Читать книгу Information Practices and Knowledge in Health - Группа авторов - Страница 17

[ABD 19] ABDILL R.J., BLEKHMAN R., “Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints”, eLife, vol. 8, p. e45133, available at: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45133, 2019.

[BAR 06] BARBOUR V., CHINNOCK P., COHEN B. et al., “The impact of open access upon public health”, Bulletin of World Health Organization, vol. 84, no. 5, pp. 339–400, 2006.

[BOU 17a] BOUDRY C., DURAND-BARTHEZ M., “Publications en libre accès en biologie–médecine: Historique et état des lieux en 2016”, Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 169–181, 2017.

[BOU 17b] BOUKACEM-ZEGHMOURI C., CORDONNIER S., SPANO W. et al., “‘Publicize or Perish’: Nouvelles formes de circulation et d’évaluation des savoirs scientifiques sur le Web”, Les Cahiers de La SFSIC, no. 14, pp. 279–284, 2017.

[BOU 17c] BOUKACEM-ZEGHMOURI, C., NICHOLAS, D., “La vie en gold: Enjeux et risques pour les chercheurs”, I2D – Information, données & documents, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 10–11, 2017.

[BOU 19a] BOUKACEM-ZEGHMOURI C., RODRIGUEZ-BRAVO B., “L’information scientifique à l’épreuve de sa médiatisation”, Les Enjeux de l’information et de la communication, available at: https://lesenjeux.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/2019/articles-revue/dossier-2019-l-information-scientifique-a-l-epreuve-de-sa-mediatisation/, 2019.

[BOU 19b] BOUKACEM-ZEGHMOURI C., BERTHAUD, C., “The stakes of repositories and bibliodiversity: Community approaches”, ELPUB 2019 23rd Edition of the International Conference on Electronic Publishing, Marseille, France, June 2019.

[BRA 20] BRAINARD J., “Scientists are drowning in COVID-19 papers. Can new tools keep them afloat?”, Science, available at: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc7839, 13 May 2020.

[BUT 17] BUTLER D., “Gates foundation announces open-access publishing venture”, Nature, vol. 543, no. 7647, p. 599, 2017.

[CAM 18] CAMACHO M., RECKLEY, L.K., “Predatory journals: Enough is enough”, Laryngoscope, vol. 128, no. 7, p. 1510, available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27178, 2018.

[CIT 13] CITTON Y., “Économie de l’attention et nouvelles exploitations numériques”, Multitudes, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 163–175, 2013.

[COB 18] COBEY K.D., LALU M.M., SKIDMORE B. et al., “What is a predatory journal? A scoping review”, F1000Research, available at: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15256.2, 2018.

[COL 20] COLAVIZZA G., COSTAS R., TRAAG V.A. et al., “A scientometric overview of CORD-19”, bioRxiv, available at: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.20.046144, 2020.

[DIL 18] DILLAERTS H., “Paysage de l’Open Access: Complexité et hybridation des modèles de publication et de communication scientifique”, URFIST de Rennes, available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13_T-bvDwO-UiH86o7lqHJtAcDaStEv2K/view, 2018.

[ELS 18] ELSE H., “Radical open-access plan could spell end to journal subscriptions”, Nature, available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06178-7, 4 September 2018.

[ELS 19] ELSE H., “How to bring preprints to the charged field of medicine”, Nature, available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01806-2, 6 June 2019.

[FIN 12] FINCH J., Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: How to expand access to research publications, Report, Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings, RIN, 2012.

[FRY 11] FRY J., PROBETS S., CREASER C. et al., PEER behavioural research: Authors and users vis-à-vis journals and repositories. Final report, available at: http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/Final_revision_-_behavioural_baseline_report_-_20_01_10.pdf, 2011.

[FU 19] FU D.U., HUGHEY J.J., “Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article”, eLife, available at: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52646, 2019.

[GIN 97] GINSPARG P., “Winners and losers in the global research village”, The Serials Librarian, vol. 1997, nos 3–4, pp. 83–95, 1997.

