Percepción de las revistas científicas españolas hacia el acceso abierto, open peer review y altmetrics

  1. Segado-Boj, Francisco 1
  2. Martín Quevedo, Juan 1
  3. Prieto Gutiérrez, Juan José 1
  1. 1 Universidad Internacional de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad Internacional de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/029gnnp81

Zeitschrift:
Ibersid: revista de sistemas de información y documentación = journal of information and documentation systems

ISSN: 1888-0967

Datum der Publikation: 2018

Ausgabe: 12

Nummer: 1

Seiten: 27-32

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.54886/IBERSID.V12I1.4407 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: Ibersid: revista de sistemas de información y documentación = journal of information and documentation systems

Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung

Zusammenfassung

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.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • 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 impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. // Journal of informetrics. 8:4, 895903.
  • 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 commons: challenges and opportunities for research dissemination 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 Informacion. 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 Informetrics. 1:3, 239-248.
  • De Wolf, R.; Gao, B.; Berendt, B.; Pierson, J. (2015). The promise of audience transparency. Exploring users’ perceptions and behaviors towards visualizations of networked audiences on Facebook. // Telematics and Informatics. 32:4, 890-908.
  • Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. // Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 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.; ArencibiaJorge, 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 review. 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 largescale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication. // Scientometrics, p. 1-21.
  • Nández, G.; Borrego, Á. (2013). Use of social networks for academic purposes: a case study. // The Electronic Library. 31:6, 781-791.
  • Nobarany, S.; Booth, K. S. (2015). Use of politeness strategies in signed open peer review. // Journal of the Association 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 humanidades y ciencias sociales. El profesional de la información. 22:1, 36-45.
  • Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, p. 6.
  • Siler, K. (2017). Future Challenges and opportunities in academic publishing. Canadian Journal of Sociology. 42:1, 83.
  • Somoza-Fernández, M.; Rodríguez-Gairín, J. M.; Urbano, C. (2016). Presencia de revistas supuestamente depredadoras 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? Gender, discipline, seniority and other factors associated with academics’ OA practice. Scientometrics. 111:2, 557-579.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet