Dr. Lisa Matthias

Profil

Zusammenfassung

Dr. Lisa Matthias erforscht die Strukturen und Praktiken des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens, insbesondere Open-Access-Modelle, Qualitätssicherungsmechanismen wie Peer Review und die Rolle von Evaluationsmetriken in der Wissenschaft. Sie kombiniert großflächige bibliometrische Analysen mit Studien zu Verlagspraktiken und entwickelt datengestützte Strategien für transparentere und offenere Forschungskommunikation.

Skills

Name

Dr. Lisa Matthias

Titel

Dr.

Fakultät

Philosophische Fakultät

Institut

Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft

Arbeitsgruppe

Information Management (ECDF) (S)

E-Mail

🔒 nur für eingeloggte sichtbarAnmelden

Telefon

🔒 nur für eingeloggte sichtbarAnmelden

HU-FIS-Profil

Quelle ↗

Zuletzt gescrapt

27.6.2026, 01:10:50

• Fellowship Dr. Lisa Matthias Diamond OA Journal Flips

  Quelle ↗

  Förderer: Berlin University Alliance (BUA) Zeitraum: 01/2026 - 12/2026 Projektleitung: Dr. Lisa Matthias

🔒 Das System hat 189 mögliche Industrie-Partner gefunden — Firmen, Scores und Begründungen sind nur für eingeloggte Nutzer:innen sichtbar. Anmelden

• The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles

  2018

  PeerJ · 1201 Zitationen · DOI

  Despite growing interest in Open Access (OA) to scholarly literature, there is an unmet need for large-scale, up-to-date, and reproducible studies assessing the prevalence and characteristics of OA. We address this need using oaDOI, an open online service that determines OA status for 67 million articles. We use three samples, each of 100,000 articles, to investigate OA in three populations: (1) all journal articles assigned a Crossref DOI, (2) recent journal articles indexed in Web of Science, and (3) articles viewed by users of Unpaywall, an open-source browser extension that lets users find OA articles using oaDOI. We estimate that at least 28% of the scholarly literature is OA (19M in total) and that this proportion is growing, driven particularly by growth in Gold and Hybrid. The most recent year analyzed (2015) also has the highest percentage of OA (45%). Because of this growth, and the fact that readers disproportionately access newer articles, we find that Unpaywall users encounter OA quite frequently: 47% of articles they view are OA. Notably, the most common mechanism for OA is not Gold, Green, or Hybrid OA, but rather an under-discussed category we dub Bronze: articles made free-to-read on the publisher website, without an explicit Open license. We also examine the citation impact of OA articles, corroborating the so-called open-access citation advantage: accounting for age and discipline, OA articles receive 18% more citations than average, an effect driven primarily by Green and Hybrid OA. We encourage further research using the free oaDOI service, as a way to inform OA policy and practice.

• Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations

  2019

  eLife · 353 Zitationen · DOI

  We analyzed how often and in what ways the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is currently used in review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) documents of a representative sample of universities from the United States and Canada. 40% of research-intensive institutions and 18% of master's institutions mentioned the JIF, or closely related terms. Of the institutions that mentioned the JIF, 87% supported its use in at least one of their RPT documents, 13% expressed caution about its use, and none heavily criticized it or prohibited its use. Furthermore, 63% of institutions that mentioned the JIF associated the metric with quality, 40% with impact, importance, or significance, and 20% with prestige, reputation, or status. We conclude that use of the JIF is encouraged in RPT evaluations, especially at research-intensive universities, and that there is work to be done to avoid the potential misuse of metrics like the JIF.

• A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

  2017

  F1000Research · 255 Zitationen · DOI

  Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

• Simon Fraser University

  Fellowship Dr. Lisa Matthias Diamond OA Journal Flips

  university