Abstract
Open Access and Open Scholarship are substantially changing the way scholarly artefacts are evaluated, published and assessed, while the introduction of new technologies and media in scientific workflows has changed the “how and to whom” science is communicated, and how stakeholders interact with the scientific community. OpenUP addresses key aspects and challenges of the currently transforming science landscape. Its main objectives are to: (i) identify and determine new mechanisms, processes and tools for the peer-review of all types of research results (publications, data, software, processes, etc.); (ii) explore, identify and classify innovative dissemination mechanisms with an outreach aim towards businesses and industry, education, and society as a whole; (iii) analyse and identify a set of novel indicators that assess the impact of research results and correlate them to channels of dissemination.
OpenUP is engaged with research communities from life sciences, social sciences, energy, arts and humanities, implementing a series of hands-on pilots to assess and verify the proposed new mechanisms for the cycle review-disseminate-assess, to understand how these mechanisms correspond to the requirements and needs of the research communities. The final outcome of the project will be a set of concrete, practical, validated policy recommendations and guidelines for all stakeholders, namely academia, industry and government institutions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Aksnes, D.W., Schneider, J.W., Gunnarsson, M.: Ranking national research systems by citation Indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods. J. Informetrics 6, 36–43 (2012)
Aleksic, J., Alexa, A., Attwood, T.K., et al.: An Open Science Peer Review Oath [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4wf, 9 January 2015] F1000Research, 3, 271 (2014). https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.5686.2
Assante, M., Candela, L., Castelli, D., Manghi, P., Pagano, P.: Science 2.0 repositories: time for a change in scholarly communication. D-Lib Mag. 21(1/2) (2015). https://doi.org/10.1045/january2015-assante
Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., Wouters, P.: Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective? J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(10), 2003–2019 (2014)
Craig, I.D., Plume, A.M., McVeigh, M.E., Pringle, J., Amin, M.: Do open access articles have greater citation impact?: a critical review of the literature. J. Informetrics 1(3), 239–248 (2007)
Dinsmore, A., Dolby, K.: Alternative perspectives on impact: The potential of ALMs and altmetrics to inform funders about research impact. PLoS Biol. 12 (2014)
Egghe, L., Rousseau, R., van Hooydonk, G.: Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 51(2), 145–157 (2000)
Gauffriau, M., Larsen, P.O.: Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies. Scientometrics 64(1), 85–93 (2005)
Gunn, W.: Social signals reflect academic impact: what it means when a scholar adds a paper to mendeley. Inf. Stand. Q. 25(2), 1–8 (2013). ISSN 1041-0031
Guthrie, S., Guérin, B., Wu, H., Sharif I., Wooding, S.: Alternatives to Peer Review in Research Project Funding, RAND report 2013 update. Rand Europe, April 2013
Haustein, S., Sugimoto, C.R., Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication. Aslib J. Inf. Manage. 67(3) (2015)
Hicks, D., Wouters, P.: The leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520(7548), 429–431 (2015)
Langfeldt, L.: The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Res. Eval. 15(1), 31–41 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3152/147154406781776039
Liang, X., Su, L.Y.F., Yeo, S.K., Scheufele, D., Brossard, D., Xenos, M., Corley, E.: Building buzz: (Scientists) communicating science in new media environments. J. Mass Commun. Q. 91(4), 1–20 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699014550092
OpenAIRE: OpenAIRE Open Peer Review Tenders: Selected Projects, Newsletter, 16 September 2015. https://www.openaire.eu/openaire-open-peer-review-tenders
Peroni, S., Dutton, A., Gray, T., Shotton, D.: Setting our bibliographic references free: towards open citation data. J. Documentation 71(2), 253–277 (2015)
Ponte, D., Simon, J.: Scholarly communication 2.0: Exploring researchers’ opinions on web 2.0 for scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and dissemination. Serials Rev. 37(3), 149–156 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2011.10765376
Pöschl, U.: Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6(33) (2012). https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00033
Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J.: If you Build it, Will They Come? A Research Information Network report, July 2010. http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/web_2.0_screen.pdf
Roemer, R.C., Borchardt, R.: From bibliometrics to altmetrics. Coll. Res. Libr. News 73(10), 596–600 (2012)
Sotudeh, H., Ghasempour, Z., Yaghtin, M.: The citation advantage of author-pays model: the case of Springer and Elsevier OA journals. Scientometrics 104, 581–608 (2015)
Su, L.Y.-F., Akin, H., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D.A., Xenos, M.A.: Science news consumption patterns and their implications for public understanding of science. J. Mass Commun. Q. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015586415
Waltman, L., Van Eck, N.J.: The inconsistency of the h-index. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 63(2), 406–415 (2012)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bardi, A., Casarosa, V., Manghi, P. (2018). The European Project OpenUP: OPENing UP New Methods, Indicators and Tools for Peer Review, Impact Measurement and Dissemination of Research Results. In: Serra, G., Tasso, C. (eds) Digital Libraries and Multimedia Archives. IRCDL 2018. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 806. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73165-0_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73165-0_24
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73164-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73165-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)