Open science: Implications for bibliometrics and scientometrics
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like228 views
The document discusses the implications of open science for bibliometrics and scientometrics, highlighting aspects such as open citations, open access, and open peer review. It emphasizes the need for researchers and evaluators to adopt open practices and rethink their methodologies while noting the challenges posed by large publishers. The conclusion calls for a collaborative approach to enhance research quality and transparency in the scientific community.
Open science: Implications for bibliometrics and scientometrics
- 1. Open science: Implications for bibliometrics and scientometrics Ludo Waltman Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University 24th Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy Reykjavík, Iceland November 28, 2019
- 2. 1
- 3. Motivations for the JOI/QSS flip • Open citations • Open access • Ownership 2
- 4. Open science: Implications for bibliometrics and scientometrics • Open metadata • Open access • Open peer review 3
- 6. 5
- 7. 6
- 8. 7
- 9. Large publishers not supporting I4OC 8
- 10. VOSviewer visualization of journal citation network based on Crossref data 9
- 11. Open citations in Crossref (2008–2017) 10 Overlap of citations 83M Unique citations in Scopus 112M Unique citations in Crossref 2M All publishers Elsevier Overlap of citations 0M Unique citations in Scopus 37M Unique citations in Crossref 0M Scopus Crossref Scopus Crossref Citations are considered only between citing and cited publications that are indexed both in Scopus and in Crossref
- 12. Open citations in Microsoft Academic (2008–2017) 1111 Overlap of citations 183M Unique citations in Scopus 27M Unique citations in MA 10M All publishers Elsevier Overlap of citations 38M Unique citations in Scopus 0M Unique citations in MA 1M Scopus MA Scopus MA Citations are considered only between citing and cited publications that are indexed both in Scopus and in Microsoft Academic
- 13. Abstracts in Crossref (2016–2018) 12
- 14. Free access to metadata for scientometric research 13
- 15. Open metadata (Quantitative Science Studies) 14
- 16. Metadata quality and completeness (Quantitative Science Studies) • Author identifiers (using ORCID) • Author contribution statement (using CRediT) • Competing interests statement • Data availability statement (‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’) • Funding information 15
- 17. Open access 16
- 18. 17
- 19. 18
- 20. APCs of scientometric journals 19 Frontiers RMA Frontiers USD 950 JASIST Wiley EUR 2500 JDIS De Gruyter free Journal of Informetrics Elsevier USD 2000 PLOS ONE PLOS USD 1595 Quantitative Science Studies MIT Press USD 600/800 Research Evaluation Oxford University Press EUR 2430 Research Policy Elsevier USD 2880 Scientometrics Springer Nature EUR 2040
- 21. Transparent APC breakdown (Quantitative Science Studies) 20
- 22. Toward centrally funded infrastructures for open access publishing 21
- 23. Negotiations between Dutch universities and Elsevier 22
- 25. 24
- 26. What is open peer review? Open peer review may entail: • Open reports: Peer review reports are published • Open identities: Identity of reviewers is revealed Three forms of open peer review: • Open reports, closed identities (e.g., EMBO) • Closed reports, open identities (e.g., Frontiers) • Open reports, open identities (e.g., F1000) 25
- 27. Why open peer review? Open peer review provides insight into the quality of: • Journals – Shows the quality control performed by a journal – Enables the compilation of peer review statistics – Mitigates the problem of ‘predatory journals’ • Articles – Shows the quality control performed for an article – Shows the assessment of the quality of an article by reviewers – Shows the extent to which an article has benefited from the comments of reviewers – Shows the remaining concerns reviewers have about an article • Reviewers (only if the identity of reviewers is revealed) – Shows the performance of a reviewer – Provides recognition to a reviewer 26
- 28. 27
- 29. 28
- 30. Conclusions 29
- 31. Conclusions • Open science requires all actors in the research system to rethink their way of working: – Research practice: Researchers should become less protective of their work and more focused on contributing to the common good – Research evaluation: Evaluation should be aligned with the expectations we have from researchers and should make use of all relevant information – Research infrastructure: Roles and responsibilities of public and private actors need to be reconsidered • As scientometricians, we have a special responsibility to take open science seriously in the way we do our research • Open science affects not only the way we do our research, but also our object of study 30
- 32. … and looking forward to receiving your submissions to Quantitative Science Studies! 31 Thank you for your attention …