共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 359 毫秒
1.
大数据时代,科研数据开放共享的潮流势不可挡。随着我国对科研数据开放的重视程度逐渐加深,探究高校这一“主阵地”中科研人员数据共享的意愿及影响因素,对提高高校科研人员乃至整个社会的科研数据开放共享意愿具有重要的实践意义。文章针对自然科学和社会科学的科研人员展开半结构化访谈,运用程序化扎根理论对访谈数据进行分析,构建高校科研人员数据开放共享意愿及影响因素模型。研究发现,高校科研人员数据开放共享意愿主要受成本、风险以及需求等因素影响;相比社会科学领域,自然科学领域的高校科研人员数据开放共享意愿更高。研究提出相应对策建议,为社会各方有针对性地推动科研数据开放共享提供智力支持。 相似文献
2.
对《中文社会科学引文索引(2014~2015年)》收录的533种期刊的开放存取现状进行调查和分析,结果显示国内哲学社会科学核心期刊的开放存取有了长足的进展。国家哲学社会科学学术期刊数据库是最主要平台,但仍需加大建设和宣传力度。期刊网站是实现期刊实时开放存取的最主要平台,高校期刊数据库开始出现。 相似文献
3.
学术出版和学术资源联盟经过多年发展,其在开放存取领域广泛促进学术信息资源的获取与共享,促进新的学术交流模式,减少图书馆的财政压力等卓有成效的战略实践,以及在开放存取的经费、质量控制、版权等主要问题上的做法对我国开放存取的发展有借鉴意义。我国应通过提高开放存取意识,争取政府支持,研究和制定开放存取期刊发展的政策;注重整理、宣传及利用;收集并整合开放存取资源等措施促进开放存取的发展。 相似文献
4.
5.
随着开放存取运动的迅速发展,开放存取期刊数量大幅增加,文章以DOAJ平台上的图情领域开放存取期刊作为研究对象,分析了解图情领域开放存取期刊发行现况、开放存取政策及期刊的影响力。同时,从制定合理的开放存取政策、通过统一平台集成开放存取期刊资源、实施同行评审制保证开放存取期刊的质量等方面提出了促进该学科期刊开放存取的建议。 相似文献
6.
7.
本文以CSSCI的535种来源期刊作为调研对象,旨在深入了解我国人文社会科学期刊开放存取的情况.本文调查的范围包括535种来源期刊是否有独立的网站、期刊的全文是否可以从网站中免费阅读或下载、期刊可开放存取的类型等.经调研得出了535种来源期刊的开放存取的现况,并对73种可开放存取的人文社科期刊进行了详细的统计分析.最后对如何促进人文社科期刊开放存取提出了建议. 相似文献
8.
美国开放存取运动中的政策博弈 总被引：2，自引：1，他引：1
9.
10.
11.
[目的/意义]通过跟踪全球开放获取发展态势,以期为我国的开放获取实践提供参考借鉴。[方法/过程]以2015年1月到2016年12月为时间窗口,通过网络调研和归纳研究的方法,从开放获取知识库、开放出版、开放数据和开放科学四个方面分析和总结全球开放获取相关政策和实践进展,并对开放获取发展趋势和所面临的挑战进行了归纳。[结果/结论]全球开放获取知识库从重点关注资源存储向资源利用转变;开放出版由通过政策促进规模出版转向价格和质量控制;开放数据关注重点从行业领域上升到国家发展战略的高度,发展重点由基础设施建设转向数据存储和利用等政策的制定;开放科学从制定理想规划和落实方案到不确定的阶段。 相似文献
12.
David Nicholas Anthony Watkinson Abdullah Abrizah Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Jie Xu Marzena
wigo&#x; Eti Herman 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(2):132-141
A study from the Harbingers research project provides a comprehensive assessment of the main features of the scholarly communications system as viewed by early career researchers (ECRs) in the final year of the study (2018). Aspects covered are: discovery and access, authorship practices, peer review, publishing strategies, open access publishing, open data, sharing, collaboration, social media, metrics, impact, reputation, libraries, publishers, and scholarly transformations. Nearly 120 science and social science researchers from seven countries were questioned about these 16 aspects. It was found that some scholarly features work well for ECRs, and in this category can be included: discovery and access, authorship practices, sharing, collaboration, and publishers. Reputation, publishing strategies, and impact are more problematical, and they, in turn, cause tensions regarding some other factors – social media, open access, and open data. Of the rest, libraries are largely invisible, and ECRs have conflicting views concerning ethical behaviour. Few envisage that transformational change will take place in the next 5 years. 相似文献
13.
Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain
Remedios Melero Juan-José Boté-Vericad Alexandre López-Borrull 《Learned Publishing》2023,36(2):178-193
Pillars of open science are often included within the editorial policies of scholarly journals, including policies on open access publication, availability of underlying research data, preprints and open peer review. The aim of this paper is to examine and analyse perceptions and editorial practices related to open access, preprints, open research data and open peer review, from the perspective of editors of scientific journals published in Spain, to gain an insight into editorial policies related to open science. Results and data were obtained by a combined method of online interviews and an online questionnaire. The online survey was sent to editors from journals indexed in the Dulcinea directory, which at the time of the study included 1875 academic journals. A total of 420 responses (22.4%) were obtained. The results indicated that 92% of the journals were open access journals, 2% of the journals conducted open peer review, 15% of the journals had instructions to allow archiving preprints, and out of 375 responses, only 59 journals (16%) reported having a policy on underlying research data. Based on these results, there is a trend in favour of open access, but the perceived barriers to open peer review outweighed the advantages. There is also some reluctance to allow preprints to be made available. This concern might be because editors want authors and readers to read and cite the contents published in their journals, rather than their preprint versions. 相似文献
14.
国际开放科学研究进展 总被引：4，自引：1，他引：3
[目的/意义] 开放科学可以使科学研究更具协作性、透明性和高效性,已引起全世界的广泛关注。从国际视角梳理和分析开放科学当前研究主题有利于推动该领域发展,为后续研究提供参考和借鉴。[方法/过程] 运用文献调查与信息可视化相结合的方法,选取Web of Science平台收录的关于开放科学研究的论文,并结合相关政府文件、研究报告、新闻报道等文献,揭示国际开放科学研究的主题分布。[结果/结论] 国际开放科学的研究主题包括：开放获取研究、数据共享研究、成果重用研究、知识创新研究、基础设施建设研究。未来建议从政策体系、基础设施、主体参与3个方面进行系统、深入研究。 相似文献
15.
16.
图书馆学、情报学与档案学是同源学科,它们共同关注社会信息交流系统,是在信息技术支持下面向用户需求的信息采集、信息组织与信息产品形成过程。与其他信息学科相比,它们以社会认识论信息为基础,强调以相关为核心的信息运动过程,更关注信息意义的社会构建过程。它们的差异主要体现在以不同用户服务目标为基础的服务理念差异(图书馆的全民服务、情报的特定服务与档案的区别服务),以及由此导致的信息资源选择差异、信息序化方法及程度差异。 相似文献
17.
18.
In this paper, we conduct a comparative analysis to examine the characteristics and evolutionary trends of open access (OA) publications in natural and social sciences. We use data recorded by Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Journal Citation Reports during 2001–2015 as the main source. We then comparatively analyse the characteristics of natural and social sciences in terms of historical evolution, main contributors, and distribution of OA journals and publications across different languages, disciplines, and impact factor quartiles. Our results suggest that both natural and social sciences experienced dramatic growth of OA journals since 2009, but the share of social science OA journals within journal impact factor quartile 1 is much lower than that of natural sciences. While natural and social sciences share some similarities in OA publishing activities, such as main countries of contribution, they differ greatly in dimensions such as OA ratio across specific disciplines, countries, and publishing languages. We acknowledge that OA publishing offers a level playing field for traditionally disadvantaged languages, countries, and scientific disciplines, but meanwhile, the advancement of high‐quality OA publishing needs more targeted and sophisticated approaches to tackle differences in natural and social sciences. 相似文献
19.
David Nicholas Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Anthony Watkinson Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Eti Herman Jie Xu Abdullah Abrizah Marzena Świgoń 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(3):205-217
This study presents findings from the first year of the Harbingers research project, a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. The study recruited 116 science and social science ECRs from seven countries who were subject to in‐depth interviews, and this paper reports on findings regarding publishing and authorship practices and attitudes. A major objective was to determine whether ECRs are taking the myriad opportunities proffered by new digital innovations, developing within the context of open science, open access, and social media, to publish their research. The main finding is that these opportunities are generally not taken because ECRs are constrained by convention and the precarious employment environment they inhabit and know what is best for them, which is to publish (in high impact factor journals) or perish. 相似文献
20.
［目的/意义］ 政策体系是推动开放科学发展的基本制度保障,利用政策工具分析欧美国家与国际组织发布的94份开放科学政策文本特征,为中国开放科学政策制定提供参考。［方法/过程］ 提出政策工具、科研生命周期与政策客体三维政策分析框架,采用文本分析方法解析政策发布、内容、结构等特征。［结果/结论］ 政策发布频率升高,发布地区和发布主体多元,政策关注问题呈现社会化向度,特别是新冠肺炎疫情暴发后社会问题关注增高,开放科学将是未来国际科学政策热点。中国开放科学政策规划正处于萌芽期,建议基于国际既有经验加强顶层设计,重视协调机制,致力于解决科研系统内部与社会外部问题并举,优化政策工具结构,覆盖科学全生命周期,建立具有我国特色的开放科学政策体系。 相似文献