OpenEdition Center

<strong>Context</strong><br> From June 2020 to February 2021, a consortium of 10 organisations undertook a large-scale study on open access journals across the world that are free for readers and authors, usually referred to as “OA diamond journals”. This study was commissioned by cOAlition S in order to gain a better understanding of the OA diamond landscape. <strong>Presentation</strong><br> The study undertook a statistical analysis of several bibliographic databases, surveyed 1,619 journals, collected 7,019 free text submissions and other data from 94 questions, and organised three focus groups with 11 journals and 10 interviews with hosting platforms. It collected 163 references in the academic literature, and inventoried 1048 journals not listed in DOAJ. The results of the study are available in the following outputs: Findings Report - DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4558704 Recommendations Report- DOI:10.5281/zenodo.4562790 References Library - DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4562816 Journals Inventory - DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4562828 Dataset - DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4553103 <strong>Key Recommendations: </strong> Streamline technical support Ensure compliance with Plan S Build capacity Increase effectiveness Sustain and invest in the future <strong>Kick-start actions:</strong> Prepare an International Workshop and Symposium on OA diamond within 6 months to initiate a global conversation among different stakeholders Set up an OA diamond Funding Strategy within 1 year to implement funding recommendations Build the OA diamond Capacity Center within 2 years to support the implementation of recommendations<br>

Diversity is an important characteristic of any healthy ecosystem, including scholarly communications. Diversity in services and platforms, funding mechanisms, and evaluation measures will allow the scholarly communication system to accommodate the different workflows, languages, publication outputs, and research topics that support the needs and epistemic pluralism of different research communities. In addition, diversity reduces the risk of vendor lock-in, which inevitably leads to monopoly, monoculture, and high prices. As we transition to open access and open science, there is an opportunity to reverse this decline and foster greater diversity in scholarly communications; what the Jussieu Call refers to as bibliodiversity. Bibliodiversity, by its nature, cannot be pursued through a single, unified approach, however it does require strong coordination in order to avoid a fragmented and siloed ecosystem. Building on the principles outlined in the Jussieu Call, this paper explores the current state of diversity in scholarly communications, and issues a call for action, specifying what each community can do individually and collectively to support greater bibliodiversity in a more intentional fashion. We are calling on the community to take concerted efforts to foster bibliodiversity through several specific actions.

The systemic challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic require cross-disciplinary collaboration in a global and timely fashion. Such collaboration needs open research practices and the sharing of research outputs, such as data and code, thereby facilitating research and research reproducibility and timely collaboration beyond borders. The Research Data Alliance COVID-19 Working Group recently published a set of recommendations and guidelines on data sharing and related best practices for COVID-19 research. These guidelines include recommendations for clinicians, researchers, policy- and decision-makers, funders, publishers, public health experts, disaster preparedness and response experts, infrastructure providers from the perspective of different domains (Clinical Medicine, Omics, Epidemiology, Social Sciences, Community Participation, Indigenous Peoples, Research Software, Legal and Ethical Considerations), and other potential users. These guidelines include recommendations for researchers, policymakers, funders, publishers and infrastructure providers from the perspective of different domains (Clinical Medicine, Omics, Epidemiology, Social Sciences, Community Participation, Indigenous Peoples, Research Software, Legal and Ethical Considerations). Several overarching themes have emerged from this document such as the need to balance the creation of data adherent to FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable), with the need for quick data release; the use of trustworthy research data repositories; the use of well-annotated data with meaningful metadata; and practices of documenting methods and software. The resulting document marks an unprecedented cross-disciplinary, cross-sectoral, and cross-jurisdictional effort authored by over 160 experts from around the globe. This letter summarises key points of the Recommendations and Guidelines, highlights the relevant findings, shines a spotlight on the process, and suggests how these developments can be leveraged by the wider scientific community.

In this paper, we present our contribution in SemEval2014 ABSA task, some supervised methods for Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis of restaurant and laptop reviews are proposed, implemented and evaluated. We focus on determining the aspect terms existing in each sentence, finding out their polarities, detecting the categories of the sentence and the polarity of each category. The evaluation results of our proposed methods exhibit a significant improvement in terms of accuracy and f-measure over all four subtasks regarding to the baseline proposed by SemEval organisers.

