Publicações científicas ampliadas uma revisão integrativa / Extended scientific publications: an integrative review / Publicaciones científicas extendidas: una revisión integradora

Objetivo: investigar o estado da arte das publicações científicas ampliadas voltadas para a dinamização da ciência. Método: pesquisa qualitativa de cunho integrativo nas seguintes bases de dados Web of Science, Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts e Scopus via Portal Periódicos Capes, Dimensions, PLOS ONE, Base de Dados Referencial de Artigos de Periódicos em Ciência da Informação e Scientific Eletronic Library Online no período de junho de 2022. Resultados: onze artigos divididos em duas categorias: caracterização das publicações ampliadas e infraestrutura de suporte para as publicações ampliadas. Conclusão: apesar de multivariadas, as publicações ampliadas possuem características peculiares que as tornam objetos digitais compostos e dinâmicos e com melhor experiência para o usuário. Os artigos apontam que não há infraestrutura de suporte nas plataformas de periódicos e quando encontrado, se apresenta simples e com poucos recursos.

Objectives: to investigate the state of the art of expanded scientific publications aimed at boosting science. Method: qualitative research of an integrative nature in the following databases: Web of Science, Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts and Scopus via Portal Periodicals Capes, Dimensions, PLOS ONE, Reference Database of Journal Articles in Science of Information and Scientific Electronic Library Online in the period of June 2022. Results: eleven articles divided into two categories: characterization of expanded publications and support infrastructure for expanded publications. Conclusion: Despite being multivariate, expanded publications have peculiar characteristics that make them composite and dynamic digital objects with a better user experience. The articles point out that there is no support infrastructure on journal platforms and when found, it is simple and with few resources.

Objetivos:investigar el estado del arte de las publicaciones científicas ampliadas destinadas al impulso de la ciência. Método: investigación cualitativa de carácter integrador em las siguients bases de datos: Web of Science, Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts y Scopus vía Portal Periodicals Capes, Dimensions, PLOS ONE, Reference Database of Journal Articles in Science of Information y Scientific Electronic Library Online en el período de junio de 2022. Resultados:once artículos divididos em dos ctegorías: caracterización de publicaciones expandidas e infraestructura de soporte para publicaciones expandidas. Conclusión: a pesar de ser multivariadas, las publicaciones expandidas tienen características peculiares que las convierten em objetos digitales compuestos y dinâmicos com uma mejor ecperiencia de usuário. Los artículos señalan que no existe uma infraestructura de apovo em las plataformas de revistas y cuando se encuentra es sencilla y com pocos recursos.

FEBS Open Bio: past, present and future.

In celebration of the 10th anniversary of FEBS Open Bio, we spoke to some of the key figures of the journal's genesis, development, and its future direction, and recount here their thoughts and experiences. Prof. Félix. Goñi discusses the role of the FEBS Publication Committee in the journal's beginnings, Dr Mary Purton relates her experiences as the journal's Executive Editor, Prof. László Fésüs explains how the journal developed during his tenure as Chair of the Publication Committee, and Prof. Johannes Buchner looks forward to the future of FEBS Press and academic publishing. Finally, Prof. John (Iain) Mowbray describes his "Friday afternoon thought" to start a new journal.

Ten years of FEBS Open Bio.

This month, FEBS Open Bio celebrates its 10th birthday. To celebrate the journal's first decade, we present this special anniversary issue, comprised of editorials, reviews, and research articles especially commissioned for the occasion. In this introductory editorial, we invite the reader to join us as we reminisce over the journal's past, celebrate its present, and look forward to its future.

Do authors of research funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research comply with its open access mandate?: A meta-epidemiologic study.

BACKGROUND: Since 2008, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has mandated that studies it funds either in whole or in part are required to publish their results as open access (OA) within 12 months of publication using either online repositories and/or OA journals. Yet, there is evidence that authors are poorly compliant with this mandate. Specifically, there has been an apparent decrease in OA publication after 2015, which coincides with a change in the OA policy during the same year. One particular policy change that may have contributed to this decline was lifting the requirement that authors deposit their article in an OA repository immediately upon publication. We investigated the proportion of OA compliance of CIHR-funded studies in the period before and after the policy change of 2015 with manual confirmation of both CIHR funding and OA status. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We identified CIHR-funded studies published between the years 2014 to 2017 using a comprehensive search in the Web of Science (WoS). We took a stratified random sample from all four years (i.e. 2014 to 2017), with 250 studies from each year. Two authors independently reviewed the final full-text publications retrieved from the journal web page to determine to confirm CIHR funding, as indicated in the acknowledgements or elsewhere in the paper. For each study, we also collected bibliometric data that included citation count and Altmetric attention score Statistical analyses were conducted using two-tailed Fisher's exact test with relative risk (RR). Among the 851 receiving CIHR funding published from 2014 to 2017, the percentage of CIHR-funded studies published as OA significantly decreased from 79.6% in 2014 to 70.3% in 2017 (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79-0.99, P = 0.028). When considering all four years, there was no significant difference in the percentage of CIHR-funded studies published as OA in both 2014 and 2015 compared to both 2016 and 2017 (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.90-1.05, P = 0.493). Additionally, OA publications had significantly higher citation count (both in year of publication and in total) and higher attention scores (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found that there was a significant decrease in the proportion of CIHR funded studies published as OA from 2014 compared to 2017, though this difference did not persist when comparing both 2014-2015 to 2016-2017. The primary limitation was the reliance of self-reported data from authors on CIHR funding status. We posit that this decrease may be attributable to CIHR's OA policy change in 2015. Further exploration is warranted to both validate these studies using a larger dataset and, if valid, investigate the effects of potential interventions to improve the OA compliance, such as use of a CIHR publication database, and reinstatement of a policy for authors to immediately submit their findings to OA repositories upon publication.

The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape.

The world continues to face a life-threatening viral pandemic. The virus underlying the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused over 98 million confirmed cases and 2.2 million deaths since January 2020. Although the most recent respiratory viral pandemic swept the globe only a decade ago, the way science operates and responds to current events has experienced a cultural shift in the interim. The scientific community has responded rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic, releasing over 125,000 COVID-19-related scientific articles within 10 months of the first confirmed case, of which more than 30,000 were hosted by preprint servers. We focused our analysis on bioRxiv and medRxiv, 2 growing preprint servers for biomedical research, investigating the attributes of COVID-19 preprints, their access and usage rates, as well as characteristics of their propagation on online platforms. Our data provide evidence for increased scientific and public engagement with preprints related to COVID-19 (COVID-19 preprints are accessed more, cited more, and shared more on various online platforms than non-COVID-19 preprints), as well as changes in the use of preprints by journalists and policymakers. We also find evidence for changes in preprinting and publishing behaviour: COVID-19 preprints are shorter and reviewed faster. Our results highlight the unprecedented role of preprints and preprint servers in the dissemination of COVID-19 science and the impact of the pandemic on the scientific communication landscape.

Assessment of transparency indicators across the biomedical literature: How open is open?

Recent concerns about the reproducibility of science have led to several calls for more open and transparent research practices and for the monitoring of potential improvements over time. However, with tens of thousands of new biomedical articles published per week, manually mapping and monitoring changes in transparency is unrealistic. We present an open-source, automated approach to identify 5 indicators of transparency (data sharing, code sharing, conflicts of interest disclosures, funding disclosures, and protocol registration) and apply it across the entire open access biomedical literature of 2.75 million articles on PubMed Central (PMC). Our results indicate remarkable improvements in some (e.g., conflict of interest [COI] disclosures and funding disclosures), but not other (e.g., protocol registration and code sharing) areas of transparency over time, and map transparency across fields of science, countries, journals, and publishers. This work has enabled the creation of a large, integrated, and openly available database to expedite further efforts to monitor, understand, and promote transparency and reproducibility in science.

