Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain

Melero, Remedios; Boté‐Vericad, Juan‐José; López‐Borrull, Alexandre

doi:10.1002/leap.1511

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Curiously, and in reference to open review, one of the elements of open science that has least been developed, it becomes evident that some Spanish researchers have published or reviewed in journals that offer the opportunity for open review. This data contrasts with the opinion of Spanish editors [ 22 ], who are highly reluctant to incorporate this model of review.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 74%

“…So, it makes sense to explore which aspects researchers in Spain value regarding open access, the publication process, open data, and open review that might help to tackle the needs and concerns of researchers, and may assess new services that could be offered by administrations, libraries and general research support services. Our research group carried out qualitative studies that aided the formulation of the survey [ 21 ], as well as the study of other groups of interest, as in the case of scholarly journal editors [ 22 ], vice-rectors of research [ 23 ] and library services [ 24 ]. In this sense, the value of this article lies also in the fact that based on a state experience it is possible to discern recommendations in other environments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Habits and perceptions regarding open science by researchers from Spanish institutions

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article describes the results of the online survey on open science (OS) carried out on researchers affiliated with universities and Spanish research centres and focused on open access to scientific publications, the publication process, the management of research data and the review of open articles. The main objective was to identify the perception and habits of researchers with regard to practices closely linked to open science and the scientific value added is that offers an in-depth picture of researchers as one of the main actors to whom this transformation and implementation of open science will fall. It focuses on the different aspects of OS: open access, open data, publication process and open review in order to identify habits and perceptions. This is to make possible an implementation of the OS movement. The survey was carried out among researchers who had published in the years 2020–2021, according to data obtained from WoS. It was emailed to a total of 8,188 researchers and obtained a total of 666 responses, of which 554 were complete, the rest being forms with some questions unanswered. The main results showed that open access still requires the diffusion of practices and services provided by the institution, as well as training (library or equivalent service) and institutional support from the competent authorities (vice rectors or equivalent) in specific aspects such as data management. In the case of data, around 50% of respondents stated they had stored data in a repository, and of all the options, the most frequently given was that of an institutional repository, followed by a discipline repository. Among the main reasons for doing this, we found transparency, visibility of data and the ability to validate results. For those who stated they had never stored data, the most frequent reasons for not having done so were privacy and confidentiality, the lack of a mandated data policy or a lack of knowledge of how to do it. In terms of open peer review, participants mentioned a certain reticence to the opening of evaluations due to potential conflicts of interest that may arise or because lower-quality content might be accepted in order to avoid conflicts. In addition, the hierarchical structure of senior researcher versus junior researcher might affect reviews. The main conclusions indicate a need for persuasion of OA to take place; APCs are an economic barrier rather than the main criterion for journal selection; OPR practices may seem innovative and emerging; scientific and evaluation policies seem to have a clear effect on the behaviour of researchers; researchers state that they share research data more for reasons of persuasion than out of obligation. Researchers do question the pathways or difficulties that may arise on a day-to-day basis and seem aware that we are undergoing change, where academic evaluation or policies related to open science, its implementation and habits among researchers may change. In this sense, more and better support is needed on the part of institutions and faculty support services.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 74%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habits and perceptions regarding open science by researchers from Spanish institutions

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…El cuestionario se envió en mayo de 2021 e incluyó también tres recordatorios en junio, julio y septiembre de 2021. El cuestionario incluía preguntas sobre OPR y también sobre acceso abierto, datos de investigación y uso de preprints (Melero 2022). La mayoría de las preguntas se referían a valoraciones con escala de Likert pero también se incluyeron cuestiones abiertas que sirvieron para recoger los comentarios y las opiniones de los editores.…”

Section: Metodologíaunclassified

“…Los resultados indicaron que el 92% de las revistas eran de acceso abierto, que el 15% permitían el archivo de preprints, que el 16% tenía una política sobre los datos de investigación subyacentes, pero que tan sólo el 2% de las revistas utilizaban el OPR y, en este caso, además, las barreras para abrir el peer review (OPR) superaban con creces a las ventajas de introducir esta modalidad. Para complementar esta aproximación, en el presente artículo nos hemos basado en el análisis de los aspectos cualitativos sobre el OPR, recogidos en las entrevistas y, especialmente, en los comentarios abiertos del cuestionario (Melero 2022), que se reproducen parcialmente en la sección de "Resultados" y "Discusión y Conclusiones" con un código numérico para preservar la identidad de los editores.…”

Section: Metodologíaunclassified

“…A pesar de las ventajas relativas a la transparencia y al valor añadido que aportan los informes de revisión, existen barreras importantes que están dificultando la implantación del OPR. Diversos estudios han recogido las opiniones sobre las ventajas e inconvenientes de la revisión abierta de los tres agentes directamente implicados en este proceso: los autores (Ross-Hellauer, Deppe and Schmidt 2017; Wang et al 2017;Bernal and Román 2018;Segado-Boj, Martín and Prieto 2018), los revisores (Targino, Garcia, and da Silva 2019) y los editores (Garcia and Targino 2017;Hamilton et al 2020;Melero et al 2022). En estas encuestas, en general, los autores coinciden en valorar positivamente la aportación de información complementaria pero también destacan que pueden existir conflictos interés, y los riesgos de subjetividad y de represalias.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Open peer review: the point of view of scientific journal editors

Abadal

Melero

2022

JLIS.it

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic journals have been incorporating several elements of open science: open access (since 2000), later, the deposit of research data of the articles published, the dissemination of preprints before the publication of the paper and, finally, the open peer review (OPR). While open access is well-established and the inclusion of research data is increasingly widespread, the OPR is just at the beginning of its incorporation as a real alternative to the double-blind model, which is the most widespread and consolidated. The objective of our article is to analyse the opinion of the editors of Spanish scientific journals about the advantages and disadvantages or barriers for the implementation of the OPR. This is a qualitative study that has been carried out from the open answers of a questionnaire sent to the 1875 editors of the Spanish academic journals that appear in the database Dulcinea and that obtained a response of 22.4%. Regarding the limitations, the study is based on the opinions and experience of the editors of Spanish scientific journals, which are mostly published by academic institutions and are in the field of social sciences and humanities. The results focus on delving into the advantages and disadvantages. Among the encouraging factors, the editors point out that to have open reports is very useful for the scientific community, that it recognizes the role of the reviewer, makes it possible to control the arbitrariness of some reviewers, and that it promotes the reviewer-author dialogue. The main barriers discussed are the following: a possible lack of objectivity and rigor, resistance to change a consolidated system (“double-blind”), knowing the author benefits established authors and harms novices, more difficulties for finding reviewers, increases costs and can lengthen the review process.

show abstract

Revista Española de Medicina Legal: análisis bibliométrico en Scopus del periodo 2008–2024

Barbería,

Xifró,

Martin-Fumadó

et al. 2024

Revista Española de Medicina Legal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain

Cited by 8 publications

References 48 publications

Habits and perceptions regarding open science by researchers from Spanish institutions

Habits and perceptions regarding open science by researchers from Spanish institutions

Open peer review: the point of view of scientific journal editors

Revista Española de Medicina Legal: análisis bibliométrico en Scopus del periodo 2008–2024

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About