Bibliotecários e os desafios da Ciência Aberta: habilidades, recursos e serviços / Librarians and the challenges of Open Science: skills, resources and services / Bibliotecarios y los desafíos de la Ciencia Abierta: habilidades, recursos y servicios

Este estudo tem como objetivo identificar, na literatura científica, produtos e serviços desenvolvidos por bibliotecários vislumbrando as práticas de Ciência Aberta. A questão principal é identificar: qual o papel dos bibliotecários frente aos desafios da Ciência Aberta? Predominantemente qualitativa, esta pesquisa pode ser caracterizada como bibliográfica, exploratória e descritiva. Para atingir seu objetivo, utilizou-se a técnica de revisão rápida de literatura. Foi realizado um levantamento de publicações indexadas na Brapci, na Scopus e na Web of Science, sendo recuperadas três publicações em cada. Ao excluir um título que se repetiu, o corpus da pesquisa configurou-se com seis artigos e dois resumos apresentados em evento. Conclui-se que debates sobre o novo modus operandi de fazer ciência vêm aumentando e os bibliotecários parecem intimamente relacionados às ações de Ciência Aberta nas diversas etapas da pesquisa científica. Devido às suas habilidades e aos seus serviços, entende-se que exercem um dos papéis centrais na concretização da abertura da ciência.

This study aims to identify, in the scientific literature, products and services developed by librarians with a view to Open Science practices. The main question is to identify: what role is played by librarians facing the challenges of Open Science? Predominantly qualitative, this research can be characterized as bibliographic, exploratory, and descriptive. To achieve its objective, a rapid literature review technique was used. A survey of publications indexed in Brapci, Scopus and Web of Science was carried out, and three publications from each were retrieved. After excluding one title that was repeated, the research corpus consisted of six articles and two abstracts presented at an event. We conclude that debates about the new modus operandi of doing science have been increasing and librarians seem closely related to Open Science actions in the various stages of scientific research. Because of their skills and services, they play one of the central roles to achieve the opening of science.

Este studio tiene como objetivo identificaren la literature científica los productos y servicios desarrollados por los bibliotecarios com vistas a las prácticas de la Ciencia Abierta. La cuestión principal es identificar: ¿ cuál es el papel de los bibliotecarios ante los desafíos de la Ciencia Abierta? Predominantemente cualita-tiva, esta investigación puede caracterizar se como bibliográfica, exploratoria y descriptiva. Para lograr su objetivo, se utilizó la técnica de revision rápida de la literatura. Se realizó un estudio de las publicaciones indexadas en Brapci, Scopus y Web of Science, recuperándo se tres publicaciones en cada una de ellas. Al excluir un título repetido, el corpus de la investigación quedó configurado con seis artículos y dos resúmenes presentados en un evento. Concluimos que los debates sobre el nuevo modus operandi de hacer ciencia han aumentado y los bibliotecarios parecen estar estrechamente relacionados con las acciones de la Ciencia Abierta en las distintas etapas de la investigación científica. Por sus habilidades y servicios, se entiende que ejercen uno de los papeles centrales en la realización de la Ciencia Abierta.

Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in biology.

Authors are often faced with the decision of whether to maximize traditional impact metrics or minimize costs when choosing where to publish the results of their research. Many subscription-based journals now offer the option of paying an article processing charge (APC) to make their work open. Though such "hybrid" journals make research more accessible to readers, their APCs often come with high price tags and can exclude authors who lack the capacity to pay to make their research accessible. Here, we tested if paying to publish open access in a subscription-based journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles. We identified 146,415 articles published in 152 hybrid journals in the field of biology from 2013-2018 to compare the number of citations between various types of open access and closed access articles. In a simple generalized linear model analysis of our full dataset, we found that publishing open access in hybrid journals that offer the option confers an average citation advantage to authors of 17.8 citations compared to closed access articles in similar journals. After taking into account the number of authors, Journal Citation Reports 2020 Quartile, year of publication, and Web of Science category, we still found that open access generated significantly more citations than closed access (p < 0.0001). However, results were complex, with exact differences in citation rates among access types impacted by these other variables. This citation advantage based on access type was even similar when comparing open and closed access articles published in the same issue of a journal (p < 0.0001). However, by examining articles where the authors paid an article processing charge, we found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates (p = 0.14). Based on our findings of access type and other model parameters, we suggest that, in the case of the 152 journals we analyzed, paying for open access does confer a citation advantage. For authors with limited budgets, we recommend pursuing open access alternatives that do not require paying a fee as they still yielded more citations than closed access. For authors who are considering where to submit their next article, we offer additional suggestions on how to balance exposure via citations with publishing costs.

