Abstract

Proceedings papers and journal articles play an important role in scholarly communication in most disciplines, including Library and Information Science. Although both serve different and complementary functions in scientific communication, in some cases the choice of one or the other can be exclusive and becomes a dilemma for researchers. This study aims to present different situations of tension caused by the choice of one or another channel of communication, and also an invitation to consider the role played by these two channels in the dissemination of scientific knowledge.

Abstract

Description of the project Open Researcher and ContributorID (Orcid) that tries to solve the name’s ambiguity and duplicity problems to identify correctly the researchers (authors and contributors) by creating a single record. This record will be connected with other current systems of author identification as Author Resolver, Inspire, IraLIS, RePEc, Scopus Author Identifier, ResearcherID, VIVO and others. Orcid will be linked to the researchers publications to facilitate its visibility, identifying contributors and reviewers and, ultimately, promoting the process of scientific discovery.

Abstract

An aspect that in my view is insufficiently questioned in conversations about the future of scholarly communication is the framing of academic documents as products of a publishing industry (publications). Here, I propose that documents that serve as evidence of scholarly and scientific activities should be primarily understood as records (elements of an archive), with all that this entails. This is compatible both with the public nature of many of these documents and with the need for editing processes. The result would be a true scholarly record that is worthy of its name, something that could not exist in the past because of technical limitations. This radical shift in perspective reveals the need for academic institutions and communities to take responsibility for the governance of scholarly communication processes, a demand recently voiced by several international organizations and expert groups. The approach outlined here intends to place the management of processes in scholarly communication at the same level as any other human activity that generates documents that are considered necessary to keep supporting said activity. In other areas, responsible organizations apply the principles of records management to appraise and implement the workflows that best support the activities of the organization. This is not the case in scholarly communication, where owing to historical reasons, communication is structured around an industry in which a small number of commercial actors have eventually amassed a disproportionate amount of power, ultimately giving rise to models in which a number of sectors of the academic community are systematically excluded on economic grounds. In summary, this work argues that the digital transformation of scholarly communication points to the need for scholarly records management. Initiatives such as the FAIR principles can be framed as steps in this direction.

Abstract

Plan S promotes that all articles from research funded by public financing agencies that subscribe it, have to be publicly available immediately, either in open access journals or in repositories that meet certain conditions, as of January 2021. Plan S has been promoted by Science Europe, a group of public research funding agencies through the cOAlition S, and has published two versions that have generated intense academic debate worldwide. Even though no public or private research agency of Spain has been committed at the moment to support Plan S, it is interesting to assess how this Plan can affect the ecosystem of Spanish scientific journals. We present the results of the analysis of the Spanish journals of SCImago Journal Rank in Social Sciences and the compliance that they have with the requirements that cOAlition S has described for the journals to be considered of Open Access of quality. These requirements are related to the opening of the content, the payment model, technical aspects and copyright. It is concluded that although most journals meet the requirements related to open content, they are left with challenges related to the technical aspects of maximum interoperability and reuse. Journals are recommended to take the Plan S as an opportunity and take advantage to carry out a full digital transformation.

Abstract

Can alternative metrics (altmetrics) data be used to measure societal impact? We wrote this literature overview of empirical studies in order to find an answer to this question. The overview includes two parts. The first part, “societal impact measurements”, explains possible methods and problems in measuring the societal impact of research, case studies for societal impact measurement, societal impact considerations at funding organizations, and the societal problems that should be solved by science. The second part of the review, “altmetrics”, addresses a major question in research evaluation, which is whether altmetrics are proper indicators for measuring the societal impact of research. In the second part we explain the data sources used for altmetrics studies and the importance of field-normalized indicators for impact measurements. This review indicates that it should be relevant for impact measurements to be oriented towards pressing societal problems. Case studies in which societal impact of certain pieces of research is explained seem to provide a legitimate method for measuring societal impact. In the use of altmetrics, field-specific differences should be considered by applying field normalization (in cross-field comparisons). Altmetrics data such as social media counts might mainly reflect the public interest and discussion of scholarly works rather than their societal impact. Altmetrics (Twitter data) might be especially fruitfully employed for research evaluation purposes, if they are used in the context of network approaches. Conclusions based on altmetrics data in research evaluation should be drawn with caution.

