Archives des auteurs : Hans Dillaerts

ARL Libraries and Research: Correlates of Grant Funding

Posté le par

Author : Ryan P. Womack

While providing the resources and tools that make advanced research possible is a primary mission of academic libraries at large research universities, many other elements also contribute to the success of the research enterprise, such as institutional funding, staffing, labs, and equipment.

This study focuses on U.S. members of the ARL, the Association for Research Libraries. Research success is measured by the total grant funding received by the University, creating an ordered set of categories.

Combining data from the NSF National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, ARL Statistics, and IPEDS, the primary explanatory factors for research success are examined.

Using linear regression, logistic regression, and the cumulative logit model, the best-fitting models generated by ARL data, NSF data, and the combined data set for both nominal and per capita funding are compared. These models produce the most relevant explanatory variables for research funding, which do not include library-related variables in most cases.

URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.05104

What does the UK public want from academic science communication?

Posté le par

The overall aim of public academic science communication is to engage a non-scientist with a particular field of science and/or research topic, often driven by the expertise of the academic.

An e-survey was designed to provide insight into respondent’s current and future engagement with science communication activities. Respondents provided a wide range of ideas and concerns as to the ‘common practice’ of academic science communication, and whilst they support some of these popular approaches (such as open-door events and science festivals), there are alternatives that may enable wider engagement.

Suggestions of internet-based approaches and digital media were strongly encouraged, and although respondents found merits in methods such as science festivals, limitations such as geography, time and topic of interest were a barrier to engagement for some.

Academics and scientists need to think carefully about how they plan their science communication activities and carry out evaluations, including considering the point of view of the public, as although defaulting to hands-on open door events at their university may seem like the expected standard, it may not be the best way to reach the intended audience.

URL : What does the UK public want from academic science communication?

Alternative location : http://f1000research.com/articles/5-1261/v1

Twittering About Research: A Case Study of the World’s First Twitter Poster Competition

Posté le par

Authors : Edward P. Randviir, Samuel M. Illingworth, Matthew J. Baker, Matthew Cude, Craig E. Banks

The Royal Society of Chemistry held, to our knowledge, the world’s first Twitter conference at 9am on February 5 th, 2015. The conference was a Twitter-only conference, allowing researchers to upload academic posters as tweets, replacing a physical meeting.

This paper reports the details of the event and discusses the outcomes, such as the potential for the use of social media to enhance scientific communication at conferences. In particular, the present work argues that social media outlets such as Twitter broaden audiences, speed up communication, and force clearer and more concise descriptions of a researcher’s work.

The benefits of poster presentations are also discussed in terms of potential knowledge exchange and networking.

This paper serves as a proof-of-concept approach for improving both the public opinion of the poster, and the enhancement of the poster through an innovative online format that some may feel more comfortable with, compared to face-to-face communication.

URL : Twittering About Research: A Case Study of the World’s First Twitter Poster Competition

Alternative location : http://f1000research.com/articles/4-798/v3

The Natural Selection of Bad Science

Posté le par

Authors : Paul E. Smaldino, Richard McElreath

Poor research design and data analysis encourage false-positive findings. Such poor methods persist despite perennial calls for improvement, suggesting that they result from something more than just misunderstanding.

The persistence of poor methods results partly from incentives that favor them, leading to the natural selection of bad science. This dynamic requires no conscious strategizing—no deliberate cheating nor loafing—by scientists, only that publication is a principle factor for career advancement.

Some normative methods of analysis have almost certainly been selected to further publication instead of discovery. In order to improve the culture of science, a shift must be made away from correcting misunderstandings and towards rewarding understanding. We support this argument with empirical evidence and computational modeling.

We first present a 60-year meta-analysis of statistical power in the behavioral sciences and show that power has not improved despite repeated demonstrations of the necessity of increasing power.

To demonstrate the logical consequences of structural incentives, we then present a dynamic model of scientific communities in which competing laboratories investigate novel or previously published hypotheses using culturally transmitted research methods.

As in the real world, successful labs produce more “progeny”, such that their methods are more often copied and their students are more likely to start labs of their own.

