CWTS | Leiden UniversityJan 15
💡 To function well, scholarly communication and research assessment need innovation-friendly bibliographic databases. This is what @LudoWaltman from CWTS and the co-authors of a thought piece recently published in the Upstream blog argue for. https://upstream.force11.org/criteria-for-bibliographic-databases/
Criteria for Bibliographic Databases in a Well-Functioning Scholarly Communication and Research Assessment Ecosystem

Bibliographic databases should support innovation and experimentation. Here, we offer four criteria for innovation-friendly bibliographic databases. We urge the global research community to use databases that support and do not hinder innovation in scholarly communication and research assessment.

Upstream
Show threadCWTS | Leiden UniversityJan 15

What does this mean concretely?

📋 According to the authors of the blog post, bibliographic databases should fulfill the following four criteria:

1️    Recognize diversity in use cases and needs of database users
2️    Index beyond peer-reviewed journals (preprints, data, etc.)
3️    Embrace trust markers like open peer reviews
4️    Include researchers in governance

Show threadCWTS | Leiden University

✒️ Contributors to this blog post are: @gin, Caitlin Carter, @JACoates, @KellyCobey, @katiecorker, @lizziegadd, @MsPhelps, Rebecca Lawrence, Eva Mendez, @cameronneylon, @jannepolonen, Bodo Stern, & @LudoWaltman

📚 Read the full blog post here 👉 https://upstream.force11.org/criteria-for-bibliographic-databases/

Criteria for Bibliographic Databases in a Well-Functioning Scholarly Communication and Research Assessment Ecosystem

Bibliographic databases should support innovation and experimentation. Here, we offer four criteria for innovation-friendly bibliographic databases. We urge the global research community to use databases that support and do not hinder innovation in scholarly communication and research assessment.

Upstream
Jan 15 at 11:54amWeb