EN

Showcasing Institutional Research: Curating Library Exhibits to Support Scholarly Communication

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Devina Dandar, Jaime Clifton-Ross, Ann Dale, Rosie Croft

INTRODUCTION

To support faculty in communicating their research outcomes to the academic community and the wider public, the Royal Roads University (RRU) Library established Showcase, a physical venue in the library designed to promote institutional research.

While professional literature mainly focuses on the use of library exhibits for outreach and community engagement, more literature is needed on applying museum interpretation practices to the development of library exhibits, and the use of library exhibits for knowledge mobilization of research outcomes and promotion of institutional scholarship to the wider community.

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE

This article discusses the Royal Roads University Library’s practices to develop the ‘Showcase’ brand by curating research-based exhibits as a scholarly communication initiative to support institutional research dissemination.

It provides a brief description of the Showcase venue and infrastructure. It then describes the processes, challenges, and lessons learned in developing three research exhibits, that is, 1) cultivating faculty partnerships; 2) reformatting academic research to multimedia formats; and 3) integrating technology to showcase scholarship.

NEXT STEPS

It concludes by outlining the next steps for developing this initiative and the practice of curating academic research exhibits.

URL : Showcasing Institutional Research: Curating Library Exhibits to Support Scholarly Communication

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2335

EN

Research Data Management as an Integral Part of the Research Process of Empirical Disciplines Using Landscape Ecology as an Example

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Winfried Schröder, Stefan Nickel

Research Data Management (RDM) is regarded as an elementary component of empirical disciplines. Taking Landscape Ecology in Germany as an example the article demonstrates how to integrate RDM into the research design as a complement of the classic quality control and assurance in empirical research that has, so far, generally been limited to data production.

Sharing and reuse of empirical data by scientists as well as thorough peer reviews of knowledge produced by empirical research requires that the problem of the research in question, the operationalized definitions of the objects of investigation and their representative selection are documented and archived as well as the methods of data production including indicators for data quality and all data collected and produced.

On this basis, the extent to which this complemented design of research processes has already been realized is demonstrated by research projects of the Chair of Landscape Ecology at the University of Vechta, Germany.

This study is part of a joined research project on Research Data Management funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

URL : Research Data Management as an Integral Part of the Research Process of Empirical Disciplines Using Landscape Ecology as an Example

DOI : http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-026

FR

Regards sur la publication scientifique francophone : le cas des revues

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Auteurs/Authors : Ghislaine Chartron, Catherine le Guilloux, Dorothée Bellamy, Thomas Parisot

Quelle visibilité pour la recherche francophone sur les portails scientifiques internationaux? Quelles différences entre les sciences humaines et sociales et la médecine pour les publications francophones? Quelles perspectives pour le développement de la recherche francophone ?

Pour répondre à ces questions et en savoir plus sur la place du français dans les revues scientifiques, qu’il s’agisse des sciences humaines et sociales ou de la médecine, le GFII a le plaisir de vous présenter les conclusions de l’étude « Regards sur la publication scientifique francophone : le cas des revues », réalisée avec le soutien de la Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France,  dirigée par Ghislaine Chartron, professeure au CNAM et directrice de l’Institut national des sciences et techniques de la documentation, avec la participation de Catherine le Guilloux, Dorothée Bellamy et Thomas Parisot de Cairn.

URL : http://www.gfii.fr/uploads/docs/rapport-Etude-Revues-francophones-CNAM-GFII-DGLF-final-juin2020.pdf

EN

Data Communities: Empowering Researcher-Driven Data Sharing in the Sciences

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Rebecca Springer, Danielle Cooper

There is a growing perception that science can progress more quickly, more innovatively, and more rigorously when researchers share data with each other. However many scientists are not engaging in data sharing and remain skeptical of its relevance to their work.

As organizations and initiatives designed to promote STEM data sharing multiply – within, across, and outside academic institutions – there is a pressing need to decide strategically on the best ways to move forward. In this paper, we propose a new mechanism for conceptualizing and supporting STEM research data sharing.

Successful data sharing happens within data communities, formal or informal groups of scholars who share a certain type of data with each other, regardless of disciplinary boundaries. Drawing on the findings of four large-scale qualitative studies of research practices conducted by Ithaka S+R, as well as the scholarly literature, we identify what constitutes a data community and outline its most important features by studying three success stories, investigating the circumstances under which intensive data sharing is already happening.

We contend that stakeholders who wish to promote data sharing – librarians, information technologists, scholarly communications professionals, and research funders, to name a few – should work to identify and empower emergent data communities.

