Collecting Space Use Data to Improve the UX of Library Space

Authors : Shelley Gullikson, Kristin Meyer

Collecting data about where people are and what they are doing is an easy entry point into exploring the UX of library space. This article examines projects at two academic libraries where space use data was collected multiple times per day for several months.

The two projects were designed and carried out independently but had the same purpose: to better understand how students were using library spaces so that we could improve student experiences.

Collecting space use data provided a baseline understanding of user behavior in these spaces. Similar to web analytics, this baseline can be useful on its own or used in conjunction with other forms of user research.


Opening Review in LIS Journals: A Status Report

Author : Emily Ford


Peer-review practices in scholarly publishing are changing. Digital publishing mechanisms allow for open peer review, a peer review process that discloses author and reviewer identities to one another.

This model of peer review is increasingly implemented in scholarly publishing. In science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines, open peer review is implemented in journal publishing processes, and, in the humanities and social sciences, it is often coupled with new scholarship practices, such as the digital humanities.

This article reports findings from an exploratory study on peer-review and publishing practices in Library and Information Science (LIS), focusing on LIS’s relationships with open peer review.


Editors of LIS journals were surveyed regarding journal peer review and publishing practices.


This article reports the general “pulse” of attitudes and conversations regarding open peer review and discusses its challenges in LIS. Results show an ideological split between traditionally-published journals and open access and association-affiliated journals. Open access and association-affiliated journal editors are more likely to consider investigating open peer review.


The LIS community of journal editors, authors, reviewers, and readers need to discuss open peer review as well as experiment with it. Experiments with open peer review in scholarly LIS publishing will inform our praxis as librarians.

URL : Opening Review in LIS Journals: A Status Report


Bibliothèques numériques et crowdsourcing : expérimentations autour de Numalire, projet de numérisation à la demande par crowdfunding

Auteur/Author : Mathieu Andro

Au lieu d’externaliser certaines tâches auprès de prestataires ayant recours à des pays dont la main d’œuvre est bon marché, les bibliothèques dans le monde font de plus en plus appel aux foules d’internautes, rendant plus collaborative leur relation avec les usagers.

Après un chapitre conceptuel sur les conséquences de ce nouveau modèle économique sur la société et sur les bibliothèques, un panorama des projets est présenté dans les domaines de la numérisation à la demande, de la correction participative de l’OCR notamment sous la forme de jeux (gamification) et de la folksonomie.

Ce panorama débouche sur un état de l’art du crowdsourcing appliqué à la numérisation et aux bibliothèques numériques et sur des analyses dans le domaine des sciences de l’information et de la communication.

Enfin, sont présentées des apports conceptuels et des expérimentations originales, principalement autour du projet Numalire de numérisation à la demande par crowdfunding.

URL : Bibliothèques numériques et crowdsourcing : expérimentations autour de Numalire, projet de numérisation à la demande par crowdfunding

Alternative location :

Open Data et évolution des frontières numériques de l’entreprise

Auteur/Author : Franck Debos

Nous pouvons observer que le phénomène d’Open Data prend de plus en plus d’ampleur au sein des organisations publiques et privées. Dans ce contexte une stratégie de libération des données va provoquer une extension et une plus grande perméabilité des frontières numériques des entreprises.

Ces données ouvertes vont en effet créer plus d’interactions avec les parties prenantes qui vont s’approprier et faire évoluer la structure et les fonctions de ces entreprises.

Dans une première partie, nous présenterons les grandes lignes de l’Open Data et ses conséquences sur le monde entrepreneurial. Nous illustrerons ensuite nos propos par la présentation et les premiers résultats du projet de recherche OPENRJ (Dispositif PACA Labs) qui vise à construire une fédération d’organisations qui mettent à disposition gratuitement et librement les consommations énergétiques en temps-réel de leurs bâtiments.


Revisiting an open access monograph experiment: measuring citations and tweets 5 years later

Author : Ronald Snijder

An experiment run in 2009 could not assess whether making monographs available in open access enhanced scholarly impact. This paper revisits the experiment, drawing on additional citation data and tweets. It attempts to answer the following research question: does open access have a positive influence on the number of citations and tweets a monograph receives, taking into account the influence of scholarly field and language?

The correlation between monograph citations and tweets is also investigated. The number of citations and tweets measured in 2014 reveal a slight open access advantage, but the influence of language or subject should also be taken into account. However, Twitter usage and citation behaviour hardly overlap.

URL : Revisiting an open access monograph experiment

Alternative location :

Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century

Authors : Daniele Fanelli, Vincent Larivière

Debates over the pros and cons of a “publish or perish” philosophy have inflamed academia for at least half a century. Growing concerns, in particular, are expressed for policies that reward “quantity” at the expense of “quality,” because these might prompt scientists to unduly multiply their publications by fractioning (“salami slicing”), duplicating, rushing, simplifying, or even fabricating their results.

To assess the reasonableness of these concerns, we analyzed publication patterns of over 40,000 researchers that, between the years 1900 and 2013, have published two or more papers within 15 years, in any of the disciplines covered by the Web of Science.

The total number of papers published by researchers during their early career period (first fifteen years) has increased in recent decades, but so has their average number of co-authors. If we take the latter factor into account, by measuring productivity fractionally or by only counting papers published as first author, we observe no increase in productivity throughout the century.

Even after the 1980s, adjusted productivity has not increased for most disciplines and countries. These results are robust to methodological choices and are actually conservative with respect to the hypothesis that publication rates are growing.

Therefore, the widespread belief that pressures to publish are causing the scientific literature to be flooded with salami-sliced, trivial, incomplete, duplicated, plagiarized and false results is likely to be incorrect or at least exaggerated.

URL : Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century


Do Younger Researchers Assess Trustworthiness Differently when Deciding what to Read and Cite and where to Publish?

Authors : David Nicholas, Hamid R. Jamali, Anthony Watkinson, Eti Herman, Carol Tenopir, Rachel Volentine, Suzie Allard, Kenneth Levine

An international survey of over 3600 academic researchers examined how trustworthiness is determined when making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing in the digital age and whether social media and open access publications are having an impact on judgements.

In general, the study found that traditional scholarly methods and criteria remain important across the board. However, there are significant differences between younger (age 30 & under) and older researchers (over 30).

Thus younger researchers: a) expend less effort to obtain information and more likely to compromise on quality in their selections; b) view open access publishing much more positively as it offers them more choices and helps to establish their reputation more quickly; c) compensate for their lack of experience by relying more heavily on trust markers and proxies, such as impact factors; d) use all the outlets available in order to improve the chances of getting their work published and, in this respect, make the most use of the social media with which they are more familiar.