Search

The Covid-19 pandemic has introduced challenges throughout the world and is endangering people's prosperity. To these health, economic, political, and social challenges have been added those related to the management and dissemination of information, mainly concerning its exponential growth, veracity, and dissemination. Providing objective evidence-based information contributes to meeting these challenges. Social media and social networks are playing a key role in informing society about the evolution of the pandemic and progress towards its eradication. However, social networks are also a vehicle for the transmission of biased or false news that can endanger people's health. Information professionals play a key role in correcting misinformation if they are able to filter out untruthful information and make resources with proven quality available to the population. In addition, they must manage scientific information about the pandemic, which is advancing at an accelerated pace. Currently, China is the leader while Spain is in fifth place in the development of research projects and scientific publications. The scientific research focuses on epidemiological aspects, respiratory diseases, drug treatments, and diagnostic tests. Many journals, databases, repositories, and other information systems have made their publications and other information resources available in record time to encourage the progress of such research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this work is to identify the different names, positions, and roles of editorial board members (EBMs) of journals in the Information Science and Library Science (ISLS) field of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and to establish a classification of the different roles to improve communication between editors and researchers. Among the 86 journals included in the ISLS field, the first and last names, position, and institutional affiliation of each EBM were extracted from 84 journals that allowed access to committee information. The information was standardized, and the positions were classified by consensus into major groups according to the role they play in the journals. The 84 journals included 4,122 positions held by EBMs, distributed in 201 positions and classified into 11 broad categories. The majority of positions were included in the Editorial Board category (n = 1,516), followed by Editorial Advisory Board (n = 734) and Associate Editor (n = 566). The journals were published by 36 publishers, with Elsevier and Taylor & Francis contributing the most journals (11 each). The journals in which the EBMs had the highest percentage of foreign members were those published in the Netherlands. This study provides a picture of the broad distribution of the roles and terminological titles that EBMs have in Information Science and Library Science journals. Because of this diversity, it is advisable to develop a guide to good editorial practices that includes both a description of the complex range of roles performed by EBMs and a unified nomenclature for these universal positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a summary of the different pathways to publish research data, of metrics for evaluating publishing and reuse, and of the existing services for measuring the reuse of research data. It is not yet possible to accurately analyze the metrics for open research data and this is one of the reasons why, in general, researchers do not include them in the assessment of their work. In order to further the use of these tools, it is necessary to increase the number of studies about these evaluation metrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]