These are groups of scholars for whom a relatively straightforward technological intervention, usually the establishment of a data repository, could kickstart the growth of a more active data sharing culture. We conclude by offering recommendations for ways forward.

URL : Data Communities: Empowering Researcher-Driven Data Sharing in the Sciences

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v15i1.695

EN

Understanding the Data Management Plan as a Boundary Object through a Multi-stakeholder perspective

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Live Kvale, Nils Pharo

A three-phase Delphi study was used to investigate an emerging community for research data management in Norway and their understanding and application of data management plans (DMPs). The findings reveal visions of what the DMP should be as well as different practice approaches, yet the stakeholders present common goals.

This paper discusses the different perspectives on the DMP by applying Star and Griesemer’s theory of boundary objects (Star & Griesemer, 1989). The debate on what the DMP is and the findings presented are relevant to all research communities currently implementing DMP procedures and requirements. The current discussions about DMPs tend to be distant from the active researchers and limited to the needs of funders and institutions rather than to the usefulness for researchers.

By analysing the DMP as a boundary object, plastic and adaptable yet with a robust identity (Star & Griesemer, 1989), and by translating between worlds where collaboration on data sharing can take place we expand the perspectives and include all stakeholders. An understanding of the DMP as a boundary object can shift the focus from shaping a DMP which fulfils funders’ requirements to enabling collaboration on data management and sharing across domains using standardised forms.

URL : Understanding the Data Management Plan as a Boundary Object through a Multi-stakeholder perspective

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v15i1.729

 

EN

A Review of the History, Advocacy and Efficacy of Data Management Plans

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors: Nicholas Andrew Smale, Kathryn Unsworth, Gareth Denyer, Elise Magatova, Daniel Barr

Data management plans (DMPs) have increasingly been encouraged as a key component of institutional and funding body policy. Although DMPs necessarily place administrative burden on researchers, proponents claim that DMPs have myriad benefits, including enhanced research data quality, increased rates of data sharing, and institutional planning and compliance benefits.

In this article, we explore the international history of DMPs and describe institutional and funding body DMP policy. We find that economic and societal benefits from presumed increased rates of data sharing was the original driver of mandating DMPs by funding bodies.

Today, 86% of UK Research Councils and 63% of US funding bodies require submission of a DMP with funding applications. Given that no major Australian funding bodies require DMP submission, it is of note that 37% of Australian universities have taken the initiative to internally mandate DMPs. Institutions both within Australia and internationally frequently promote the professional benefits of DMP use, and endorse DMPs as ‘best practice’.

We analyse one such typical DMP implementation at a major Australian institution, finding that DMPs have low levels of apparent translational value. Indeed, an extensive literature review suggests there is very limited published systematic evidence that DMP use has any tangible benefit for researchers, institutions or funding bodies.

We are therefore led to question why DMPs have become the go-to tool for research data professionals and advocates of good data practice. By delineating multiple use-cases and highlighting the need for DMPs to be fit for intended purpose, we question the view that a good DMP is necessarily that which encompasses the entire data lifecycle of a project.

Finally, we summarise recent developments in the DMP landscape, and note a positive shift towards evidence-based research management through more researcher-centric, educative, and integrated DMP services.

URL : A Review of the History, Advocacy and Efficacy of Data Management Plans

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v15i1.525

EN

Stony Brook University Author Perspectives on Article Processing Charges

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Victoria Pilato, Clara Y. Tran

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of Stony Brook University (SBU) author perspectives on article processing charges (APCs). Publishing an article without restrictions, also known as open access publishing, can be a costly endeavor.

Many publishers charge APCs ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars to publish an article without access restrictions. Authors who cannot obtain funding from grant agencies or their institution must pay APCs on their own. Do APCs fundamentally impact how authors choose their preferred publication venues?

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was designed to learn SBU author perspectives on, and concerns about, APCs.

RESULTS

Responses mainly came from the sciences. Many SBU authors preferred to publish in a prestigious journal or journal of their choice rather than in an open access journal.

Most authors published their articles in open access journals even if they were required to pay APCs. Many authors found that it was difficult finding funding for APCs and some expressed their concerns about the double charging practice. DISCUSSION SBU authors might believe that publishing in established and prestigious journals could secure their career’s advancement. Authors who chose to pay open access journals with APCs might be following publishing criteria.

Libraries can encourage authors to negotiate with publishers to obtain a discount or waiver of APCs, when possible. Institutions should negotiate shifting journal subscription costs toward hybrid open access publishing.

CONCLUSION

Data will be used to inform how the SBU Libraries can help authors locate funding opportunities for APCs.

URL : Stony Brook University Author Perspectives on Article Processing Charges

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2349