Pubmed Commons出版后同行评议平台分析。

P. Gorry, L. Mignot, Antoine Sabouraud
{"title":"Pubmed Commons出版后同行评议平台分析。","authors":"P. Gorry, L. Mignot, Antoine Sabouraud","doi":"10.55835/6442f02464eb99f94fe5a307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The goal of open science is to improve the quality of publications and to overcome the shortcomings of the classic peer review process. Post-Publication Peer Review (PPPR) has been proposed as an alternative. It is of particular interest to study a non-anonymous PPPR platform to dive into the dynamics relative to the position of the commentators in the scientific community. This research-in-progress describes for the first time in detail the publications targeted by PPPR comments on PubMed Commons (PMC) and the commenters in order to better identify the underlying issues. From the original PMC corpus, we extracted a sample of 657 authors who wrote 4514 comments. To run a bibliometric analysis, this sample was matched with Scopus® database in order to inform the status of the commenters and of the publications. Preliminary results show that the distribution of comments over time reveals some events of intense debate. Most of the comments are rather short. The number of comments by authors follow a Pareto distribution. Commenters are scientists with a high reputation but there is no correlation between their critical activity and any bibliometrics indicators. Finally, we identified only a small fraction of retracted publications. Our results seem to reveal the heterogeneity of the profiles, reflecting a divergent interest in PPPR probably related to the researchers’ positions in the scientific field, and the respect of the Mertonian norms of the scientific ethos. Further research is currently underway to investigate these characteristics in more detail.","PeriodicalId":334841,"journal":{"name":"27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023)","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis of the Pubmed Commons Post-Publication Peer Review Plateform.\",\"authors\":\"P. Gorry, L. Mignot, Antoine Sabouraud\",\"doi\":\"10.55835/6442f02464eb99f94fe5a307\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The goal of open science is to improve the quality of publications and to overcome the shortcomings of the classic peer review process. Post-Publication Peer Review (PPPR) has been proposed as an alternative. It is of particular interest to study a non-anonymous PPPR platform to dive into the dynamics relative to the position of the commentators in the scientific community. This research-in-progress describes for the first time in detail the publications targeted by PPPR comments on PubMed Commons (PMC) and the commenters in order to better identify the underlying issues. From the original PMC corpus, we extracted a sample of 657 authors who wrote 4514 comments. To run a bibliometric analysis, this sample was matched with Scopus® database in order to inform the status of the commenters and of the publications. Preliminary results show that the distribution of comments over time reveals some events of intense debate. Most of the comments are rather short. The number of comments by authors follow a Pareto distribution. Commenters are scientists with a high reputation but there is no correlation between their critical activity and any bibliometrics indicators. Finally, we identified only a small fraction of retracted publications. Our results seem to reveal the heterogeneity of the profiles, reflecting a divergent interest in PPPR probably related to the researchers’ positions in the scientific field, and the respect of the Mertonian norms of the scientific ethos. Further research is currently underway to investigate these characteristics in more detail.\",\"PeriodicalId\":334841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023)\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55835/6442f02464eb99f94fe5a307\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55835/6442f02464eb99f94fe5a307","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

开放科学的目标是提高出版物的质量,克服传统同行评议过程的缺点。出版后同行评议(PPPR)被提议作为一种替代方法。研究一个非匿名的PPPR平台,深入研究与科学界评论员位置相关的动态,这是特别有趣的。这项正在进行的研究首次详细描述了PPPR在PubMed Commons (PMC)上的评论所针对的出版物以及评论者,以便更好地识别潜在的问题。从原始的PMC语料库中,我们提取了657位作者的样本,他们写了4514条评论。为了进行文献计量分析,将该样本与Scopus®数据库进行匹配,以了解评论者和出版物的状态。初步结果表明,随着时间的推移,评论的分布揭示了一些激烈辩论的事件。大多数评论都很简短。作者的评论数量遵循帕累托分布。评论者是享有很高声誉的科学家,但他们的批评活动与任何文献计量指标之间没有相关性。最后,我们只确定了一小部分撤回的出版物。我们的研究结果似乎揭示了概况的异质性,反映了对PPPR的不同兴趣,这可能与研究人员在科学领域的地位有关,以及对科学精神的默顿规范的尊重。目前正在进行进一步的研究,以更详细地调查这些特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analysis of the Pubmed Commons Post-Publication Peer Review Plateform.
The goal of open science is to improve the quality of publications and to overcome the shortcomings of the classic peer review process. Post-Publication Peer Review (PPPR) has been proposed as an alternative. It is of particular interest to study a non-anonymous PPPR platform to dive into the dynamics relative to the position of the commentators in the scientific community. This research-in-progress describes for the first time in detail the publications targeted by PPPR comments on PubMed Commons (PMC) and the commenters in order to better identify the underlying issues. From the original PMC corpus, we extracted a sample of 657 authors who wrote 4514 comments. To run a bibliometric analysis, this sample was matched with Scopus® database in order to inform the status of the commenters and of the publications. Preliminary results show that the distribution of comments over time reveals some events of intense debate. Most of the comments are rather short. The number of comments by authors follow a Pareto distribution. Commenters are scientists with a high reputation but there is no correlation between their critical activity and any bibliometrics indicators. Finally, we identified only a small fraction of retracted publications. Our results seem to reveal the heterogeneity of the profiles, reflecting a divergent interest in PPPR probably related to the researchers’ positions in the scientific field, and the respect of the Mertonian norms of the scientific ethos. Further research is currently underway to investigate these characteristics in more detail.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信