Moving Open Repositories out of the Blind Spot of Initiatives to Correct the Scholarly Record

IF 2.4 3区 管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Learned Publishing Pub Date : 2025-01-28 DOI:10.1002/leap.1655
Frédérique Bordignon
{"title":"Moving Open Repositories out of the Blind Spot of Initiatives to Correct the Scholarly Record","authors":"Frédérique Bordignon","doi":"10.1002/leap.1655","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Open repositories were created to enhance access and visibility of scholarly publications, driven by open science ideals emphasising transparency and accessibility. However, they lack mechanisms to update the status of corrected or retracted publications, posing a threat to the integrity of the scholarly record. To explore the scope of the problem, a manually verified corpus was examined: we extracted all the entries in the Crossref × Retraction Watch database for which the publication date of the corrected or retracted document ranged from 2013 to 2023. This corresponded to 24,430 entries with a DOI, which we use to query Unpaywall and identify their possible indexing in HAL, an open repository (second largest institutional repository worldwide). In most cases (91%), HAL does not mention corrections. While the study needs broader scope, it highlights the necessity of improving the role of open repositories in correction processes with better curation practices. We discuss how harvesting operations and the interoperability of platforms can maintain the integrity of the entire scholarly record. Not only will the open repositories avoid damaging its reliability through ambiguous reporting, but on the contrary, they will also strengthen it.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.1655","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learned Publishing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1655","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Open repositories were created to enhance access and visibility of scholarly publications, driven by open science ideals emphasising transparency and accessibility. However, they lack mechanisms to update the status of corrected or retracted publications, posing a threat to the integrity of the scholarly record. To explore the scope of the problem, a manually verified corpus was examined: we extracted all the entries in the Crossref × Retraction Watch database for which the publication date of the corrected or retracted document ranged from 2013 to 2023. This corresponded to 24,430 entries with a DOI, which we use to query Unpaywall and identify their possible indexing in HAL, an open repository (second largest institutional repository worldwide). In most cases (91%), HAL does not mention corrections. While the study needs broader scope, it highlights the necessity of improving the role of open repositories in correction processes with better curation practices. We discuss how harvesting operations and the interoperability of platforms can maintain the integrity of the entire scholarly record. Not only will the open repositories avoid damaging its reliability through ambiguous reporting, but on the contrary, they will also strengthen it.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将开放存储库移出倡议的盲点,以纠正学术记录
在强调透明度和可及性的开放科学理想的推动下,创建开放知识库是为了提高学术出版物的可及性和可见性。然而,它们缺乏更新更正或撤回出版物状态的机制,这对学术记录的完整性构成了威胁。为了探索问题的范围,我们检查了一个人工验证的语料库:我们提取了Crossref × Retraction Watch数据库中所有被更正或撤回的文档发布日期在2013年至2023年之间的条目。这对应于24,430个带有DOI的条目,我们使用它来查询Unpaywall并确定它们在HAL(一个开放存储库(全球第二大机构存储库)中可能的索引。在大多数情况下(91%),HAL没有提到纠正。虽然这项研究需要更广泛的范围,但它强调了通过更好的管理实践来改善开放存储库在纠正过程中的作用的必要性。我们讨论了收获操作和平台的互操作性如何保持整个学术记录的完整性。开放存储库不仅可以避免通过模棱两可的报告破坏其可靠性,而且相反,它们还可以加强其可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Learned Publishing
Learned Publishing INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
17.90%
发文量
72
期刊最新文献
Clinical Evidence Behind a Paywall: An Analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials Included in Cochrane Reviews Scoping Reviews Should Describe—Not Score From Findings to Meaning: A Strategic Framework for the Discussion Section Scholarly Communications in 2025: An Aerial Evaluation of a System Challenged by AI and Much More Enhancing, Understanding and Adoption of the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1