Abstract

The scientific community is facing one of its greatest challenges in solving a global health problem: the Covid-19 pandemic. This situation has generated an unprecedented volume of publications. What is the volume of scientific publications on Covid-19? The general objective of this research work is to obtain a global vision of the daily growth of scientific production on Covid-19 in various databases (Dimensions, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, PubMed, and eight repositories). In relation to the results obtained, Dimensions indexes a total of 9,435 publications (69% with peer review and 2,677 preprints) well above Scopus (1,568) and WoS (718). This is a classic bibliometric phenomenon of exponential growth (R2 = 0.92). The daily global growth rate is 500 publications and the production doubles every 15 days. In the case of PubMed the weekly growth is around 1,000 publications. Of the eight repositories studied, PubMed Central, medRxiv and SSRN are the leaders, but despite their contribution, journals continue to be the core of scientific communication. Finally, it has been established that three of every four publications on the Covid-19 are available in open access. The information explosion which places us, information professionals, at the centre of the information pandemic demands a serious and coordinated response.

Abstract

The creation or title changes of scientific journals in the information and documentation (ID) area in the period 2013-2018 are analyzed. Based on the total of 62 such journals identified through ISSN Portal and Ulrichsweb, the following are described: characteristic aspects such as country, language, type of publisher, and access model; presence in bibliographic databases, citations, or journal directories; survival and volume of articles published; annual number of citations to articles according to Google Scholar; thematic scope declared by the editors; and finally, the justification given by the editors for the change of title or the creation of a new journal. Among the main conclusions regarding newly created titles, the leading role of academic publishers in expanding national university systems and open-access titles stands out. In general, new publications generate few articles per year, have little presence in databases, and receive few citations. Title changes were found only in journals published by commercial publishers. In both cases, journals with a general thematic scope predominate and a significant number of journals did not justify their creation or change of title.

Abstract

Spanish research in Documentation (or Library and Information Science, LIS) began to stand out in the 1980s, in parallel with the creation of university studies in Library and Information Science, and it increased its activity significantly until the year 2000. In this period, research in Documentation was oriented to disseminate rather than innovate, and also had a low international impact, shortage of economic and human resources, and poor methodological quality. In the first 20 years of the 21st century, we have witnessed an outstanding growth and diversification of this research activity, which has led to the overcoming of most of the problems mentioned before. The objective of the text is to present a general overview of the development of Documentation research in Spain in the last 20 years based on the analysis of five fundamental aspects: publications (articles and monographs), topics and methodologies, scientific journals, research projects and doctoral theses. General descriptive data from public statistical sources and comments from a bibliographic review are provided for each of them. As a conclusion, a very positive global balance of Spanish research in Documentation in the last 20 years stands out, not only a quantitative increase (in publications, theses, research projects, etc.) but also a qualitative improvement in the use of research methods and techniques, as well as a diversification of the research topics. In any case, internationalization (collaboration with foreign authors) and the presentation of international projects could be improved. Finally, there is a risk in near future related to aging and the absence of generational renewal of the research staff that can will slow down this growth.

Abstract

This paper explores the current paradigm of the publication culture in Spain, examining the negative and positive forces that shape the dominant dynamics in the production, dissemination and evaluation of scholars’ works. Following the intentional sampling of maximum variety, we planned a set of interviews with scholars in the area of ​​communication that represented the heterogeneity of academic ranks, gender, and territories of Spain. The final output consisted of thirty-five semi-structured interviews that took place between May 2018 and May 2019. Scholarship on how researchers and university professors experience publication cultures is abundant, however the national and international studies that address this phenomenon from a holistic approach are practically non-existent. Comprising three actions or systems -production, dissemination and evaluation-, the current publishing culture is depicted as a structure tuned to a set of global-accepted requirements that seem easy to understand and replicate. Under such model, most of the scholars experience discomfort because overproduction is widespread, social transference is rare, and the production and diffusion of scientific works frequently occur at the expense of scholars themselves. The goal seems to be inspired by the cost- and time-effective system of evaluation processes that, despite academics’ general opposition, official bodies and university departments have adopted to circumvent the costly task of assessing scientists’ outcomes on an individual basis.

Abstract

Scientific research in the communication field has experienced great growth in recent years. Recent technological changes, as well as the emergence of Web 2.0 and 3.0 and new forms of communication, such as social networks, have led to new and varied studies in the discipline. This paper analyzes the scientific production of the 27 countries with the greatest scientific production in the communication field in the period from 2003 to 2018. The results indicate that: the most productive countries are the USA, UK, and Spain; there is less international collaboration than in other disciplines, but there is a network of European collaboration that is quite dense and has great impact, and another network in Pacific countries (Asia + Oceania), albeit with lower density and impact.