Archives des auteurs : Hans Dillaerts

Using AI to solve business problems in scholarly publishing

Posté le par

Author: Michael Upshall

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are widely used today in many areas, and are now being introduced into scholarly publishing. This article provides a brief overview of present-day AI and machine learning as used for text-based resources such as journal articles and book chapters, and provides an example of its application to identify suitable peer reviewers for manuscript submissions.

It describes how one company, UNSILO, has created a tool for this purpose, and the underlying technology used to deliver it. The article also offers a glimpse into a future where AI will profoundly change the way that academic publishing will work.

URL : Using AI to solve business problems in scholarly publishing

DOI : http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.460

The Cornwall a-book: An Augmented Travel Guide Using Next Generation Paper

Posté le par

Authors : David M. Frohlich, Emily Corrigan-Kavanagh, Mirek Bober, Haiyue Yuan, Radu Sporea, Brice Le Borgne, Caroline Scarles, George Revill, Jan van Duppen, Alan W. Brown, Megan Beynon

Electronic publishing usually presents readers with book or e-book options for reading on paper or screen. In this paper, we introduce a third method of reading on paper-and-screen through the use of an augmented book (‘a-book’) with printed hotlinks than can be viewed on a nearby smartphone or other device.

Two experimental versions of an augmented guide to Cornwall are shown using either optically recognised pages or embedded electronics making the book sensitive to light and touch. We refer to these as second generation (2G) and third generation (3G) paper respectively.

A common architectural framework, authoring workflow and interaction model is used for both technologies, enabling the creation of two future generations of augmented books with interactive features and content.

In the travel domain we use these features creatively to illustrate the printed book with local multimedia and updatable web media, to point to the printed pages from the digital content, and to record personal and web media into the book.

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0022.101

Investigating SSH Research and Publication Practices in Disciplinary and Institutional Contexts. A Survey-Based Comparative Approach in Two Universities

Posté le par

Authors : Florian Baye, Juan Gorraiz, Christian Gumpenberger, Arantxa Itúrbiden, Isabel Iribarren-Maestro, Steve Reding

In this paper, we comparatively analyze, present and discuss the results from a survey on increasing the visibility of research achievements in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) that was carried out at the University of Vienna (Austria) and the University of Navarra (Spain) in 2016 and 2017.

Covering four major topics—searching and finding literature, publishing, the visibility of research, and the assessment of research outputs—we ask the following questions: are there disciplinary differences to be identified, and how do they present themselves in the two institutional contexts?

Discussing the results, we showcase how disciplinary and institutional traditions and contexts are important factors that influence research and publication practices in the SSH.

Our results indicate that the practices of searching and finding literature as well as publication practices and behavior are shaped by disciplinary traditions and epistemic cultures.

On the contrary, assessment and valuation of research outputs are influenced by institutional and national contexts in which SSH research is organized and carried out.

URL : Investigating SSH Research and Publication Practices in Disciplinary and Institutional Contexts. A Survey-Based Comparative Approach in Two Universities

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2019.00001

Construction(s) et contradictions des données de recherche en SHS

Posté le par

Auteurs/Authors : Marie-Laure Malingre, Morgane Mignon, Cécile Pierre, Alexandre Serres

La structuration et le partage des données s’imposent depuis cinq ans au monde de la recherche, à travers des injonctions politiques (de Horizon 2020 au Plan national pour la science ouverte).

L’analyse de l’enquête menée en 2017 auprès des chercheurs de l’université Rennes 2 sur leurs pratiques, représentations et attentes en matière de données conduit à interroger le terme lui-même. Variable et complexe, contrairement à ce que suggère le mot « donnée », la notion ne va pas de soi.

L’article s’efforcera de montrer qu’elle fait l’objet d’une triple construction, épistémologique, intellectuelle et politique, dans les discours des chercheurs et des acteurs institutionnels, en tension avec les pratiques constatées sur le terrain.

DOI : https://www.openscience.fr/Construction-s-et-contradictions-des-donnees-de-recherche-en-SHS#

Building an International Consensus on Multi-Disciplinary Metadata Standards: A CODATA Case History in Nanotechnology

Posté le par

Authors : John Rumble, John Broome, Simon Hodson

Science today is rapidly becoming both multi-disciplinary and data-driven. These two trends pose new challenges to the capture, management, sharing, and dissemination of research data. Multi-disciplinary science means diverse data generation communities and equally diverse user groups.

Data-driven means that sharing data among different communities is more important than ever because of the growth of modeling and knowledge discovery.

Nanotechnology is a prime example, involving chemistry, physics, materials science, toxicology, environmental science, and many other disciplines. During the past few years, CODATA has created an international, multi-disciplinary Working Group that has developed a number of critically important metadata standards to facilitate sharing nanomaterials data.

In this paper, we discuss the challenges faced in starting and executing this work, as well as the approaches taken to make progress on producing internationally accepted metadata standards.

Many of these approaches are directly applicable to other multi-disciplinary subjects.

URL : Building an International Consensus on Multi-Disciplinary Metadata Standards: A CODATA Case History in Nanotechnology

DOI : http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2019-012

Instagram and the science museum: a missed opportunity for public engagement

Posté le par

Authors : Paige Brown Jarreau, Nicole Smith Dahmen, Ember Jones

Science museums are missing an opportunity to promote informal education, scientific literacy, public engagement and public visibility of scientists outside of museum walls via Instagram.

With an analysis of 1,073 Instagram posts, we show that museums are using Instagram as a promotional broadcasting tool, with a focus on end results of collections and curation work over communication of museum-led discovery and science as a process.

We suggest that science museums create more Instagram posts that offer educational information and visibility of exhibit creation and museum researchers’ work behind the scenes.

URL : Instagram and the science museum: a missed opportunityfor public engagement

Alternative location : https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/18/02/JCOM_1802_2019_A06

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

Posté le par

Authors : Erin C. McKiernan​, Lesley A. Schimanski, Carol Muñoz Nieves, Lisa Matthias, Meredith T. Niles, Juan Pablo Alperin

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) was originally designed to aid libraries in deciding which journals to index and purchase for their collections. Over the past few decades, however, it has become a relied upon metric used to evaluate research articles based on journal rank. Surveyed faculty often report feeling pressure to publish in journals with high JIFs and mention reliance on the JIF as one problem with current academic evaluation systems.

While faculty reports are useful, information is lacking on how often and in what ways the JIF is currently used for review, promotion, and tenure (RPT). We therefore collected and analyzed RPT documents from a representative sample of 129 universities from the United States and Canada and 381 of their academic units.

We found that 40% of doctoral, research-intensive (R-type) institutions and 18% of master’s, or comprehensive (M-type) institutions explicitly mentioned the JIF, or closely related terms, in their RPT documents.

Undergraduate, or baccalaureate (B-type) institutions did not mention it at all. A detailed reading of these documents suggests that institutions may also be using a variety of terms to indirectly refer to the JIF.

Our qualitative analysis shows that 87% of the institutions that mentioned the JIF supported the metric’s use in at least one of their RPT documents, while 13% of institutions expressed caution about the JIF’s use in evaluations.

None of the RPT documents we analyzed heavily criticized the JIF or prohibited its use in evaluations. Of the institutions that mentioned the JIF, 63% associated it with quality, 40% with impact, importance, or significance, and 20% with prestige, reputation, or status.

In sum, our results show that the use of the JIF is encouraged in RPT evaluations, especially at research-intensive universities, and indicates there is work to be done to improve evaluation processes to avoid the potential misuse of metrics like the JIF.

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

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27638v2