<ns4:p>The systemic challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic require cross-disciplinary collaboration in a global and timely fashion. Such collaboration needs open research practices and the sharing of research outputs, such as data and code, thereby facilitating research and research reproducibility and timely collaboration beyond borders. The Research Data Alliance COVID-19 Working Group recently published a set of recommendations and guidelines on data sharing and related best practices for COVID-19 research. These guidelines include recommendations for researchers, policymakers, funders, publishers and infrastructure providers from the perspective of different domains (Clinical Medicine, Omics, Epidemiology, Social Sciences, Community Participation, Indigenous Peoples, Research Software, Legal and Ethical Considerations). Several overarching themes have emerged from this document such as the need to balance the creation of data adherent to FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable), with the need for quick data release; the use of trustworthy research data repositories; the use of well-annotated data with meaningful metadata; and practices of documenting methods and software. The resulting document marks an unprecedented cross-disciplinary, cross-sectoral, and cross-jurisdictional effort authored by over 160 experts from around the globe. This letter summarises key points of the Recommendations and Guidelines, highlights the relevant findings, shines a spotlight on the process, and suggests how these developments can be leveraged by the wider scientific community.</ns4:p>

Twitter has become more and more an important resource of user-generated data. Sentiment Analysis in Twitter is interesting for many applications and objectives. In this paper, we propose to exploit some features which can be useful for this task; the main contribution is the use of Z-scores as features for sentiment classification in addition to pre-polarity and POS tags features. Our experiments have been evaluated using the test data provided by SemEval 2013 and 2014. The evaluation demonstrates that Z_scores features can significantly improve the prediction performance.

A combination of multiple information retrieval approaches is proposed for the purpose of book recommendation. In this paper, book recommendation is based on complex user's query. We used different theoretical retrieval models: probabilistic as InL2 (Divergence from Randomness model) and language model and tested their interpolated combination. Graph analysis algorithms such as PageRank have been successful in Web environments. We consider the application of this algorithm in a new retrieval approach to related document network comprised of social links. We called Directed Graph of Documents (DGD) a network constructed with documents and social information provided from each one of them. Specifically, this work tackles the problem of book recommendation in the context of INEX (Initiative for the Evaluation of XML retrieval) Social Book Search track. A series of reranking experiments demonstrate that combining retrieval models yields significant improvements in terms of standard ranked retrieval metrics. These results extend the applicability of link analysis algorithms to different environments.

Social sciences and humanities (SSH) research is divided across a wide array of disciplines, sub-disciplines and languages. While this specialization makes it possible to investigate the extensive variety of SSH topics, it also leads to a fragmentation that prevents SSH research from reaching its full potential. The TRIPLE project brings answers to these issues by developing an innovative discovery platform for SSH data, researchers’ projects and profiles. Having started in October 2019, the project has already three main achievements that are presented in this paper: (1) the definition of main features of the GOTRIPLE platform; (2) its interoperability; (3) its multilingual, multicultural and interdisciplinary vocation. These results have been achieved thanks to different methodologies such as a co-design process, market analysis and benchmarking, monitoring and co-building. These preliminary results highlight the need for respecting diversity of practices and communities through coordination and harmonization.

Automatic bibliographic reference annotation involves the tokenization and identification of reference fields. Recent methods use machine learning techniques such as Conditional Random Fields to tackle this problem. On the other hand, the state of the art methods always learn and evaluate their systems with a well structured data having simple format such as bibliography at the end of scientific articles. And that is a reason why the parsing of new reference different from a regular format does not work well. In our previous work, we have established a standard for the tokenization and feature selection with a less formulaic data such as notes. In this paper, we evaluate our system BILBO with other popular online reference parsing tools on a new data from totally different source. BILBO is constructed with our own corpora extracted and annotated from real world data, digital humanities articles of Revues.org site (90% in French) of OpenEdition. The robustness of BILBO system allows a language independent tagging result. We expect that this first attempt of evaluation will motivate the development of other efficient techniques for the scattered and less formulaic bibliographic references.

International audience

RÉSUMÉ. L'extraction d'informations bibliographiques depuis un texte non structuré demeure un probléme ouvert que nous abordons, via des approches d'apprentissage automatique, dans le domaine des Humanités Numériques. Nous présentons dans cet article le projet BILBO, soutenu par un Google Digital Humanities Award avec le soutien du projet ANR CAAS : constitution de 3 corpus de référence correspondant à trois localisations des références, élaboration d'un modéle d'annotation puis évaluation. Les champs aléatoires conditionnels (CRFs) sont utilisés pour l'annotation des références bibliographiques et des machines à vecteurs supports (SVMs) pour l'identification des références au sein du texte. De nombreuses expériences sont conduites afin de déterminer les meilleures propriétés devant être exploitées par les modèles numériques.