Selection for high output leads to poorer methods and increasingly high false discovery rates. We additionally show that replication slows but does not stop the process of methodological deterioration. Improving the quality of research requires change at the institutional level.

URL : The Natural Selection of Bad Science

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384

Économie et bibliothèques : Une dialectique au long cours numérique

Posté le par

Auteurs/Authors : Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Sami Mabrak

Économie et bibliothèques », «  Économie des bibliothèques », «  Économie en bibliothèques » sont autant d’expressions utilisées pour qualifier les travaux qui posent à la bibliothèque la question de sa valeur économique.

La réponse à cette question a varié et varie encore selon les contextes et les époques. Le web a projeté les bibliothèques dans un univers où elles doivent composer avec de nouvelles régulations.

Notre propos s’attachera à aborder cette question sous l’angle des bibliothèques académiques qui, plus que toutes autres, rencontrent le défi d’un univers de plus en plus ouvert, soumis aux régulations de l’économie numérique.

Les bibliothèques, dans la pluralité de leur typologie, ont accompagné et participé à la transition de nos sociétés vers le numérique.

Par l’intégration des contenus numériques dans leurs collections, par la formation des usagers, par la transformation de leurs bâtiments et de leurs espaces de travail et d’enseignement, par leur engagement dans le mouvement du libre accès, et plus récemment par leur implication dans les données de la recherche, elles ont été d’infatigables chevilles ouvrières de cette transition.

Ce faisant, elles ont participé à des initiatives, des expérimentations et/ou des projets de recherche qui ont contribué à faire évoluer leurs équipes et leurs missions.

Il serait d’ailleurs intéressant qu’un travail de recherche et d’analyse puisse un jour se pencher sur cette période extraordinaire qui a vu des organisations séculaires se transformer et se réinventer de manière si significative en si peu de temps.

Pour les bibliothèques académiques, qui sont au centre de notre propos, les transformations qu’elles ont connues (et qu’elles connaissent encore) sont intimement liées à celles de la communication scientifique sur le web et de l’édition scientifique.

Leur défi aujourd’hui consiste à continuer à exister dans un univers numérique, de plus en plus ouvert, où le nombre et la nature des intermédiaires n’ont jamais été aussi diversifiés.

Plus fondamentalement, la question de leur valeur et de leur poids économique, qui leur a été posée dès les années 1970 par leurs tutelles, se réactive aujourd’hui dans une économie numérique de l’accès.

Aux côtés des tutelles, les usagers, par leurs pratiques culturelles et sociales, posent indirectement la question de la valeur économique de la bibliothèque.

URL : http://bbf.enssib.fr/consulter/bbf-2016-08-0034-004

Stepping up Open Science Training for European Research

Posté le par

Authors : Birgit Schmidt, Astrid Orth, Gwen Franck, Iryna Kuchma, Petr Knoth, José Carvalho

Open science refers to all things open in research and scholarly communication: from publications and research data to code, models and methods as well as quality evaluation based on open peer review.

However, getting started with implementing open science might not be as straightforward for all stakeholders. For example, what do research funders expect in terms of open access to publications and/or research data?

Where and how to publish research data? How to ensure that research results are reproducible? These are all legitimate questions and, in particular, early career researchers may benefit from additional guidance and training.

In this paper we review the activities of the European-funded FOSTER project which organized and supported a wide range of targeted trainings for open science, based on face-to-face events and on a growing suite of e-learning courses.

This article reviews the approach and experiences gained from the first two years of the project.

URL : Stepping up Open Science Training for European Research

Alternative location : http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/4/2/16

Open access – the rise and fall of a community-driven model of scientific communication

Posté le par

Author : Joachim Schöpfel

In 25 years, open access, i.e. free and unrestricted access to scientific information, has become a significant part of scientific communication. However, its success story should not conceal a fundamental change of its nature.

Open access started, together with the Web, at the grassroots, as a bottom-up, community-driven model of open journals and repositories. Today the key driving forces are no longer community-driven needs and objectives but commercial, institutional and political interests.

This development serves the needs of the scientific community insofar as more and more content becomes available through open journals and repositories. Yet, the fall of open access as a community-driven model is running the risk of becoming dysfunctional for the scientists and may create new barriers and digital divides.

URL : http://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/hal-01282744v1