Collaborative transition to open access publishing by scholarly societies.

For decades, universities, researchers, and libraries have sought a systemwide transition of scholarly publishing to open access (OA), but progress has been slow. There is now a potential for more rapid and impactful change, as new collaborative OA publishing models have taken shape. Cooperative publishing arrangements represent a viable path forward for society publishers to transition to OA as the default standard for disseminating research. The traditional article processing charge OA model has introduced sometimes unnavigable financial roadblocks, but cooperative arrangements premised on collective action principles can help to secure long-term stability and prevent the risk of free riding. Investment in cooperative arrangements does not require that cash-strapped libraries discover a new influx of money as their collection budgets continue to shrink, but rather that they purposefully redirect traditional subscription funds toward publishing support. These cooperative arrangements will require a two-way demonstration of trust: On one hand, libraries working together to provide assurances of sustained financial support, and on the other, societies' willingness to experiment with discarding subscriptions. Organizations such as Society Publishers Coalition and Transitioning Society Publications to Open Access are committed to education about and further development of scalable and cooperative OA publishing models.

Conocimiento libre en tiempos de pandemia. Estudio de los artículos "Covid-19" y "Pandemia por Covid-19" en Wikipedia* / Free knowledge in times of pandemic. Study of articles on "Covid-19" and the "Covid-19 pandemic" on Wikipedia / Conhecimento livre em tempos de pandemia. Estudos dos artigos sobre "Covid-19" e "Pandemia por Covid-19" em Wikipédia

Esta investigación estudia los artículos de "Covid-19" y de "Pandemia por Covid-19" en cuatro versiones lingüísticas de Wikipedia (inglés, español, italiano y portugués). El período de estudio comienza con la denominación oficial de la enfermedad como Covid-19, el 11 de febrero de 2020, por la Organización Mundial de la Salud y desde la proclamación por dicha institución de la pandemia causada por esta enfermedad, el 11 de marzo de 2020. En ambos casos se estudia hasta el 11 de abril de 2020. La investigación aborda el modo de creación y de lectura de dichos artículos, analizando si se trata de trabajos construidos desde referencias científicas y sanitarias o prensa generalista. Este proyecto muestra cómo los wikipedistas han reaccionado rápidamente y han generado un gran trabajo colaborativo, con artículos argumentados y construidos desde una perspectiva científica y sanitaria. (AU)

This article studies articles about "Covid-19" and the "Covid-19 pandemic" in four language versions of Wikipedia (English, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese). The study periods start with the official naming of the Covid-19 disease on February 2020 by the World Health Organization and the announcement of the pandemic on March 11 2020, respectively. In both cases, the period goes up to April 11 2020. The study addresses the creation and reading of these publications, analyzing whether they are built upon scientific and health references or information from the general press. The findings show that that the Wikipedists responded quickly and generated collaborative works, with articles based on and built around a scientific and health perspective. (AU)

Este artigo estuda os textos sobre "Covid-19" e "Pandemia por Covid-19" em quatro versões linguísticas da Wikipédia (inglês, espanhol, italiano e português). O período de estudo começa com a denominação oficial da doença como Covid-19, em 11 de fevereiro de 2020, pela Organização Mundial da Saúde e desde a declaração por esta instituição de pandemia causada pela doença, em 11 de março de 2020. Em ambos os casos se estuda até 11 de abril de 2020. A pesquisa aborda o modo de criação e de leitura dessas publicações, analisando se são trabalhos construídos a partir de referências científicas e da saúde ou da imprensa em geral. Este projeto mostra como os wikipedistas reagiram rapidamente e geraram um trabalho colaborativo, com artigos argumentados e construídos a partir de uma perspectiva científica e da saúde. (AU)