Українська
Kaliuzhna, N.
(2023).
Using innovative tools support and monitor open science.
Library Science. Record Studies. Informology,
19(4),
33-41.
https://doi.org/10.32461/2409-9805.4.2023.293969
ISSN 2409-9805
English
Article
Using innovative tools support and monitor open science
Received 29.07.2023, Revised 12.11.2023, Accepted 21.12.2023
Abstract
The purpose of the article is to examine and describe the operational principles and functional capabilities of modern services and tools designed to monitor, support and analyse dissemination of research outputs published open access, which can be utilized by librarians to promote open science practices. The research methodology is based on a combination of scientific methods, incorporating content analysis of official web pages of tools and services, as well as methods of synthesis, systemic analysis, structural-functional analysis, and information-analytical methods. Scientific novelty. This article reviews modern tools, services and instruments, namely OpenAlex, BISON, COKI Open Access Dashboard, Journal Tracker Tool, OPTIMETA Plugins and others to support open scientific communication. It can be argued that development of open, non-commercial and shared infrastructure has the potential to vastly improve open access implementation. Conclusions. This study identified a number of innovative tools for analyzing and monitoring open access that can be used by librarians, researchers, and all interested parties. These tools are important for expanding and democratizing access to knowledge, overcoming territorial, institutional and disciplinary barriers. Improving open, non-profit infrastructure should be a key task on the path to implementing open science practices. Consequently, it is important for modern librarians to master their skills in working with open tools to monitor, analyze, and support open scholarly communication practices, given the evident potential of online tools in scholarly communication and their ability to disseminate the results of scientific activity
Keywords:
open access; open access monitoring; scientific communication; digital tools; open science
- 558 Views
- Read article
References
[1] Kaliuzhna, N. (2023). Open access principles implementation in Ukraine: Current state and future perspectives. Digital Platform: Information Technologies in Sociocultural Sphere, 6(1), 149-159. doi: 10.31866/2617-796X.6.1.2023.283984.
[2] Kulish, Y. (2023). Scientometric toolkits of the university library in the system of scientific communications. Sciences of Europe, 120, 45-49. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8129175.
[3] Lobuzina, K. (2021). Repository of scientific texts of the NAS of Ukraine in the Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine: State and prospects of development. Visnyk of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 11, 16-23. doi: 10.15407/visn2021.11.016.
[4] Nazarovets, M. (2020). The use of digital tools to support scientific communication: A structural model for organizing services in university libraries. Visnyk of Kharkiv State Academy of Culture, 58, 27-37. doi: 10.31516/2410-5333.058.03.
[5] Nazarovets, S., & Kulyk, Y. (2017). Library 4.0: Next generation services and technologies. Library Bulletin, 5, 3-14.
[6] Oleksyuk, O. (2014). Experience in implementing of institutional repositories in Ukraine. Information Technologies in Education, 20, 139-148. doi: 10.14308/ite000504.
[7] Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine "On approval of the national plan for open science". (2022). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/892-2022-%D1%80#Text.
[8] On approval and implementation of the Open Science Policy at the National Technical University of Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute" (2022, November). Retrieved from https://ela.kpi.ua/handle/123456789/51235?locale=uk.
[9] Iaroshenko, Т. (2014). The green path of open access. Repositories and their role in scholarly communication: The first twenty years. Library Bulletin, 5, 3-10.
[10] Achterberg, I., & Jahn, N. (2023). Introducing the Hybrid Open Access Dashboard (HOAD). Plan S.
[11] Barbers, I., Stanzel, E., & Mittermaier, B. (2022). Open access monitor Germany: Best practice in providing metrics for analysis and decision-making. Serials Review, 48(1-2), 49-62. doi: 10.1080/00987913.2022.2066968.
[12] Chawla, D. (2021). Microsoft academic graph is being discontinued. What’s next? Nature Index.
[13] Chawla, D. (2020). This tool is saving universities millions of dollars in journal subscriptions. Science. doi: 10.1126/science.abd7483.
[14] COKI Open Access Dashboard. (2023). Retrieved from https://open.coki.ac/.
[15] Diprose, J.P., Hosking, R., Rigoni, R., Roelofs, A., Chien, T., Napier, K., Wilson, K., Huang, C., Handcock, R.N., Montgomery, L., & Neylon, C. (2023). A user-friendly dashboard for tracking global open access performance. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 26(1). doi: 10.3998/jep.3398.
[16] Entrup, E., Eppelin, A., Ewerth, R., Hartwig, J., Tullney, M., Wohlgemuth, M., & Hoppe, A. (2022). In B!SON: A tool for open access journal recommendation. Linking theory and practice of digital libraries: Proceedings 26th international conference on theory and practice of digital libraries. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-16802-4_33.
[17] Eppelin, A., Entrup, Е., Hartwig, J., & Hoppe, А. (2021). B!SON – a tool to make OA journal selection easier. Sepentrio Conference Series, 4. doi: 10.7557/5.6190.
[18] Holcer, D., Horban, Y., Mašina, D.D., & Skachenko, O. (2021). Library online services during Covid19: The experience of libraries in Croatia and Ukraine. Library Mercury, 1(25), 81-97. doi: 10.18524/2707-3335.2021.1(25).231472.
[19] Journal Observatory. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.journalobservatory.org/.
[20] Journal Tracker Tool. (2023). Retrieved from https://journalcheckertool.org/.
[21] Kaliuzhna, N., & Auhunas, S. (2022). Research information infrastructure in Ukraine: First steps towards building a national CRIS. Procedia Computer Science, 211, 230-237. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2022.10.196.
[22] Kramer, B., & Bosman, J. (2016). Innovations in scholarly communication - global survey on research tool usage. Research, 5, 692. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8414.1.
[23] NASA Plan for Increasing Access to the Results of Scientific Research: Digital scientific data and peer-reviewed publications. (2014). Washington: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA Headquarters.
[24] Nüst, N., Yücel, G., Cordts, A., & Hauschke, Ch. (2022). Enriching the scholarly metadata commons with citation metadata and spatio-temporal metadata to support responsible research assessment and research discovery. arXiv. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.01502.
[25] Priem, J. (2021). What do the types of oa_status (green, gold, hybrid, and bronze) mean? Unpaywall.
[26] Priem, J., Piwowar, H., & Orr, R. (2022). OpenAlex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts. arXiv. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2205.01833.
[27] Scheidsteger, T., & Haunschild, R. (2023). Which of the metadata with relevance for bibliometrics are the same and which are different when switching from Microsoft Academic Graph to OpenAlex?. Profesional de la información, 32(2), article number e320209. doi: 10.3145/epi.2023.mar.09.