Researchers' And Medical Student' Experience in Reference Management Software in a Low-Income Country

INTRODUCTION

Although the use of Reference Management Software (RMS) is increasing in developed countries, they seem to be unknown and less used in low-income countries.

AIM

To discover the major trends in the use of RMS among researchers and Ph.D. students in Tunisia, as a low-income country.

METHODS

A hardcopy survey was filled out by researchers and Ph.D. students during an educational seminar at the faculty of medicine of Sfax in 2016 with the aim to collect qualitative data to determine the participants' knowledge and use of RMS.

RESULTS

The survey collected 121 participants, among them, 53.7% know RMS. Mendeley proved to be the best-known software (41.5%), followed by Zotero (35.3%) and Endnote (23%). Training sessions in RMS were taken by 5% of participants. Among the 121 participants, 26.5%of them use RMS., Mendeley was the most used (46.9%), followed by EndNote (28.1%) and Zotero (25%). The most commonly popular feature in RMS is inserting citations (66.9%). Therefore, the analysis, of the reasons behind the choice of RMS proves that the software was used because it is convenient (38.4%),  most known (38.4%),  easy (30.7%), or suggested by colleagues (30.7%). The free and open-source software was preferred by 81% of the participants. g. However, 50.4% ignore the fact that Zotero is free. Several types and sources of captured citations were unknown by 53.8% and 59% of the rest of the participants.

CONCLUSION

The results clearly show that the lack of awareness about RMS in Tunisia is due to the absence of a formal training. As a result, the need for such training is highly important for researchers to be able to benefit from the different advantages of RMS while conducting their academic medical education.

Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency

Beginning January 2014, Psychological Science gave authors the opportunity to signal open data and materials if they qualified for badges that accompanied published articles. Before badges, less than 3% of Psychological Science articles reported open data. After badges, 23% reported open data, with an accelerating trend; 39% reported open data in the first half of 2015, an increase of more than an order of magnitude from baseline. There was no change over time in the low rates of data sharing among comparison journals. Moreover, reporting openness does not guarantee openness. When badges were earned, reportedly available data were more likely to be actually available, correct, usable, and complete than when badges were not earned. Open materials also increased to a weaker degree, and there was more variability among comparison journals. Badges are simple, effective signals to promote open practices and improve preservation of data and materials by using independent repositories.

Badges that acknowledge open practices significantly increase sharing of reported data and materials, as well as subsequent accessibility, correctness, usability, and completeness.

Openness is a core value of scientific practice. The sharing of research materials and data facilitates critique, extension, and application within the scientific community, yet current norms provide few incentives for researchers to share evidence underlying scientific claims. In January 2014, the journal Psychological Science adopted such an incentive by offering “badges” to acknowledge and signal open practices in publications. In this study, we evaluated the effect that two types of badges—Open Data badges and Open Materials badges—have had on reported data and material sharing, as well as on the actual availability, correctness, usability, and completeness of those data and materials both in Psychological Science and in four comparison journals. We report an increase in reported data sharing of more than an order of magnitude from baseline in Psychological Science, as well as an increase in reported materials sharing, although to a weaker degree. Moreover, we show that reportedly available data and materials were more accessible, correct, usable, and complete when badges were earned. We demonstrate that badges are effective incentives that improve the openness, accessibility, and persistence of data and materials that underlie scientific research.

"Lansania Journal of Arachnology and Zoology" - a rare and obscure Japanese natural history journal

Publication data relating to a rare and obscure Japanese journal "Lansania Journal of Arachnology and Zoology" (1929-1941) are examined. Available facts, together with a substantial body of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence suggest that many planned issues, including several cited by independent sources as having been published, were not published. Some biographical data relating to the editor, Kyukichi Kishida (1888-1968), are provided. Titles of all papers known to have been published in "Lansania," with page numbers and claimed publication dates are presented, together with a list of 113 new zoological names proposed in the journal. Known library holdings of the journal worldwide are indicated. Details are provided of unpublished manuscripts in proof obtained from Kishida in the 1960s. The strong probability that some printed publication dates are inaccurate is discussed in detail.

John Lawson's "A New Voyage to Carolina": notes on the publication history of the London (1709) edition

John Lawson's "A New Voyage to Carolina," an important source document for American colonial natural history, was first printed in 1709 in "A New Collection of Voyages and Travels," a two-volume set that also contained travel books translated by John Stevens. Lawson's publishers were leaders in the book trade of early eighteenth century London, and the "New Voyage" is typical of the resurgent popular interest in foreign travel narratives and exotic flora and fauna that began in the late 1600s. The "New Collection" was among the earliest examples of books published in serial instalments or fascicles, a marketing strategy adopted by London booksellers to broaden the audience and increase sales. Analysis of London issues of the "New Voyage" indicates that the 1709, 1711, 1714, and 1718 versions are simply bindings of the original, unsold sheets from the 1709 "New Collection" edition, differing only by new title-pages, front matter, and random stop-press corrections of type-set errors. Lawson's "New Voyage" illustrates important aspects of the British book trade during the hand press period of the early eighteenth century.