Search

In the ecosystem of scientific communication the open is taking decisive positions (plan S on publication in OpenAccess journals for Europe, unsubscription of Elsevier's electronic collection in Sweden...), and journals face the challenge of publishing the research data underlying the article. This is changing the panorama of scientific publishing, with the appearance of new models of journals, such as "data journals" (García-García, Lopez Borrull, Peset, 2015), or of articles, such as "data papers" or Elsevier's "Data in brief". This trend stems from the policies and mandates of funders such as NIH (2003) or the H2020 programme (from 2013); but it also stems from the willingness of authors, who like to release the data while uploading the article to the journal platform. In the latest survey by the Danish National Research Foundation (Open Access to data, 2017), 32% of researchers attach their data as supplementary material to the article; although this preference was previously corroborated (Piwowar and Chapman, 2010). The additional material route may face some problems: storage limit, due to the risks for its correct preservation and interoperability; access, if the title is not subscribed; or supply by interlibrary loan... (NISO, 2013; Peset, 2018). To minimize these problems, the authors advocate a mixed approach, which some journals already recommend and practice depositing data in a repository and establishing a reciprocal link in the article. The discipline of documentation has been fully involved in the study of the way of repositories. The work of CSUC (2017) that establishes a clear and concise comparative table with the technological solutions that can be used stands out. But there is very little literature on solutions for journals. Publishers and authors face each other alone, turning to their libraries and in the best of cases to university academic publishers (Hernandez and Perez, 2018) to solve problems. There are papers that study journal policies with respect to their data (Vasilevsky et al., 2017; Aleixandre et al., 2019), but we are not aware of any systematic review of the technological solutions offered to journals to meet this challenge. This poster presents the indicators that must be collected in order to offer comparative information on the tools offered to journals (Dataverse, Figshare and DRYAD). In addition to aspects already collected by previous works, these have been added on: registration of the journal's policy; connection with a standard system of scientific publication; number of journals and editors; type of identifier, if different; and specific services. With the iterative design method we will obtain a definitive table.

In the ecosystem of scholar communication where the openess is taking increasingly decisive positions (plan S on publication in OA journals for Europe, unsubscription of the electronic collection of Elsevier by Sweden ...) journals face a new challenge: take on the publication of the research data underlying an article. In the latest survey of the Danish National Research Foundation (Open Access to data, 2017) 32% of researchers attach their data as supplementary material to the article and also previous works corroborate this preference (Piwowar and Chapman, 2010). The poster shows pros and cons of the supplementary-material-road (NISO, 2013; Peset, 2018). To minimize the problems we advocate to deposit the data in a repository and establish a reciprocal link in the article. We are not aware of any systematic review of the technological solutions offered to journals to meet this challenge. The aim of this work is to offer comparative information on the solutions most integrated with journals (such as Dataverse, Figshare and Zenodo), with their functionalities and current prices.

Archives, libraries, museums and documentation centers were memory institutions par excellence. Changes arise in the management of cultural and scientific heritage: Digital preservation: semantic web and cloud Information dissemination and diffusion: open Access Government transparency: o-gov and Opendata