Search

The article describes the results of the online survey on open science (OS) carried out on researchers affiliated with universities and Spanish research centres and focused on open access to scientific publications, the publication process, the management of research data and the review of open articles. The main objective was to identify the perception and habits of researchers with regard to practices closely linked to open science and the scientific value added is that offers an in-depth picture of researchers as one of the main actors to whom this transformation and implementation of open science will fall. It focuses on the different aspects of OS: open access, open data, publication process and open review in order to identify habits and perceptions. This is to make possible an implementation of the OS movement. The survey was carried out among researchers who had published in the years 2020–2021, according to data obtained from WoS. It was emailed to a total of 8,188 researchers and obtained a total of 666 responses, of which 554 were complete, the rest being forms with some questions unanswered. The main results showed that open access still requires the diffusion of practices and services provided by the institution, as well as training (library or equivalent service) and institutional support from the competent authorities (vice rectors or equivalent) in specific aspects such as data management. In the case of data, around 50% of respondents stated they had stored data in a repository, and of all the options, the most frequently given was that of an institutional repository, followed by a discipline repository. Among the main reasons for doing this, we found transparency, visibility of data and the ability to validate results. For those who stated they had never stored data, the most frequent reasons for not having done so were privacy and confidentiality, the lack of a mandated data policy or a lack of knowledge of how to do it. In terms of open peer revi

Emerging metrics based on article-level does not exclude traditional metrics based on citations to the journal, but complements them. Both can be employed in conjunction to offer a richer picture of an article use from immediate to long terms. Article-level metrics (ALM) is the result of the aggregation of different data sources and the collection of content from multiple social network services. Sources used for the aggregation can be broken down into five categories: usage, captures, mentions, social media and citations. Data sources depend on the tool, but they include classic metrics indicators based on citations, academic social networks (Mendeley, CiteULike, Delicious) and social media (Facebook, Twitter, blogs, or Youtube, among others). Altmetrics is not synonymous with alternative metrics. Altmetrics are normally early available and allow to assess the social impact of scholarly outputs, almost at the real time. This paper overviews briefly the meaning of altmetrics and describes some of the existing tools used to apply this new metrics: Public Library of Science - Article-Level Metrics, Altmetric, Impactstory and Plum.