digital Open Science initiative (ArXiv), there is still much work to be done to achieve a fully Open Science-minded academic landscape. Some studies have demonstrated that close to 50% of contemporary research publications are open access globally ; however, that proportion fluctuates widely depending on fields of research and countries. With regards to Open or FAIR data (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable), there are no conclusive studies providing an estimate of the proportion of data globally that is open and/or FAIR. However, the proportion is likely close to 20%, which corresponds more or less to the so-called “big sciences” . In addition, results are still low on issues such as reproducible research and publication bias , and research assessment reform is only in its first stages to facilitate the Open Science transformation. This clearly demonstrates that the path to Open Science has just begun, despite three decades of individual, collective, and political efforts. If the Open Science paradigm is difficult to achieve due to the radical nature of the transformation it implies, the slowness of the associated cultural changes must be understood as resulting from the significant challenge in addressing the cultural changes with adequate, fine-tuned, and contextualized Open Science policies. In other words, if the big picture is clearly drafted, the steps needed to achieve it in a reasonable time are not all clearly identified. Additional efforts to understand obstacles and efficient solutions are needed. In this respect, evidence-based Open Science policies will be of great help, and research on research could play a key role to address the Open Science challenge.

show abstract

Section: Some First Beta Results From the French Open Science Monitor...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Report of the G7 Open Science - Research on Research Sub-Working Group

Cloutier,

Dacos

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concept of using OS for such purposes is not new as it has been used for country rankings (Zuiderwijk et al, 2021 ), for benchmarking at national levels (Harnad, 2009 ; Bracco, 2022 ; Chaignon and Daniel Egret, 2022 ), and at the introduction of incentive models to try to persuade researchers to implement OS (Till, 2003 ). The usefulness of Open Data (OD) has also been investigated, with the study of Abella et al ( 2014 ) standing out as they introduced the Meloda metric for the indication of open data quality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and preliminary validation of an open access, open data and open outreach indicator

Vlachos,

Ejstrup,

Drachen

et al. 2023

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present the development and preliminary validation of a new person-centered indicator that we propose is named “OADO” after its target concepts: Open Access (OA), Open Data (OD) and Open Outreach (OO). The indicator is comprised of two factors: the research factor indicating the degree of OA articles and OD in research; and the communication factor indicating the degree of OO in communication activities in which a researcher has participated. We stipulate that the weighted version of this new indicator, the Weighted-OADO, can be used to assess the openness of researchers in relation to their peers from their own discipline, department, or even group/center. The OADO is developed and customized to the needs of Elsevier's Research Information Management System (RIMS) environment, Pure. This offers the advantage of more accurate interpretations and recommendations for action, as well as the possibility to be implemented (and further validated) by multiple institutions, allowing disciplinary comparisons of the open practices across multiple institutes. Therefore, the OADO provides recommendations for action, and enables institutes to make informed decisions based on the indicator's outcome. To test the validity of the OADO, we retrieved the Pure publication records from two departments for each of the five faculties of the University of Southern Denmark and calculated the OADO of 995 researchers in total. We checked for definition validity, actionability, transferability, possibility of unexpected discontinuities of the indicator, factor independence, normality of the indicator's distributions across the departments, and indicator reliability. Our findings reveal that the OADO is a reliable indicator for departments with normally distributed values with regards to their Weighted-OADO. Unfortunately, only two departments displayed normal distributions, one from the health sciences and one from engineering. For departments where the normality assumption is not satisfied, the OADO can still be useful as it can indicate the need for making a greater effort toward openness, and/or act as an incentive for detailed registration of research outputs and datasets.

show abstract

Identifying scientific publications countrywide and measuring their open access: The case of the French Open Science Barometer (BSO)

Cited by 2 publications

References 34 publications

Report of the G7 Open Science - Research on Research Sub-Working Group

Report of the G7 Open Science - Research on Research Sub-Working Group

Development and preliminary validation of an open access, open data and open outreach indicator

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About