Cite Datasets and Link to Publications This…

Cite Datasets and Link to Publications :

« This guide will help you create links between your academic publications and the underlying datasets, so that anyone viewing the publication will be able to locate the dataset and vice versa. It provides a working knowledge of the issues and challenges involved, and of how current approaches seek to address them. This guide should interest researchers and principal investigators working on data-led research, as well as the data repositories with which they work. »

URL : http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/how-guides/cite-datasets

Tendances lourdes et tensions pour les filières du document numérique

Sur la base des travaux réalisés dans le cadre de l’ANR Digital 3.0 PRISE, cette communication rend compte du bilan de l’atelier « Culture, médias et numérique », sur les tendances lourdes et les tensions majeures qui transforment actuellement les principales filières du document numérique, document étant entendu ici de façon extensive, à savoir la presse, les livres, l’audiovisuel, la musique (produits des industries culturelles).

Les tendances et tensions identifiées concernent l’organisation économique, les régulations, les usages et les pratiques dominantes.

URL : http://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_00634783/fr/

Open Access to Scientific Information in Croatia Increasing…

Open Access to Scientific Information in Croatia : Increasing Research Impact of a Scientifically Peripheral Country :

« Open Access (OA) to scientific information has become, during the last decade, an important means of communicating in science. The most important fact, proved by numerous studies, is that OA can increase visibility and impact of research results. The first chapter of the book gives an overview of the beginnings of formal scientific communication as an introduction to the further discussion on OA, especially OA in developing and transition countries. In the second chapter, basic definitions of OA and basic OA initiatives are explained as well as the two ways of achieving OA. The third chapter analyses access barriers for scientifically peripheral countries and the ways of removing them. Chapters four and five are completely dedicated to the Open Access in Croatia. Using an example of Croatia, the possibilities of increasing research results of a scientifically peripheral country are explained. Results of the complete study of OA in Croatia are analysed and explained. The study consists of two parts – study of Croatian OA journals and study of Croatian OA repositories. In the first part, the data on editorial policy regarding electronic publishing are gathered by the method of web content analysis. In the sample are all the Croatian scientific journals that had, by the end of June 2010, at least one 2009 issue freely available on the internet. The second part of the study discusses the problem of OA repositories in Croatia and gives an example of such a repository. Recommendations for further development of OA in Croatia are given as a part of the conclusion. »

URL : http://darhiv.ffzg.hr/1397/

Benefits to the Private Sector of Open Access…

Benefits to the Private Sector of Open Access to Higher Education and Scholarly Research :

« This report is set out in five chapters which, following this introduction, look at:
• The study context and, in particular, available (past) evidence of businesses and benefits of engaging with publicly funded research, as well as access to and discoverability of research and business engagement in OA policy (Chapter 2).
• Business engagement with Open Access, including business models, knowledge transfer contexts, awareness and distinctive use of OA and its role and contribution to businesses (Chapter 3).
• Benefits of OA to the private sector including a review of the nature and limitations of the reviewed evidence, benefits and impact of OA, and in-company enablers and constraints to securing benefit (Chapter 4).
• Conclusions and recommendations (Chapter 5) ».

URL : http://open-access.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/OAIG_Benefits_OA_PrivateSector.pdf

Implementing Web 2.0 Design Patterns in an Institutional Repository May Increase Community Participation

Objective: To investigate whether Web 2.0 can enhance participation in institutional repositories (IRs) and whether its widespread use can lead to success in this context. Another purpose was to emphasize how an IR with a Web 2.0 approach can connect individuals in their creative and intellectual outputs, no matter what form of shared material is contributed.

Design: Comparative study.

Setting: Two IRs at Teachers College, Columbia University, which is a graduate and professional school of education in New York City.

Subjects: Students, faculty, and staff using the PocketKnowledge and CPC IRs.

Methods: Cocciolo compared two different IRs called PocketKnowledge and Community Program Collections (CPC). PocketKnowledge had the following Web 2.0 design patterns: users control their own data; users should be trusted; flexible tags are preferred over hierarchical taxonomies; the attitude should be playful; software gets better the more people use it. The PocketKnowledge IR design patterns were compared with the traditional design of the CPC IR. The CRC IR organized information based on taxonomy (e.g., programs and departments), lack of user control of their own content, and centrality of authority. Data were collected during a 22-month period. The PocketKnowledge IR was studied from September 2006 to July 2008, compiling information on both contributions and contributors. Contributions made by library staff to aid availability in archival collections were excluded from the data sets, because the study was focused on community participation in the learning environment. The CPC was studied between November 2004 and July 2006. Data collected included the contributions made to the system and information on the role of the contributor (e.g., student, faculty, or staff).

Main Results: Participation was much greater in the Web 2.0 system (PocketKnowledge) than in the non-Web 2.0 system (CPC). Involvement in the latter, the CPC, was noted primarily for faculty (59%), with a smaller proportion of students (11%) contributing. This trend was reversed with the Web 2.0 system, in which 79% of the contributions came from students. However, as a group, faculty were better represented than the student body as contributors to the Web 2.0 system (23% and 8% respectively). Faculty members who created an account (without contributing) represented 30% of the population. These observations suggest that Web 2.0 is attractive to students as a space to share their intellectual creations, and at the same time it does not alienate the faculty. Notwithstanding, although 31% of the student body had created a user account for PocketKnowledge, the Web 2.0 system, only 8% of the students actually contributed to this IR. The study examined only the participation rates and was not concerned with what motivated contributions to PocketKnowledge. Accordingly, the results can be extrapolated by observing that the limitation of previous IRs is that they focused primarily on the library goals of collecting and preserving scholarly work, and did not consider what prompted faculty to contribute. Despite the satisfactory participation in the two IRs of interest, the author argued that the incentive is associated more extensively with the role as teacher than with the role as researcher. This is related to the ambition of faculty to improve classroom-based experience by ensuring that their students are as engaged as possible in the teachers’ areas of expertise. In other words, a faculty contribution is motivated by knowing that students will become familiar with what is contributed.

Conclusion: This study suggests that IRs can achieve greater participation by shifting the focus from the library goals to the objective of building localized teaching and learning communities by connecting individuals through their respective intellectual outputs. Creation of a system like the CPC that supports such exchange will advance library goals by storing faculty’s scholarly work, whereas Web 2.0 offers a set of approaches and design patterns for establishing systems that help promote community participation. Greater student participation in an IR may prompt increased faculty participation, because the IR will be more extensively focused on the teaching and learning community than on the research community. Thus, the major finding of the study is that greater community participation resulted from a Web 2.0 design pattern approach.

URL : http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/9932