PubPeer 评论中的路灯效应:开放获取出版物是否受到更严格的审查?

IF 3.5 3区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Scientometrics Pub Date : 2024-06-04 DOI:10.1007/s11192-024-05053-9
Abdelghani Maddi, Emmanuel Monneau, Catherine Guaspare-Cartron, Floriana Gargiulo, Michel Dubois
{"title":"PubPeer 评论中的路灯效应:开放获取出版物是否受到更严格的审查?","authors":"Abdelghani Maddi, Emmanuel Monneau, Catherine Guaspare-Cartron, Floriana Gargiulo, Michel Dubois","doi":"10.1007/s11192-024-05053-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The <i>Streetlight Effect</i> represents an observation bias that occurs when individuals search for something only where it is easiest to look. Despite the significant development of Post-Publication Peer Review (PPPR) in recent years, facilitated in part by platforms such as PubPeer, existing literature has not examined whether PPPR is affected by this type of bias. In other words, if the PPPR mainly concerns publications to which researchers have direct access (eg to analyze image duplications, etc.). In this study, we compare the Open Access (OA) structures of publishers and journals among 51,882 publications commented on PubPeer to those indexed in OpenAlex database (#156,700,177). Our findings indicate that OA journals are 33% more prevalent in PubPeer than in the global total (52% for the most commented journals). This result can be attributed to disciplinary bias in PubPeer, with overrepresentation of medical and biological research (which exhibits higher levels of openness). However, after normalization, the results reveal that PPPR does not exhibit a Streetlight Effect, as OA publications, within the same discipline, are on average 16% less prevalent in PubPeer than in the global total. These results suggest that the process of scientific self-correction operates independently of publication access status.</p>","PeriodicalId":21755,"journal":{"name":"Scientometrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Streetlight effect in PubPeer comments: are Open Access publications more scrutinized?\",\"authors\":\"Abdelghani Maddi, Emmanuel Monneau, Catherine Guaspare-Cartron, Floriana Gargiulo, Michel Dubois\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11192-024-05053-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The <i>Streetlight Effect</i> represents an observation bias that occurs when individuals search for something only where it is easiest to look. Despite the significant development of Post-Publication Peer Review (PPPR) in recent years, facilitated in part by platforms such as PubPeer, existing literature has not examined whether PPPR is affected by this type of bias. In other words, if the PPPR mainly concerns publications to which researchers have direct access (eg to analyze image duplications, etc.). In this study, we compare the Open Access (OA) structures of publishers and journals among 51,882 publications commented on PubPeer to those indexed in OpenAlex database (#156,700,177). Our findings indicate that OA journals are 33% more prevalent in PubPeer than in the global total (52% for the most commented journals). This result can be attributed to disciplinary bias in PubPeer, with overrepresentation of medical and biological research (which exhibits higher levels of openness). However, after normalization, the results reveal that PPPR does not exhibit a Streetlight Effect, as OA publications, within the same discipline, are on average 16% less prevalent in PubPeer than in the global total. These results suggest that the process of scientific self-correction operates independently of publication access status.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21755,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientometrics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientometrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05053-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientometrics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05053-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

路灯效应代表了一种观察偏差,当个人只在最容易寻找的地方搜索时,就会出现这种偏差。尽管近年来出版后同行评审(PPPR)得到了长足发展,PubPeer 等平台也在一定程度上推动了这一进程,但现有文献并未研究出版后同行评审是否会受到此类偏差的影响。换句话说,如果 PPPR 主要涉及研究人员可以直接访问的出版物(如分析图像重复等),那么 PPPR 就会受到影响。在本研究中,我们比较了 PubPeer 上发表评论的 51,882 篇出版物与 OpenAlex 数据库(#156,700,177)收录的出版物中出版商和期刊的开放获取(OA)结构。我们的研究结果表明,PubPeer 上的 OA 期刊比全球总数多 33%(评论最多的期刊多 52%)。这一结果可归因于 PubPeer 中的学科偏见,即医学和生物学研究(开放程度较高)所占比例过高。然而,经过归一化处理后,结果表明,PPPR 并未表现出路灯效应,因为同一学科的 OA 出版物在 PubPeer 中的发表率平均比全球总发表率低 16%。这些结果表明,科学自我纠错过程的运作与出版物获取状况无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Streetlight effect in PubPeer comments: are Open Access publications more scrutinized?

The Streetlight Effect represents an observation bias that occurs when individuals search for something only where it is easiest to look. Despite the significant development of Post-Publication Peer Review (PPPR) in recent years, facilitated in part by platforms such as PubPeer, existing literature has not examined whether PPPR is affected by this type of bias. In other words, if the PPPR mainly concerns publications to which researchers have direct access (eg to analyze image duplications, etc.). In this study, we compare the Open Access (OA) structures of publishers and journals among 51,882 publications commented on PubPeer to those indexed in OpenAlex database (#156,700,177). Our findings indicate that OA journals are 33% more prevalent in PubPeer than in the global total (52% for the most commented journals). This result can be attributed to disciplinary bias in PubPeer, with overrepresentation of medical and biological research (which exhibits higher levels of openness). However, after normalization, the results reveal that PPPR does not exhibit a Streetlight Effect, as OA publications, within the same discipline, are on average 16% less prevalent in PubPeer than in the global total. These results suggest that the process of scientific self-correction operates independently of publication access status.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scientometrics
Scientometrics 管理科学-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
17.90%
发文量
351
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Scientometrics aims at publishing original studies, short communications, preliminary reports, review papers, letters to the editor and book reviews on scientometrics. The topics covered are results of research concerned with the quantitative features and characteristics of science. Emphasis is placed on investigations in which the development and mechanism of science are studied by means of (statistical) mathematical methods. The Journal also provides the reader with important up-to-date information about international meetings and events in scientometrics and related fields. Appropriate bibliographic compilations are published as a separate section. Due to its fully interdisciplinary character, Scientometrics is indispensable to research workers and research administrators throughout the world. It provides valuable assistance to librarians and documentalists in central scientific agencies, ministries, research institutes and laboratories. Scientometrics includes the Journal of Research Communication Studies. Consequently its aims and scope cover that of the latter, namely, to bring the results of research investigations together in one place, in such a form that they will be of use not only to the investigators themselves but also to the entrepreneurs and research workers who form the object of these studies.
期刊最新文献
Through the secret gate: a study of member-contributed submissions in PNAS Breach of academic values and misconduct: the case of Sci-Hub Measuring the global and domestic technological impact of Chinese scientific output: a patent-to-paper citation analysis of science-technology linkage Evolving patterns of extreme publishing behavior across science Automated taxonomy alignment via large language models: bridging the gap between knowledge domains
×
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学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
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