Researchers’ views on Science Communication and Open Science

Last week Vetenskap & Allmänhet (Public & Science), a Swedish non-profit acting to promote dialogue and openness between researchers and the public, released an interesting report together with Vetenskapsrådet. The report deals with Researchers’ views on Science Communication and Open Science, and is the result of comprehensive interviews with researchers, science communicators and research funders in Sweden.

Some of the results include:

  • science communication is seen as important, particularly for democratic reasons
  • the biggest obstacle is lack of time and the fact that it isn’t seen as a merit
  • researchers experience positive support from their colleagues when they do science communication outside of academia
  • researchers rarely use social media for science communication
  • open science is an unfamiliar term for many, who instead associate it with open access (of research publications)

The report and news post about it are currently only available in Swedish.

Public & Science news post about the report (Swedish)
Full text of the report (Swedish)

The results of the report were presented and discussed at a seminar at Vetenskapsrådet on March 23rd 2018. A recording of the seminar (held in Swedish) is available here:

Text: Signe Wulund

Last week today

Last week was peer review week which we didn’t pay attention to in any way. Our sister blog, however, did. They wrote a post about peer review form the student perspective and why it is important for them. Peer review week is sort of like Open Access week at the end of October each year. The point is to emphasize the central role peer review plays in scientific communication, shine light on the work reserchers (reviewers) and editors at journals do, share best practice and even highlight the latest innovation in peer review; it has been under a lot of critique. Nevertheless, peer review is an important part of maintaining scientific quality.

Althouh we didn’t celebrate the week many others did, among others the blog Impact of Social Science from London School of Economics and Political Science. They wrote a number of posts on the topic which are linked from here. Maybe you find one or two or all interesting to read.

Peer review processes risk stifling creativity and limiting opportunities for game-changing scientific discoveries

Amidst criticism of the peer review process, the valuable contributions of reviewers should be defended

What are researchers’ expectations and experiences of the peer review process? Findings from recent research

Open peer review: bringing transparency, accountability, and inclusivity to the peer review process

Addressing ethical issues in peer review – new guidelines available from COPE

We have the technology to save peer review – now it is up to our communities to implement it

Pieta Eklund

Think. Check. Submit.

Are you in the process of choosing a journal but unsure which to pick? Think.Check.Sumbit is a page that might help you. The first step of selecting a journal is to think about your options. Then you ask a number of question to the journal and when you have answered yes to all or most of the question you can submit your article to the journal. The question of where the articles are indexed is an important one. They should be indexed in a database relevant for your subject area because then your colleagues are able to access the articles you have written.

There are other questions to ask as well when controlling a journal. Your research funder might demand open access. In that case it is important to control how the funder wants the article to be openly accessible. Is it enough for it to be deposited in the publication database of the university (DiVA in our case)? Or does it have to be an open access journal? How quickly does the article need to be made available? What about impact? Does the journal claim to have impact? Is the impact factor provided by Web of Science or by someone else? You should know that the only valid impact factor is provided by Web of Science.

When you are uncertain contact us at the library, biblioteket(at) We are here to help you.

Text: Pieta

German universities boycott Elsevier

Since January 1st over 60 German universities and research institutionsare boycotting Elsevier. This means that German libraries do not have fulltext access to scientific journals published by Elsevier. Background is that Elsevier’s  businessmodells are not transparent nor do they provide open access to content in the extent requored by the univeristies and research institutions. Pricing is also an issue. The aim is to relieve the pressure on acquistion budgets and at improving access to scientific literature in a broad and sustainable way according to the statement made by Göttingen University – one of the participants in this boycott.

Libraries are aware of the difficult situation facing researchers, teachers and students. However, the libraries mean they are not going to give in because they have a greated possibility to influence the agreement together. Researchers should contact the library to get access to articles they need. Libraries are prepared to get them in other ways and at no cost to the reseachers.

According to Science negotiations will start in the begining of the year.

Pieta Eklund