Habits and perceptions regarding open science by researchers from Spanish institutions.

The article describes the results of the online survey on open science (OS) carried out on researchers affiliated with universities and Spanish research centres and focused on open access to scientific publications, the publication process, the management of research data and the review of open articles. The main objective was to identify the perception and habits of researchers with regard to practices closely linked to open science and the scientific value added is that offers an in-depth picture of researchers as one of the main actors to whom this transformation and implementation of open science will fall. It focuses on the different aspects of OS: open access, open data, publication process and open review in order to identify habits and perceptions. This is to make possible an implementation of the OS movement. The survey was carried out among researchers who had published in the years 2020-2021, according to data obtained from WoS. It was emailed to a total of 8,188 researchers and obtained a total of 666 responses, of which 554 were complete, the rest being forms with some questions unanswered. The main results showed that open access still requires the diffusion of practices and services provided by the institution, as well as training (library or equivalent service) and institutional support from the competent authorities (vice rectors or equivalent) in specific aspects such as data management. In the case of data, around 50% of respondents stated they had stored data in a repository, and of all the options, the most frequently given was that of an institutional repository, followed by a discipline repository. Among the main reasons for doing this, we found transparency, visibility of data and the ability to validate results. For those who stated they had never stored data, the most frequent reasons for not having done so were privacy and confidentiality, the lack of a mandated data policy or a lack of knowledge of how to do it. In terms of open peer review, participants mentioned a certain reticence to the opening of evaluations due to potential conflicts of interest that may arise or because lower-quality content might be accepted in order to avoid conflicts. In addition, the hierarchical structure of senior researcher versus junior researcher might affect reviews. The main conclusions indicate a need for persuasion of OA to take place; APCs are an economic barrier rather than the main criterion for journal selection; OPR practices may seem innovative and emerging; scientific and evaluation policies seem to have a clear effect on the behaviour of researchers; researchers state that they share research data more for reasons of persuasion than out of obligation. Researchers do question the pathways or difficulties that may arise on a day-to-day basis and seem aware that we are undergoing change, where academic evaluation or policies related to open science, its implementation and habits among researchers may change. In this sense, more and better support is needed on the part of institutions and faculty support services.

Coronavirus mapping in scientific publications: When science advances rapidly and collectively, is access to this knowledge open to society?

The COVID-19 pandemic is creating a global health emergency. Mapping this health emergency in scientific publications demands multiple approaches to obtain a picture as complete as possible. To progress in the knowledge of this pandemic and to control its effects, international collaborations between researchers are essentials, as well as having open and immediate access to scientific publications, what we called "coopetition". Our main objectives are to identify the most productive countries in coronavirus publications, to analyse the international scientific collaboration on this topic, and to study the proportion and typology of open accessibility to these publications. We have analyzed 18,875 articles indexed in Web of Science. We performed the descriptive statistical analysis in order to explore the performance of the more prolific countries and organizations, as well as paying attention to the last 2 years. Registers have been analyzed separately via the VOSviewer software, drawing a network of links among countries and organizations to identify the starred countries and organizations, and the strongest links of the net. We have explored the capacity of researchers to generate scientific knowledge about a health crisis emergency, and their global capacity to collaborate among them in a global emergency. We consider that science is moving rapidly to find solutions to international health problems but access to this knowledge by society is not so quick due to several limitations (open access policies, corporate interests, etc.). We have observed that papers from China in the last 3 months (from January 2020 to March 2020) have a strong impact compared with papers published in years before. The United States and China are the major producers of documents of our sample, followed by all European countries, especially the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and France. At the same time, the leading role of Saudi Arabia, Canada or South Korea should be noted, with a significant number of documents submitted but very different dynamics of international collaboration. The proportion of international collaboration is growing in all countries in 2019-2020, which contrasts with the situation of the last two decades. The organizations providing the most documents to the sample are mostly Chinese. The percentage of open access articles on coronavirus for the period 2001-2020 is 59.2% but if we focus in 2020 the figures increase up to 91.4%, due to the commitment of commercial publishers with the emergency.

Open access publishers: The new players.

The essential role of journals as registries of scientific activity in all areas of knowledge justifies concern about their ownership and type of access. The purpose of this research is to analyze the main characteristics of publishers with journals that have received the DOAJ Seal. The specific objectives are a) to identify publishers and journals registered with the DOAJ Seal; b) to characterize those publishers; and c) to analyze their article processing fees. The research method involved the use of the DOAJ database, the Seal option and the following indicators: publisher, title, country, number of articles, knowledge area, article processing charges in USD, time for publication in weeks, and year of indexing in DOAJ. The results reveal a fast-rising oligopoly, dominated by Springer with 35% of the titles and PLOS with more than 20% of the articles. We've identified three models of expansion: a) a few titles with hundreds of articles; b) a high number of titles with a mix of big and small journals; and c) a high number of titles with medium-size journals. We identify a high number of titles without APCs (27%) in all areas while medicine was found to be the most expensive area. Commercial publishers clearly exercise control over the scope of journals and the creation of new titles, according to the interests of their companies, which are not necessarily the same as those of the scientific community or of society in general.