Libre accès à la littérature scientifique, appropriation par la communauté des chercheurs et des revues, logique de diffusion et de référencement web : les principes fondateurs de Revues.org, portail de revues de sciences humaines et sociales créé en 1999 en marge des institutions d’enseignement supérieur et de recherche françaises, sont aussi ce qui le distingue dans le paysage de l’édition électronique scientifique. Cet article dresse un historique de cette association devenue laboratoire, en mettant au jour les enjeux qui ont jalonné et continuent d’orienter son parcours : définition de l’édition électronique et de ses métiers, modalités de l’appropriation des plateformes par leurs utilisateurs, développement de nouveaux outils aux services des chercheurs, invention d’un modèle économique pour les revues et pour le portail.

This document is a HIRMEOS project deliverable. This report presents the results of the post-publication open peer review experiment that<br> took place from October 2018 to June 2019. It was conducted as part of the European<br> HIRMEOS project1, which included the implementation of an annotation service on the<br> OpenEdition Books platform. To support the implementation of this tool on the platform, an<br> experimental phase was set up. The purpose of this experiment was to explore, through<br> annotation, new open peer review practices, post-publication, on monographs in the<br> humanities and social sciences distributed in open access.

This report discusses the scholarly communication issues in Social Sciences and Humanities that are relevant to the future development and functioning of OPERAS. The outcomes collected here can be divided into two groups of innovations regarding 1) the operation of OPERAS, and 2) its activities. The “operational” issues include the ways in which an innovative research infrastructure should be governed (Chapter 1) as well as the business models for open access publications in Social Sciences and Humanities (Chapter 2). The other group of issues is dedicated to strategic areas where OPERAS and its services may play an instrumental role in providing, enabling, or unlocking innovation: FAIR data (Chapter 3), bibliodiversity and multilingualism in scholarly communication (Chapter 4), the future of scholarly writing (Chapter 5), and quality assessment (Chapter 6). Each chapter provides an overview of the main findings and challenges with emphasis on recommendations for OPERAS and other stakeholders like e-infrastructures, publishers, SSH researchers, research performing organisations, policy makers, and funders. Links to data and further publications stemming from work concerning particular tasks are located at the end of each chapter.

A new combination of multiple Information Retrieval approaches are proposed for book recommendation based on complex users' queries. We used different theoretical retrieval models: probabilistic as InL2 (Divergence From Randomness model) and language models and tested their interpolated combination. We considered the application of a graph based algorithm in a new retrieval approach to related document network comprised of social links. We called Directed Graph of Documents (DGD) a network constructed with documents and social information provided from each one of them. Specifically, this work tackles the problem of book recommendation in the context of CLEF Labs precisely Social Book Search track. We established a specific strategy for queries searching after separating query set into two genres Analogue and Non-Analogue after analyzing users' needs. Series of reranking experiments demonstrate that combining retrieval models and exploiting linked documents for retrieving yield significant improvements in terms of standard ranked retrieval metrics. These results extend the applicability of link analysis algorithms to different environments.

The deliverable D.2.2, “COESO pilots’ blogs on the Hypotheses.org academic platform”, presents the current implementation of the COESO pilots’ blogs on Hypotheses.org and the support pilots’ teams receive for managing them (Task 2.7). The deliverable introduces Hypotheses.org, the academic blogging platform hosting the pilots’ blogs (Part II) and the possibilities the platform provides for communicating about participatory research in the social sciences and the humanities (Part III). It then describes the support provided to the pilots’ teams (Part IV) and finally provides an overview of the first five COESO pilots’ blogs (part V). This deliverable, due in December 2021, relates to the first five pilots’ blogs implementation on the Hypotheses.org platform; the next five pilots will be selected in the first quarter of 2022.

This White Paper has been prepared by the OPERAS (Open Access in the European Research Area<br> through Scholarly Communication) Working Group on Advocacy for Open Access Publishing in the<br> Social Sciences and Humanities. OPERAS is a European research infrastructure for the development<br> of open scholarly communication, particularly in the social sciences and humanities (SSH). The<br> consortium comprises 36 organisations from 13 European countries and is coordinated by a core<br> group of nine members. OPERAS’ members come from diverse backgrounds and include publishers<br> and publication platforms, infrastructure providers, libraries, universities, and research organisations. The paper addresses the importance of Open Science for the SSH, highlighting the role of a distributed<br> research infrastructure like OPERAS in advocating for Open Access publishing models. Furthermore,<br> the paper discusses the importance of the SSH in Open Science, showing how Open Science itself<br> benefits from considering and accommodating the needs of researchers from different disciplinary<br> backgrounds. While OPERAS does not endorse a specific Open Access publishing model, the<br> infrastructure partners advocate for publication processes that can meet the present demand for<br> Open Access, transparency, and open source tools in scholarly communication. This document is intended for all stakeholders actively involved in Open Access in the SSH. This<br> includes publishers and publication platforms as well as libraries and infrastructure providers.<br> However, the White Paper ultimately focuses on advocacy targeting researchers at different career<br> stages. In order to support stakeholders in advocating for Open Access, the White Paper presents the<br> benefits of Open Access publishing for scholars, while also addressing common concerns in the SSH<br> research community. These include, but are not limited to, reputation, research evaluation, financial<br> issues, a general lack of information, intellectual property rights and other legal concerns, and the<br> availability of Open Access publishing models. This White Paper draws on experiences from OPERAS partners to illustrate researchers’ concerns and<br> to develop a guide with FAQs and solutions to address these issues. The White Paper concludes with<br> advocacy suggestion sheets tailored to different stakeholders involved in Open Access in the SSH.

The FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) constitute a guide whose aim is to improve the management of digital scholarly resources. Nevertheless, the literature regarding data services other than data repositories is still scarce.OpenEdition is a digital infrastructure for open scholarly communication in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) that carried out an internal full review to assess the degree of FAIRness of its activities. The objective of this paper is to present the methodology employed by OpenEdition’s team and the recommendations for the FAIRification of a publishing system, and hence, the elements for the FAIR Publishing Toolkit. The FAIR review was conducted in three main phases: preparation, assessment, and result phase, which listed the recommendations for the FAIR principles implementation. The preparation phase gathered the available information to define the perimeter of the FAIR review. It comprised two steps: the landscape study and the exam of actual use cases. The assessment phase contextualized the FAIR principles according to the scholarly publishing context, defined the datasets to be analyzed, carried outa FAIR maturity review per dataset, and analyzed the state of the art of some important FAIR-related elements. The result phase produced the recommendations, organized as priorities and extended objectives. The priority recommendations regard persistent identifiers and licensing policies. The extended objectives focus on authors' information management, controlled vocabularies, machine-actionability, and Digital Management Plans.

Envisager le numérique dans une perspective spatiale permet d’ouvrir les trois dimensions de la bibliothèque physique à une multiplicité d’autres dimensions qui permettraient des sauts d’un « rayonnage » à un autre, autant que leur incessante reconfiguration. Dans quelle mesure peut-on filer cette métaphore et transposer par analogie les cheminements intellectuels de la bibliothèque dite physique à son avatar numérique ? Prenant pour étude de cas la plateforme Gallica, cette enquête pose donc la question de savoir si l’on peut reconsidérer un usage du numérique, et des bibliothèques numériques en particulier, comme l’arpentage d’un espace, et selon quelles modalités.

<strong>Background</strong> In October 2020, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) commissioned OAPEN to carry out a gap analysis of technical infrastructure for open access monographs, edited works and book chapters. This report presents the results of the gap analysis. It aims to inform UKRI on infrastructure requirements for OA monographs as part of its considerations for introducing an OA policy for monographs. The report describes high-level workflows and the following stakeholders: author; publisher; (research) institution; funder. The report uses a granular classification of the technical infrastructure supporting OA books and chapters. The scope of the report is to identify infrastructure that either handles open access books exclusively, to a large extent, and/or is key infrastructure for OA books. The focus of this project is on shared technical infrastructure to support OA book publishing for all stakeholders, including all types of publishers and business models. <strong>Use cases, workflow and infrastructure</strong> The report describes use cases and workflows as a form of information transfer: for sharing both research results and metadata. The following use cases are identified in the report: publish research findings (author); build and manage academic profile; publish research findings (publisher); run repository/library; manage research (institution); manage research (funder); promote open access. The infrastructure is classified into the following areas: publication infrastructure, quality assurance, compliance checking, hosting and delivery, discovery, preservation, monitoring and measuring impact, open access engagement; and advocacy. The infrastructure is used by all stakeholders to perform interconnected tasks. The infrastructure connections consist of metadata about objects such as the manuscript or the research grant. By focusing on the tasks shared by different stakeholders, overlapping interests are revealed. This helps identify gaps in the existing infrastructure. <strong>Gap analysis and recommendations</strong> The identified gaps occur in most infrastructure areas. There is perceived lack of transparency in monograph publishing, particularly in quality assurance. There should be more attention for best practice in OA book publishing. Authors need to be better supported and have the option to publish their research outputs open access, and funders and institutions need to improve infrastructure to support compliance with policies and monitor research outputs. There are shortcomings in the use of metadata and standards for OA books that limit interoperability and discovery, affecting the wider ecosystem around OA books. The recommendations are to a large extent relevant for the broader stakeholder community and can be considered in the wider context of policy development and measures to improve the infrastructure for OA books.