Endorsement of open science practices by dental journals: A meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the endorsement of open science practices by dental journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a meta-research study that included journals listed in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports under Dentistry. A comprehensive evaluation was performed by accessing journal websites to ascertain the availability of publicly accessible instructions to authors in Portuguese, English, or Spanish. A researcher extracted information from the "Instructions for Authors" section, encompassing the journal's impact factor, mention of any reporting guidelines, details on data sharing, acceptance of articles in preprint format, and information regarding study protocol registration. Descriptive data analysis was conducted using the Stata 14.0 program, and an Open Science Score (OSS) (ranging from 0 to 100 %) was calculated for each journal by considering five open science practices. Pearson's correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship between the OSS score and journal impact factor. RESULTS: Ninety journals were included in the study. Most journals (70 %) indicated the mandatory use of reporting guidelines, while 60 % recommended data sharing. Conversely, 46.7 % did not provide information on study protocol registration, and 44.4 % stipulated them as mandatory for authors. Regarding preprints, 50 % of the journals did not provide any information, but 46.7 % confirmed their acceptance. The mean OSS was 52.9 % (standard deviation 26.2). There was a weak correlation (Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.221) between the journal impact factor and OSS (P-value=0.036). CONCLUSION: This study found varying degrees of endorsement of open science practices among dental journals. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dental practitioners rely on high-quality, evidence-based research for informed decision-making. By assessing the endorsement of open science practices, our study contributes to improving the quality and reliability of dental research, ultimately enhancing the evidence base for clinical practice.

Effects of open access publishing on article metrics in Neuropsychopharmacology.

Neuropsychopharmacology (NPP) offers the option to publish articles in different tiers of an open access (OA) publishing system: Green, Bronze, or Hybrid. Green articles follow a standard access (SA) subscription model, in which readers must pay a subscription fee to access article content on the publisher's website. Bronze articles are selected at the publisher's discretion and offer free availability to readers at the same article processing charge (APC) as Green articles. Hybrid articles are fully OA, but authors pay an increased APC to ensure public access. Here, we aimed to determine whether publishing tier affect the impact and reach of scientific articles in NPP. A sample of 6000 articles published between 2001-2021 were chosen for the analysis. Articles were separated by article type and publication year. Citation counts and Altmetric scores were compared between the three tiers. Bronze articles received significantly more citations than Green and Hybrid articles overall. However, when analyzed by year, Bronze and Hybrid articles received comparable citation counts within the past decade. Altmetric scores were comparable between all tiers, although this effect varied by year. Our findings indicate that free availability of article content on the publisher's website is associated with an increase in citations of NPP articles but may only provide a moderate boost in Altmetric score. Overall, our results suggest that easily accessible article content is most often cited by readers, but that the higher APCs of Hybrid tier publishing may not guarantee increased scholarly or social impact.

The gray zone between legitimate and predatory open access scientific publishing.

Certain open access publishers based on the article processing charges model have found it highly profitable to operate within a gray zone that encompasses both legitimate and predatory publishing practices. In this context, maximum profits can be obtained by adequate combinations of journal acceptance rates and elevated article processing charges. Considering that the gray zone can be particularly challenging to identify and that it poses risks for authors aiming to establish academic carreers, we believe it is important to provide a comprehensive description of it.