[GIN 18] GINGRAS Y., “Les transformations de la production du savoir: De l’unité de connaissance à l’unité comptable”, Zilsel, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 139–152, available at: https://doi.org/10.3917/zil.004.0139, 2018.

[GRU 19] GRUDNIEWICZ A., MOHER D., COBEY K.D. et al., “Predatory journals: No definition, no defence”, Nature, vol. 576, pp. 210–212, 2019.

[HOP 19] HOPF H., KRIEF A., MEHTA G. et al., “Fake science and the knowledge crisis: Ignorance can be fatal”, Royal Society Open Science, vol. 6, no. 5, available at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190161, 2019.

[HOR 20] HORBACH S., “Pandemic publishing: Medical journals drastically speed up their publication process for Covid-19”, bioRxiv, available at: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.18.045963, 2020.

[JOH 18] JOHNSON R., WATKINSON A., MABE M., The STM Report. An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Publishing: 1968–2018, International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, The Hague, 2018.

[KIR 20] KIRKHAM J.J., PENFOLD N., MURPHY F. et al., “A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting”, bioRxiv, available at: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578, 2020.

[KOU 20] KOUSHA K., THELWALL M., “COVID-19 publications: Database coverage, citations, readers, tweets, news, Facebook walls, Reddit posts”, Arxiv (pre-print), available at: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2004/2004.10400.pdf, 2020.

[LAR 18] LARIVIÈRE V., SUGIMOTO C.R., “Do authors comply when funders enforce open access to research?”, Nature, available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07101-w, 24 October 2018.

[MIR 18] MIROWSKI P., “The future(s) of open science”, Social Studies of Science, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 171–203, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718772086, 2018.

[MOM 03] MOMEN M., “Equitable access to scientific and technical information for health”, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 81, no. 10, p. 700, available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2572335/, 2003.

[MOO 15] MOORHEAD L.L., HOZMEYER C., MAGGIO L.A. et al., “In an age of open access to research policies: Physician and public health NGO staff research use and policy awareness”, PLOS ONE, vol. 10, no. 7, available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129708, 2015.

[NIC 19] NICHOLAS D., WATKINSON A., BOUKACEM-ZEGHMOURI C. et al., “So, are early career researchers the harbingers of change?”, Learned Publishing, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 237–247, available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1232, 2019.

[OLS 20] OLSSON L., LINDELÖW C.H., ÖSTERLUND L. et al., “Cancelling with the world’s largest scholarly publisher: Lessons from the Swedish experience of having no access to Elsevier”, Insights, 33, available at: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.507, 2020.

[PEN 20] PENFOLD N.C., POLKA J.K., “Technical and social issues influencing the adoption of preprints in the life sciences”, PLOS Genetics, vol. 16, no. 4, p. e1008565, available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008565, 2020.

[PIW 18] PIWOWAR H., PRIEM J., LARIVIÈRE V. et al., “The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access”, Peer J, vol. 6, p. e4375, available at: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375, 2018.

[RIF 05] RIFKIN J., L’Age de l’accès, la nouvelle culture du capitalisme, La Découverte, Paris, 2005.

[ROS 18] ROSS-HELLAUER T., SCHMIDT B., KRAMER B., “Are funder open access platforms a good idea?”, SAGE Open, pp. 1–16, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018816717, 2018.

[SEV 19] SEVER R., ROEDER T., HINDLE S. et al., “BioRxiv: The preprint server for biology”, bioRxiv, available at: https://doi.org/10.1101/833400, 2019.

[SIL 20] SILER K., “Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy”, SocArXiv, available at: https://doi.org/10.31235/OSF.IO/6R274, 2020.

[SUB 08] SUBER P., “An open access mandate for the national institutes of health”, Open medicine: A Peer-Reviewed, Independent, Open-Access Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 14–16, available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3090178/, 2008.

[TEN 16] TENNANT P.T., WALDNER F., JACQUES D.C. et al., “The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review”, F1000Research, vol. 5, p. 632, available at: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3, 2016.

[TEN 18] TENNANT J., BAUIN S., JAMES S. et al., “The evolving preprint landscape: Introductory report for the knowledge exchange working group on preprints”, MetaArXiv, available at: 10.31222/osf.io/796tu, 2018.