Open access availability of Catalonia research output: Case analysis of the CERCA institution, 2011-2015.

The open access availability of publications by Catalonia's CERCA research centres was analysed to determine the extent to which authors use open access journals, repositories, social networks and other websites to disseminate their research results. A sample of 3,730 journal articles published by authors from CERCA research centres between 2011 and 2015 and available on Web of Science (out of a total output of 44,423) was analysed to identify how many were available in open access, full-text format. The results revealed that 75,8% of the total (2,828 articles) had at least one version available in open access, but just 52% (1,940 articles) had at least one version available in either journals (whether pure or hybrid open access journals or those with embargo periods) or repositories, a finding that highlights the powerful role played by academic social networks in the sharp increase in open access availability. Of the 2,828 articles for which at least one open access version was found, a total of 9,868 copies were located. With respect to versions, the publisher's final version, i.e. the type formatted for publication by journal publishers, was found in 75,3% of cases. The number of articles published in open access journals (567) was very close to the number of articles published in hybrid journals or journals with embargo periods (624). Only 40,4% of the articles in the sample were located in repositories, being the subject repositories the heaviest used. Fifty percent of the articles (1,881 publications) were posted on academic social networks, the most popular of which were ResearchGate and Academia. According to thematic areas, all six areas (science, life sciences, medical and health sciences, engineering and architecture and humanities) exceeded 70% of articles in open access.

Evaluation of scientific output in Dentistry in Spanish Universities

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the scientific output of Spanish universities that offer a bachelor’s degree in dentistry through the use of various bibliometric indicators. Material and Methods: A total of 21 universities offered a bachelor’s degree in dentistry in academic year 2016- 2017. The search for papers published by authors associated with these institutions was carried out using the selection of journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and the Web of Knowledge database for the period 1986-2017. On the basis of these data, we determined the output, the h-, g- and hg-indexes, the most productive authors, international collaborations, and the most relevant journals. Results: Public universities obtained better results than private universities. The University of Valencia was ranked first, followed by the Complutense University of Madrid and the University of Granada. The most productive author was José Vicente Bagán, but the author with the highest h-index was Mariano Sanz and Manuel Toledado. The universities with the greatest output and highest citation rates had more international collaborations. The most developed fields in Spanish universities were Oral surgery, Oral medicine and Dental materials. The universities had different models of production. At universities such as Barcelona or Valencia, the production was focused on very few departments and authors. At the other extreme, the University of Granada had various sources of research and authors, which meant that its output and citation rate could increase more. Conclusions: University faculties must provide suitable academic and research training, and therefore must be assessed using objective criteria and bibliometric tools. Although the number of university schools and faculties that teach dentistry has increased, and particularly the number of private universities, there is no correlation between their quality and output and the number of places offered on their courses (AU)

No disponible

Gold or green: the debate on Open Access policies

The movement for open access to science seeks to achieve unrestricted and free access to academic publications on the Internet. To this end, two mechanisms have been established: the gold road, in which scientific journals are openly accessible, and the green road, in which publications are self-archived in repositories. The publication of the Finch Report in 2012, advocating exclusively the adoption of the gold road, generated a debate as to whether either of the two options should be prioritized. The recommendations of the Finch Report stirred controversy among academicians specialized in open access issues, who felt that the role played by repositories was not adequately considered and because the green road places the burden of publishing costs basically on authors. The Finch Report’s conclusions are compatible with the characteristics of science communication in the UK and they could surely also be applied to the (few) countries with a powerful publishing industry and substantial research funding. In Spain, both the current national legislation and the existing rules at universities largely advocate the green road. This is directly related to the structure of scientific communication in Spain, where many journals have little commercial significance, the system of charging a fee to authors has not been adopted, and there is a good repository infrastructure. As for open access policies, the performance of the scientific communication system in each country should be carefully analyzed to determine the most suitable open access strategy (AU)

No disponible

Gold or green: the debate on open access policies.

