101010.pl is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
101010.pl czyli najstarszy polski serwer Mastodon. Posiadamy wpisy do 2048 znaków.

Server stats:

484
active users

#webofscience

0 posts0 participants0 posts today

Earlier this week an opinion piece authored by me and a number of great colleagues was published on the @upstream blog. Our piece introduces criteria for innovation-friendly bibliographic databases doi.org/10.54900/d3ck1-skq19.

We express our deep concerns about the treatment of @eLife by the #WebOfScience and #Scopus databases. We see this as an example of databases hindering rather than supporting innovation in scholarly communication and research assessment.

@cwts

Upstream · Criteria for Bibliographic Databases in a Well-Functioning Scholarly Communication and Research Assessment EcosystemBibliographic databases should support innovation and experimentation. Here, we offer four criteria for innovation-friendly bibliographic databases. We urge the global research community to use databases that support and do not hinder innovation in scholarly communication and research assessment.

Good news at #CNRS Open Science Day:

"CNRS's cancellation of #Scopus subscription will help support its full transition to open, non-commercial model, a point reiterated by Antoine Petit ... 'We will eventually need to stop using commercial databases for bibliometrics and bibliography'. In the meantime CNRS has maintained subscription to Clarivate's #WebOfScience database while free bibliographic databases are being developed like open access not-for-profit solution @OpenAlex."

@BarcelonaDORI

Replied in thread

The decision by #WebOfScience "therefore rewards journals for continuing the unhelpful practice of keeping peer review information hidden and unintentionally presenting incomplete and inadequate studies as sound science and punishes those journals that are more transparent."

Does the African academy need its own citation index? by David Mills & Toluwase Asubiaro

"... journals published in the global peripheries, in small fields, or in languages other than English, struggle to get indexed. In 2023, if one excludes South Africa, only around 60 of the 30,000 plus journals indexed in Web of Science were published from Sub Saharan Africa."

globalafricasciences.org/issue

GA Sciencesart-07-05-en | GA Sciences
Replied in thread

@eric_normandeau @jonny @LudoWaltman @eLife

It's all too clear, isn't it. #WebOfScience would like the status quo to not change at all – they are profiting enormously from it. Whereas scientists would like the status quo to change – our grants are being drained dry from publishing fees, our libraries are also drained dry from subscription fees, and academic administrators spend countless moneys on bibliometrics supplied by Clarivate to "evaluate" academics for their "throughput" – in quotes because using these words for what they actually do (counting papers and citations) is a perversion.

By the way #Clarivate owns #EndNote, #Publons and #ScholarOne – we really ought to not use *any* of these. It's in our power.

Stupid decision by #WebOfScience to pause indexing of @eLife articles elifesciences.org/inside-elife.

Fully agree with eLife that "this decision from Web of Science stifles attempts to show how publishing and peer review can be improved using open science principles, and instead gives the appearance of ongoing support for established and ineffective publishing models that have needed to change for so long".

In this way #WebOfScience is rapidly making itself irrelevant for the scientific community!

eLifeUpdate on eLife’s indexing status at Web of ScienceFollowing Web of Science’s decision to place eLife “on hold” while it reevaluates our review process, we explain what this means for authors and outline our next steps.

New study: "Journals published in Europe, Oceania and North America were more likely to be indexed in #Scopus and #WebOfScience compared to other world regions. Journals published in sub-Saharan #Africa were the most underrepresented and were four times less likely to be indexed than those published in #Europe."
link.springer.com/article/10.1

PS: I'm sorry that this comparison did not include @OpenAlex (#OpenAlex).

SpringerLinkRegional disparities in Web of Science and Scopus journal coverage - ScientometricsThe two most important citation indexes used by the global science community contain marked regional disparities in their representation of academic journals. Existing work on the geographical coverage of Web of Science and Scopus citation indexes compared their coverage of journals in a small sample of ‘top’ countries. This paper offers the first regional analysis of journal representation in these two indexes across all eight UNESCO world regions, compared to the total number of active Ulrich’s directory academic journals in these regions. Journal lists from 239 countries/territories were collected from Ulrich’s periodical directory and analyzed by region. This enables a comparison of the regional distribution of journals within Web of Science (20,255 matched journals) and Scopus (23,348 matched journals) with those in Ulrich’s directory (83,429 journals). Journals published in Europe, Oceania and North America were more likely to be indexed in Scopus and Web of Science compared to other world regions. Journals published in sub-Saharan Africa were the most underrepresented and were four times less likely to be indexed than those published in Europe. The analysis also offers a quantitative breakdown of journal publication languages, highlighting how Scopus and Web of Science disproportionately index English language publications in all world regions. Finally, the analysis shows how field coverage by Web of Science and Scopus differs between the regions, with the Social Sciences and Humanities still under-represented, in comparison to Natural Sciences and Medical & Health Science.

Final siren for rankings game? futurecampus.com.au/2024/01/30

"We're used to thinking of rankings and evaluation data as something that's done to us. In new open data world, we all have stake in making data and analysis processes better. Data in new #OpenEdition of #LeidenRanking is not perfect, nor is #WebOfScience data used in traditional ranking. But if you correct your listing at @ResearchOrgs or send list of affiliation corrections to @OpenAlex that data is made available to everyone globally."

Future Campus · Final siren for rankings game?Today a new “Open Edition” of the Leiden Ranking has been launched. But what does it mean that a ranking is “open” or “transparent”?