Advertisement

The European Project OpenUP: OPENing UP New Methods, Indicators and Tools for Peer Review, Impact Measurement and Dissemination of Research Results

  • Alessia Bardi
  • Vittore Casarosa
  • Paolo Manghi
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 806)

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.

Keywords

Open access Open science Open scholarship Peer review Impact assessment 

References

  1. 1.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    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 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dinsmore, A., Dolby, K.: Alternative perspectives on impact: The potential of ALMs and altmetrics to inform funders about research impact. PLoS Biol. 12 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gauffriau, M., Larsen, P.O.: Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies. Scientometrics 64(1), 85–93 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 1041-0031Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 2013Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haustein, S., Sugimoto, C.R., Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication. Aslib J. Inf. Manage. 67(3) (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hicks, D., Wouters, P.: The leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520(7548), 429–431 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    OpenAIRE: OpenAIRE Open Peer Review Tenders: Selected Projects, Newsletter, 16 September 2015. https://www.openaire.eu/openaire-open-peer-review-tenders
  16. 16.
    Peroni, S., Dutton, A., Gray, T., Shotton, D.: Setting our bibliographic references free: towards open citation data. J. Documentation 71(2), 253–277 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Roemer, R.C., Borchardt, R.: From bibliometrics to altmetrics. Coll. Res. Libr. News 73(10), 596–600 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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
  23. 23.
    Waltman, L., Van Eck, N.J.: The inconsistency of the h-index. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 63(2), 406–415 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ISTI-CNRPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations