Research centres, universities and public organisations create datasets that can be reused in research. Reusing data makes it possible to reproduce studies, generate new research questions and new knowledge, but it also gives rise to technical and ethical challenges. Part of these issues are repositories interoperability to accomplish FAIR principles or issues related to data privacy or anonymity. At the same time, funding institutions require that data management plans be submitted for grants, and research tends to be increasingly interdisciplinary. Interdisciplinarity may entail barriers for researchers to reuse data, such as a lack of skills to manipulate data, given that each discipline generates different types of data in different technical formats, often non-standardized. Additionally, the use of standards to validate data reuse and better metadata to find appropriate datasets seem necessary. This paper offers a review of the literature that addresses data reuse in terms of technical, ethical-related issues.

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 review, participants mentioned a certain reticence to the opening of evaluations due to potential conflicts of interest that may arise or because lower-quality content might be accepted in order to avoid conflicts. In addition, the hierarchical structure of senior researcher versus junior researcher might affect reviews. The main conclusions indicate a need for persuasion of OA to take place; APCs are an economic barrier rather than the main criterion for journal selection; OPR practices may seem innovative and emerging; scientific and evaluation policies seem to have a clear effect on the behaviour of researchers; researchers state that they share research data more for reasons of persuasion than out of obligation. Researchers do question the pathways or difficulties that may arise on a day-to-day basis and seem aware that we are undergoing change, where academic evaluation or policies related to open science, its implementation and habits among researchers may change. In this sense, more and better support is needed on the part of institutions and faculty support services.

Pillars of open science are often included within the editorial policies of scholarly journals, including policies on open access publication, availability of underlying research data, preprints and open peer review. The aim of this paper is to examine and analyse perceptions and editorial practices related to open access, preprints, open research data and open peer review, from the perspective of editors of scientific journals published in Spain, to gain an insight into editorial policies related to open science. Results and data were obtained by a combined method of online interviews and an online questionnaire. The online survey was sent to editors from journals indexed in the Dulcinea directory, which at the time of the study included 1875 academic journals. A total of 420 responses (22.4%) were obtained. The results indicated that 92% of the journals were open access journals, 2% of the journals conducted open peer review, 15% of the journals had instructions to allow archiving preprints, and out of 375 responses, only 59 journals (16%) reported having a policy on underlying research data. Based on these results, there is a trend in favour of open access, but the perceived barriers to open peer review outweighed the advantages. There is also some reluctance to allow preprints to be made available. This concern might be because editors want authors and readers to read and cite the contents published in their journals, rather than their preprint versions.

This study focuses on the curation of newsletters specialized in Covid-19 news from the mass media of France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the USA. The newsletters of 21 media outlets –15 traditional and six digital natives– were studied during the peaks of the pandemic in April and November 2020. The study follows an evaluative method of curation quality, based on the analysis of the following parameters: number of curated contents, time range, origin, sources –according to organization type and morphology–, authorship, sense-making techniques, and hyperlink informational function. The results identify the main characteristics of news curation in these newsletters and their differences from general newsletters, as well as the sources used, and also make it possible to establish curation quality standings and to identify differences between countries and among legacy and pure digital news outlets.

In this scoping review, we portray an examination of the gender gap on Wikipedia by analyzing scholarly literature from 2007 to 2022. Employing quantitative methods, the study identifies key author characteristics such as gender, disciplines, countries, and institutions. The research reveals a slight majority of female authors, followed by male authors, with limited representation from non-binary authors. Qualitatively, content analysis uncovers two central themes: addressing the contribution gap and incorporating content related to underrepresented genders. Additionally, the study assesses results on the content gap, editing and participation bias, readership imbalances, and strategies to mitigate the gender gap. Furthermore, it explores the repercussions of this gap and categorizes the contributing factors as “the women’s problem,” “the mirror effect,” and “the systemic problem.” Overall, this comprehensive review enhances our comprehension of the Wikipedia gender gap and provides valuable insights into the research landscape in this domain.

Purpose. Open Science entails research reproducibility, with an emphasis on data sharing and reuse. Hence, research data management (RDM) is an essential asset in research institutions for supporting open science. This study offers a systematic review of the landscape of research data management in academic libraries. It further examines the influence academic libraries can have if they are involved in the research lifecycle process, and how this benefits research institutions that have started implementing research data management, especially in the data-intensive disciplines. Methodology. In this study, the authors analysed Web of Science and Scopus databases, searching for papers connecting research data management and academic libraries. The authors found a total of N=387 articles. After removing duplicates and applying the exclusion and inclusion criteria process, the authors finally analysed N=32 articles, n=20 case studies, and n=12 research papers at both national and international levels. Limitations. This study has some limitations. Although the authors retrieved as many papers as possible for the analysis, it should not be considered as an exhaustive analysis, as varying studies may also be missing from the sample. The authors observed that there are more case studies focused on one institution rather than research papers involving different institutions at the international or national level. Therefore, more research studies would enrich the literature and show best practices in RDM. Results. The results show that research data management has some services implemented in different countries at the local or the international level. The authors argue that research data management generates new opportunities for academic libraries and librarians to acquire new skills as a part of the research data lifecycle. Originality/value. This study reports the current state of research data management at the international level in academic libraries and the influence libraries can have if they are involved in the research lifecycle process.