Search

Presents findings from a study into the attitudes and practices of pandemic‐era early career researchers (ECRs) in regard to obtaining access to the formally published scholarly literature, which focused on alternative providers, notably ResearchGate and Sci‐Hub. The study is a part of the Harbingersproject that has been exploring the work lives and scholarly communication practices of ECRs in pre‐pandemic times and during the pandemic, and utilizes data from two rounds of interviews with around 170 ECRs from the sciences and social sciences in eight countries. Findings show that alternative providers, as represented by ResearchGate and Sci‐Hub, have become established and appear to be gaining ground. However, there are considerable country‐ and discipline‐associated differences. ECRs' country‐specific level of usage of the alternative providers is partly traceable to the adequacy of library provisions, although there are other factors at play in shaping ECRs' attitudes and practices, most notably convenience and time saving, as well as the fact that these platforms have become embedded in the scholarly dashboard. There is a dearth of evidence of the impact of the pandemic on ECRs' ways of obtaining scholarly papers.

Presents early data from an investigation of the work lives and scholarly communication practices of 177 early career researchers (ECRs) from eight countries. Utilizing mainly coded and textual data from interviews, the paper reports on the findings that pertain to publishing papers in peer reviewed journals. We examine which factors are taken into account when choosing the journal to publish their research in, identifying similarities/differences by country, age, academic status and discipline. Also, explored is whether the pandemic has changed decision‐making. Main findings are that the aim for ECRs is to publish in the ‘best’ journals, variably measured by prestige, impact factor, standards of peer review and indexation. Appropriateness of audience is the only factor unrelated to the quality of the journal that figures highly among the factors that guide ECRs in the process of selecting a journal. The pandemic has made little difference to the majority of ECRs when they decide on a journal for publishing their research. However, there is a greater awareness of the need for a faster turnover rate, brought on by the importance accorded to speedy publication during the pandemic.

The Harbinger project was a 3‐year‐long international study of the changing attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers (ECRs). One of the aims of the project was to discover if ECRs were adopting disrupting platforms that, legitimately or illegitimately, promote openness and sharing. It has been alleged that such an adoption appeals to them as Millennials. More than 100 ECRs from seven countries were questioned annually, and questions about Sc‐Hub were raised as part of discussions about discovery and access. Interview data were supplemented by desk research and Google Trends statistics. It was found that Sci‐Hub use was increasing and that a quarter of the ECRs now use it, with French ECRs being the biggest users. However, Sci‐Hub is making little headway with ECRs from the UK, USA, Malaysia, and China, although in China's case, this can be explained by it being banned and the country having its own equivalent, www.91lib.com. Sci‐Hub is used as much for convenience as necessity; use is not connected to the strength of library provision and and it has been suggested that it represents a bigger threat to publishers than ResearchGate, whose star might be waning.

This study investigates the extent to which open access (OA) publishing models affect French researchers’ attitudes. Research questions were: What place does OA have in attitudes of French researchers in mathematics, biology, and computer science? Are French researchers aware of new publishing models? Do they publish in these new outlets? What funds do they use? What kind of feedback and satisfaction can we observe? We used a quantitative approach to identify structural trends. From April to May 2015, the authors gathered empirical data (interviews, training, and meetings) on researchers’ opinions and understanding of OA publishing models to define the variables and build up the questionnaire that was sent out in June 2015. The findings of the survey demonstrated that, when choosing journals to publish their articles, researchers did not rate OA as a criterion but rather impact, prestige, and symbolic recognition. Publishing OA articles is only in its first stages in the publishing practices of researchers. Lack of policy, prescriptions, and lack of rewards explain why OA is not a factor that determines the publishing strategies of French researchers. The researchers who take the risk of OA publishing are biologists, the older and more experienced researchers, and those who are members of editorial teams.

Training from institutions on publishing norms could help to thwart predatory publishers.

This paper presents selected findings from the first year of a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. Specifically, the aims of the paper are to show: (1) how much experience and knowledge ECRshad of peer review – both as authors and as reviewers; (2) what they felt the benefits were and what suggestions they had for improvement; (3) what they thought of open peer review (OPR); and (4) who they felt should organize peer review. Data were obtained from 116 science and social science ECRs, most of whom had published and were subject to in‐depth interviews conducted face‐to‐face, via Skype, or over the telephone. An extensive literature review was also conducted to provide a context and supplementary data for the findings. The main findings were that: (1) most ECRSare well informed about peer review and generally like the experience, largely because of the learning experiences obtained; (2) they like blind double‐peer review, but would like some improvements, especially with regards to reviewer quality; (3) most are uncomfortable with the idea of OPR; and (4) most would like publishers to continue organizing peer review because of their perceived independence.

The article presents a survey on usage statistics management in academic libraries in France. The objective is to provide empirical evidence on real methods and processes, best practices and problems experienced by librarians. The survey adapted Baker and Read's methodology to the French context. One-third of French academic libraries answered the survey. Results show that usage statistics are crucial for librarians' daily work. COUNTER reports are mostly used, specifically the JR1 format. Two-thirds of the libraries enhance the usage statistics with other data. Librarians face three major difficulties: lack of time, lack of usage data produced by French vendors, and the need for customized tools. The article contains a short literature review and ends with recommendations for further studies. It is the first published survey on usage data management in France and allows for comparison with results from other countries.

Étudier la corrélation entre la commande d’articles à l’INIST-CNRS (Institut National de l’Information Scientifique et Technique) et leurs citations pour 89 revues de pharmacologie et pharmacie sur la période 1992-2004. Étudier l’influence de l’arrivée de la version électronique des revues.

Information about the international conference on usage-related approaches to academic digital libraries in November 2010 in Lille, France is presented. Topics include usage assessment, importance of deep log analysis methodology for usage assessment and the ability of using the same usage data for at least four goals. The conference features several speakers including David Nicholas, Marshall McLuhan and David Nicholas.