The key lines of research in open science, 2019–2023
https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2024-11-62-82
Abstract
The expanding studies in transformation of scientific communication and practical aspects of open scientific content and scientific process dictate to identify the subject scope of open science studies. For the purpose of the study, 561 journal publications in the Library and Information Science category included in the Web of Science database were analyzed. As a result, 27 topics are specified, their contents are described, and the differences in subject orientation between “the classical” WoS, and the newer ESCI, are revealed. The transforming infrastructure of scientific communication, researchers’ adaptation to open science, and science serials’ publishing practice are in the focus of the selected publications. Most of them are based on global experience, though the national experience and EC and BRICS projects and initiatives are not overlooked.
About the Author
N. D. Trishchenko
M. Lomonosov Moscow State University; State Public Scientific and Technological Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences Siberian Branch
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natalia D. Trishchenko – Cand. Sc. (Philology), Senior Researcher, New Media and Communication Theory Chair, Journalism Department; Senior Researcher
Moscow; Novosibirsk
References
1. Lee J. Y., Chung E. K. Mapping open science research using a keyword bibliographic coupling analysis network // Information Research. 2022. Vol. 27, No 4. Paper 949. DOI 10.47989/irpaper949.
2. Giliarevskii` R. S. O nekorrektnosti ispol`zovaniia indeksov tcitirovaniia dlia vy`chisleniĭpo sopostavleniiu razdelov nauki // Nauchno-tekhnicheskaia informatciia. Ser. 2. Inform. protcessy` i sistemy`. 2022. № 2. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_48613524_87035806.pdf.
3. Hadad S., Aharony N. Open access advantages as a function of the discipline: Mixed-methods study // The Journal of Academic Librarianship. Vol. 49, No 4. DOI 10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102746.
4. Zhu Y. Open-access policy and data-sharing practice in UK academia // Journal of Information Science. 2020. Vol. 46, No 1. DOI 10.1177/0165551518823174.
5. Elliott T., Fazeen B., Asrat A., Cetto A.M., Eriksson S., Looi L. M., Negra D. Perceptions on the prevalence and impact of predatory academic journals and conferences: A global survey of researchers // Learned Publishing. 2022. Vol. 35. P. 516–528. DOI 10.1002/leap.1458.
6. Xu J., He C., Su J., Zeng Y., Wang Z., Fang F., Tang W. Chinese researchers' perceptions and use of open access journals: Results of an online questionnaire survey // Learned Publishing. 2020. Vol. 33. P. 246–258. DOI 10.1002/leap.1291.
7. Saarti J., Tuominen K. Openness, resource sharing and digitalization – an examination of the current trends in Finland // Information Discovery and Delivery. 2021. Vol. 49, No. 2. P. 97–104. DOI 10.1108/IDD-01-2020-0006.
8. Maddi A., Sapinho D. On the culture of open access: the Sci-hub paradox // Scientometrics. 2023. Vol. 128. P. 5647–5658. DOI 10.1007/s11192-023-04792-5.
9. Zong Q., Huan Z., Huang J. Can open access increase LIS research’s policy impact? Using regression analysis and causal inference // Scientometrics. 2023. Vol. 128. P. 4825–4854. DOI 10.1007/s11192-023-04750-1.
10. Ghane M. R., Niazmand M. R., Sabet Sarvestani A. The citation advantage for open access science journals with and without article processing charges // Journal of Information Science. 2020. Vol. 46, No 1. P. 118–130. DOI 10.1177/0165551519837183.
11. Zhang L., Ma L. Does open data boost journal impact: evidence from Chinese economics // Scientometrics. 2021. Vol. 126. P. 3393–3419. DOI 10.1007/s11192-021-03897-z.
12. Copiello S. The open access citation premium may depend on the openness and inclusiveness of the indexing database, but the relationship is controversial because it is ambiguous where the open access boundary lies // Scientometrics. 2019. Vol. 121. P. 995–1018. DOI 10.1007/s11192-019-03221-w.
13. Young J. S., Brandes P. M. Green and gold open access citation and interdisciplinary advantage: A bibliometric study of two science journals // The Journal of Academic Librarianship. Vol. 46, No 2. P. 102–105. DOI 10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102105.
14. Wei M., Noroozi Chakoli A. Evaluating the relationship between the academic and social impact of open access books based on citation behaviors and social media attention // Scientometrics. 2020. Vol. 125. P. 2401–2420. DOI 10.1007/s11192-020-03678-0.
15. Björk B.-C., Kanto-Karvonen S., Harviainen J. T. How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited // Publications. 2020. Vol. 8. DOI 10.3390/publications8020017.
16. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Dunleavy D. J., Moradzadeh M., Eykens J. A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers // Scientometrics. 2021. Vol. 126. P. 8589–8616. DOI 10.1007/s11192-021-04118-3.
17. Manley S. Predatory Journals on Trial: Allegations, Responses, and Lessons for Scholarly Publishing from FTC v. OMICS // Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 2019. Vol. 50, No 3. P. 183–200. DOI 10.3138/jsp.50.3.02.
18. Dora M., Kampa R. K. Predatory Publishing in Indian LIS Research: A Case Study // Serials Review. 2023. Vol. 49, No 1–2. P. 23–29. DOI 10.1080/00987913.2023.2174405.
19. Babb M. N. Canadian Academics’ use of predatory journals // Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association. 2023. Vol. 42, No 3. DOI 10.29173/jchla29579.
20. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Nazarovets S. The Role of Publons in the Context of Open Peer Review // Publishing Research Quarterly. 2022. Vol. 38. P. 760–781. DOI 10.1007/s12109-022-09914-0.
21. Bonaccorsi A. Towards Peer Review As a Group Engagement // JLIS.It. 2022. Vol. 14, No 1. P. 46–59. DOI 10.36253/jlis.it-511.
22. Fontenelle L. F., Sarti T. D. Attitudes toward open peer review among stakeholders of a scholar-led journal in Brazil // Transinformação. 2021. Vol. 33. DOI 10.1590/2318-0889202133e200072.
23. Alencar B. N., Barbosa M. C. Diretrizes para celebrar acordos Read and Publish no Brasil a partir da análise dos acordos transformativos da Alemanha e Colômbia // Transinformação. 2022. Vol. 34. DOI 10.1590/2318-0889202234e220020.
24. Vuong Q.-H., Nguyen H. T. T., Ho M.-T., Nguyen M.-H. Adopting open access in an emerging country: Is gender inequality a barrier in humanities and social sciences? // Learned Publishing. 2021. Vol. 34. P. 487–498. DOI 10.1002/leap.1387.
25. De Filippo D., Sastrón-Toledo P. Influence of research on open science in the public policy sphere // Scientometrics. 2023. Vol. 128. P. 1995–2017. DOI 10.1007/s11192-023-04645-1
26. Solomon D., Eddy M. Impact Assessment of Non-Indexed Open Access Journals: A Case Study // portal: Libraries and the Academy. 2019. Vol. 19, No 2. P. 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2019.0019.
27. Heck T., Peters I., Mazarakis A., Scherp A., Blümel I. Open Science Practices in Higher Education: Discussion of Survey Results from Research and Teaching Staff in Germany // Education for Information. 2020. Vol. 36, No. 3. P. 301–323. DOI 10.3233/EFI-190272.
28. Cary M., Rockwell T. International Collaboration in Open Access Publications: How Income Shapes International Collaboration // Publications. 2020. Vol. 8, No 1. DOI 10.3390/publications8010013.
29. Knöchelmann M. Herausgeberschaft und Verantwortung: Über die Un-/Abhängigkeit wissenschaftlicher Fachzeitschriften // Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis. 2023. Vol. 47, No 2. P. 393–406. DOI 10.1515/bfp-2022-0090.
30. Hatherill J. 'At-risk articles': the imperative to recover lost science // Insights: The UKSG Journal. 2020. Vol. 33, No 1. DOI 10.1629/uksg.514.
31. Jones R. Social justice in library science programs: A content analysis approach // Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 2020. Vol. 52. No 4. P. 1102-1109. DOI 10.1177/0961000620904432.
32. Koltay T. Data literacy and its critical perspective // Információs Társadalom. 2023. Vol. 3. P. 71–84. DOI 10.22503/inftars.XXIII.2023.3.4.
33. Teixeira da Silva J. A. Silently withdrawn or retracted preprints related to COVID-19 are a scholarly threat and a potential public health risk: theoretical arguments and suggested recommendations // Online Information Review. 2021. Vol. 45, No. 4. P. 751–757. DOI 10.1108/OIR-08-2020-0371.
34. Gama I. de O., Cianconi R. de B., Goméz M. N. G. A abertura científica: O processo de ressignificação a partir dos movimentos Open Access e Open Science // Perspectivas Em Ciência Da Informação. 2022. Vol. 27, No 4. P. 28–53. DOI 10.1590/1981-5344/29247.
Review
For citations:
Trishchenko N.D. The key lines of research in open science, 2019–2023. Scientific and Technical Libraries. 2024;(11):62-82. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2024-11-62-82
Views:
374
Email this article 