[WAL 06] WALPORT M., KILEY R., “Open access, UK PubMed central and the wellcome trust”, Journal of The Royal Society of Medecine, vol. 99, pp. 438–439, 2006.

[WIL 94] WILLIS K., ALEXANDER K., GOSLING W. et al., “TULIP – The University Licensing Program: Experiences at the University of Michigan”, Serials Review, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 39–47, 1994.

[ZER 04] ZERHOUNI E.A., “NIH public access policy”, Science, vol. 306, no. 5703, p. 1895, 2004.

Chapter written by Chérifa BOUKACEM-ZEGHMOURI and Hans DILLAERTS.

1 ¹ “Sharing research data and findings relevant to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak”: https://wellcome.ac.uk/coronavirus-covid-19/open-data.

2 ² “Call to Action to the Tech Community on New Machine Readable COVID-19 Dataset”: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/call-action-tech-community-new-machine-readable-covid-19-dataset/.

3 ³ “Statement on the Global COVID-19 Pandemic and Its Impact on Library Services and Resources”: https://icolc.net/statement/statement-global-covid-19-pandemic-and-its-impact-library-services-and-resources.

4 ⁴ “Budapest Open Access Initiative”: https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read.

5 ⁵ “European Commission launches online pilot project to facilitate access to scientific articles on EU-funded research”, European Commission press release (2008): https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/IP_08_1262.

6 ⁶ “Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/790 of 25 April 2018 on access to and preservation of scientific information”: https://op.europa.eu/fr/publication-detail/-/publication/2ea66d3f-649a-11e8-ab9c-01aa75ed71a1.

7 ⁷ “Springer to acquire BioMed Central Group”, Springer press release (2008): https://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/pressreleases?SGWID=0-11002-6-805003-0.

8 ⁸ STMPublishing (2020), “Springer Nature achieves new milestone in 2019 in publishing over 100,000 OA articles in one year, and is the largest OA publisher of primary research”: https://www.stm-publishing.com/springer-nature-achieves-new-milestone-in-2019-in-publishing-over-100000-oa-articles-in-one-year-and-is-the-largest-oa-publisher-of-primary-research/.

9 ⁹ “Read and Publish (Springer Compact) agreements”: https://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/springer-open-choice/springer-compact/springer-contact-intro-/293018.

10 ¹⁰ “Beall’s List: Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers”: https://web.archive.Org/web/20170112125427/https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/.

11 ¹¹ Cabells International (2020). The Blacklist: https://www2-cabells-com.ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/about-predatory.

12 ¹² Adjective borrowed from [ELS 18].

13 ¹³ Source: cOAlition S, Making full and immediate Open Access a reality: https://www.coalition-s.org/wp-content/uploads/271118_cOAlitionS_Guidance.pdf.

14 ¹⁴ In the Humanities and Social Sciences, Plan S has been heavily criticized by communities that do not have the financial means to consider APC payments, even though these are far below the APC rate within Health: https://plansinhss.home.blog/.

15 ¹⁵ Source: https://wellcome.ac.uk/news/wellcome-updates-open-access-policy-align-coalition-s.

16 ¹⁶ Source: https://rxivist.org/stats.

17 ¹⁷ Jussieu Call for Open Science and Bibliodiversity: https://jussieucall.org/.

18 ¹⁸ “Power to the Preprint”, The official PLOS Blog: https://theplosblog.plos.org/2018/05/power-to-the-preprint/.

19 ¹⁹ Source: https://www.nihlibrary.nih.gov/plos.

20 ²⁰ Morin H., Cabut S., Larousserie D., Santi P., Herzberg N., “Coronavirus : le “Lancetgate” révèle des failles de l’édition scientifique”, Le Monde, June 15, 2012, https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2020/06/15/covid-19-le-lancetgate-revele-des-failles-de-l-edition-scientifique_6042946_1650684.html.

21 ²¹ The LancetGate has created a controversy around the Peer Review system, as it is practiced today, without necessarily taking into account the data collected and giving rise to the analyses.