The movement for open access to science seeks to achieve unrestricted and free access to academic publications on the Internet. To this end, two mechanisms have been established: the gold road, in which scientific journals are openly accessible, and the green road, in which publications are self-archived in repositories. The publication of the Finch Report in 2012, advocating exclusively the adoption of the gold road, generated a debate as to whether either of the two options should be prioritized. The recommendations of the Finch Report stirred controversy among academicians specialized in open access issues, who felt that the role played by repositories was not adequately considered and because the green road places the burden of publishing costs basically on authors. The Finch Report's conclusions are compatible with the characteristics of science communication in the UK and they could surely also be applied to the (few) countries with a powerful publishing industry and substantial research funding. In Spain, both the current national legislation and the existing rules at universities largely advocate the green road. This is directly related to the structure of scientific communication in Spain, where many journals have little commercial significance, the system of charging a fee to authors has not been adopted, and there is a good repository infrastructure. As for open access policies, the performance of the scientific communication system in each country should be carefully analyzed to determine the most suitable open access strategy.

[Self-archiving of biomedical papers in open access repositories]. / Autoarchivo de articulos biomedicos en repositorios de acceso abierto.

INTRODUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT: Open-access literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. Self-archiving or deposit of scholarly outputs in institutional repositories (open-access green route) is increasingly present in the activities of the scientific community. Besides the benefits of open access for visibility and dissemination of science, it is increasingly more often required by funding agencies to deposit papers and any other type of documents in repositories. In the biomedical environment this is even more relevant by the impact scientific literature can have on public health. However, to make self-archiving feasible, authors should be aware of its meaning and the terms in which they are allowed to archive their works. In that sense, there are some tools like Sherpa/RoMEO or DULCINEA (both directories of copyright licences of scientific journals at different levels) to find out what rights are retained by authors when they publish a paper and if they allow to implement self-archiving. PubMed Central and its British and Canadian counterparts are the main thematic repositories for biomedical fields. In our country there is none of similar nature, but most of the universities and CSIC, have already created their own institutional repositories. CONCLUSION: The increase in visibility of research results and their impact on a greater and earlier citation is one of the most frequently advance of open access, but removal of economic barriers to access to information is also a benefit to break borders between groups.

Autoarchivo de artículos biomédicos en repositorios de acceso abierto / Self-archiving of biomedical papers in open access repositories

Introducción y desarrollo. El acceso abierto es el acceso digital, en línea y libre de barreras económicas, o al menos de algunos derechos de explotación (copyright), a la producción científica o académica de nuestros profesores e investigadores. El autoarchivo o depósito de estos trabajos en repositorios institucionales (vía verde) está cada vez más presente entre las actividades de la comunidad científica. Además de beneficiarse de sus ventajas, los autores son, cada vez con más frecuencia, requeridos por las instituciones financiadoras de la investigación y por las suyas propias para que depositen sus trabajos en repositorios. En el entorno biomédico esto es más necesario, por la repercusión que puede tener en la salud de las personas que los profesionales dispongan o no de la mejor evidencia científica. Para que esto sea posible, los autores deben conocer qué es y cómo funciona un repositorio y deben saber manejar herramientas fáciles como Sherpa/ RoMEO o DULCINEA para averiguar qué derechos retienen como autores y si éstos les permiten llevar a la práctica el autoarchivo. PubMed Central y sus homólogos británico y canadiense son los principales repositorios temáticos del ámbito biomédico. En nuestro país no existe ninguno de naturaleza similar; sin embargo, la mayoría de las universidades y el Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas disponen de un repositorio institucional en funcionamiento. Conclusión. La mayor visibilidad de los resultados de investigación y su repercusión en una mayor y más temprana citación es uno de los beneficios más esgrimidos del acceso abierto, así como la eliminación de las barreras económicas en el acceso a la información contrastada para colectivos habitualmente excluidos (AU)

Introduction and development. Open-access literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. Self-archiving or deposit of scholarly outputs in institutional repositories (open-access green route) is increasingly present in the activities of the scientific community. Besides the benefits of open access for visibility and dissemination of science, it is increasingly more often required by funding agencies to deposit papers and any other type of documents in repositories. In the biomedical environment this is even more relevant by the impact scientific literature can have on public health. However, to make self-archiving feasible, authors should be aware of its meaning and the terms in which they are allow to archive their works. In that sense, there are some tools like Sherpa/RoMEO or DULCINEA (both directories of copyright licences of scientific journals at different levels) to find out what rights are retained by authors when they publish a paper and if they allow to implement self-archiving. PubMed Central and its British and Canadian counterparts are the main thematic repositories for biomedical fields. In our country there is none of similar nature, but most of the universities and CSIC, have already created their own institutional repositories. Conclusion. The increase in visibility of research results and their impact on a greater and earlier citation is one of the most frequently advance of open access, but removal of economic barriers to access to information is also a benefit to break borders between groups (AU)