The Role of Academic Libraries in Scientific Production Evaluation – the Experience of University of Zagreb, Croatia

Posté le par

Authors : Branka Marijanović, Tatijana Petrić, Zrinka Udiljak Bugarinovski, Višnja Novosel

Since internationally visible scientific productivity is a criterion for state evaluation of Croatian academic and scientific institutions and their scientists, Croatian academic libraries have a key role in quantitative evaluation of scientific productivity using methods such as bibliometrics, scientometrics and the like.

The aim of this case study is to identify and illustrate the current situation of library services for evaluating scientific production at the University of Zagreb, Croatia, and to make recommendations for the further development of such services, which could serve as a framework for the systematic implementation of this type of service in all libraries at the University of Zagreb and beyond.

More specifically, the purpose of this paper was to identify the existence of the bibliometric services in the libraries of the University of Zagreb (UNIZG), examine the status and involvement of university librarians in the academic advancement procedures and to identify the required competences for bibliometric experts in Croatia.

The research was conducted using the content analysis method, the survey method, and the focus group method. The research results show that although UNIZG libraries are integrated into the system of academic promotion and the role of UNIZG libraries is enshrined in Croatian regulations, the bibliometric service is not standardised at the University level.

The results also indicate that the service needs to be strengthened in terms of training of professional staff and greater investment in staff capacity and infrastructure.

The fact that the study was conducted at a single Croatian university is a possible limitation that could relate to the application of guidelines for further actions and the development of bibliometric services at national level. It would therefore be desirable to conduct future research to identify the situation at other Croatian universities as well.

It would also be necessary to determine the open science and open access policies at UNIZG through further research and, in this context, to establish guidelines for possible improvements in the processes of evaluating scientific productivity.

The results of this study make an important contribution to the possible future positioning of university libraries and UNIZG librarians in the process of evaluating scientific productivity. In addition, some practical advice is given so that this case study may be a good introductory overview for the wider academic community in relation to this topic.

URL : The Role of Academic Libraries in Scientific Production Evaluation – the Experience of University of Zagreb, Croatia

DOI : https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.13523

Who Are Tweeting About Academic Publications? A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Altmetric Studies

Posté le par

Authors : Ashraf Maleki, Kim Holmberg

Previous studies have developed different categorizations of Twitter users who interact with scientific publications online, reflecting the difficulty in creating a unified approach. Using Cochrane Review meta-analysis to analyse earlier research (including 79,014 Twitter users, over twenty million tweets, and over five million tweeted publications from 23 studies), we created a consolidated robust categorization consisting of 11 user categories, at different dimensions, covering most of any future needs for user categorizations on Twitter and possibly also other social media platforms.

Our findings showed, with moderate certainty, covering all the earlier different approaches employed, that the predominant Twitter group was individual users (66%), responsible for the majority of tweets (55%) and tweeted publications (50%), while organizations (22%, 27%, and 28%, respectively) and science communicators (16%, 13%, and 30%) clearly contributed smaller proportions.

The cumulative findings from prior investigations indicated a statistically equal extent of academic individuals (33%) and other individuals (28%). While academic individuals shared more academic publications than other individuals (42% vs. 31%), they posted fewer tweets overall (22% vs. 30%), but these differences do not reach statistical significance.

Despite significant heterogeneity arising from variations in categorization methods, the findings consistently indicate the importance of academics in disseminating academic publications.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06399

More than data repositories: perceived information needs for the development of social sciences and humanities research infrastructures

Posté le par

Authors : Anna Sendra, Elina Late, Sanna Kumpulainen

Introduction

The digitalization of social sciences and humanities research necessitates research infrastructures. However, this transformation is still incipient, highlighting the need to better understand how to successfully support data-intensive research.

Method

Starting from a case study of building a national infrastructure for conducting data-intensive research, this study aims to understand the information needs of digital researchers regarding the facility and explore the importance of evaluation in its development.

Analysis

Thirteen semi-structured interviews with social sciences and humanities scholars and computer and data scientists processed through a thematic analysis revealed three themes (developing a research infrastructure, needs and expectations of the research infrastructure, and an approach to user feedback and user interactions).

Results

Findings reveal that developing an infrastructure for conducting data-intensive research is a complicated task influenced by contrasting information needs between social sciences and humanities scholars and computer and data scientists, such as the demand for increased support of the former. Findings also highlight the limited role of evaluation in its creation.

Conclusions

The development of infrastructures for conducting data-intensive research requires further discussion that particularly considers the disciplinary differences between social sciences and humanities scholars and computer and data scientists. Suggestions on how to better design this kind of facilities are also raised.

URL : More than data repositories: perceived information needs for the development of social sciences and humanities research infrastructures

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47989/ir284598

Scientific collaboration on open science in the field of Information Science

Posté le par

Authors : Lígia Parreira Muniz Gäal, César Antonio Pereira

Introduction

Open Science is a movement largely based on knowledge sharing and its discussion has been carried out by several areas, including Information Science. Scientific collaboration has potential to benefit science in several ways, however, little is known about country collaboration in this area.

Objective

Therefore, the objective of this work is to analyze scientific cooperation between countries on the subject of Open Science in the field of Information Science.

Methodology

The network analysis method (co-authorship between countries) and the frequency of keywords were used to identify the most discussed subjects.

Results

The results showed that England has a central position in the scientific collaboration network. However, it is necessary to improve communication to avoid loss of quality in the information transmission.

Conclusion

The Open Access theme is still the most evident, however, topics such as research data management have gained notoriety in discussions on Open Science in the field of Information Science.

URL : Scientific collaboration on open science in the field of Information Science

DOI : https://doi.org/10.20396/rdbci.v21i00.8673825

L’élasticité sémantique du concept de médiation : porosité des domaines culturel et documentaire

Posté le par

Auteur.ices/Authors : Hans Dillaerts, Eva Sandri

L’objectif de cet article est de questionner les diverses définitions du concept de médiation au sein des espaces professionnel et académique) dans lesquels il est convoqué. En effet, les territoires d’action de la médiation sont extrêmement vastes et se déclinent dans des contextes variés, tels que les domaines culturel, documentaire, social, numérique et scientifique.

Partant du constat que la médiation documentaire semble moins représentée que la médiation culturelle, nous souhaitons interroger plus spécifiquement les relations entre ces deux domaines. Observe-t-on des logiques de dialogue ? De continuité ? De quelle façon penser leurs relations ?

URL : https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04321008

Clickbait or conspiracy? How Twitter users address the epistemic uncertainty of a controversial preprint

Posté le par

Authors : Mareike Bauer, Maximilian Heimstädt, Carlos Franzreb, Sonja Schimmler

Many scientists share preprints on social media platforms to gain attention from academic peers, policy-makers, and journalists. In this study we shed light on an unintended but highly consequential effect of sharing preprints: Their contribution to conspiracy theories. Although the scientific community might quickly dismiss a preprint as insubstantial and ‘clickbaity’, its uncertain epistemic status nevertheless allows conspiracy theorists to mobilize the text as scientific support for their own narratives.

To better understand the epistemic politics of preprints on social media platforms, we studied the case of a biomedical preprint, which was shared widely and discussed controversially on Twitter in the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Using a combination of social network analysis and qualitative content analysis, we compared the structures of engagement with the preprint and the discursive practices of scientists and conspiracy theorists.

We found that despite substantial engagement, scientists were unable to dampen the conspiracy theorists’ enthusiasm for the preprint. We further found that members from both groups not only tried to reduce the preprint’s epistemic uncertainty but sometimes deliberately maintained it.

The maintenance of epistemic uncertainty helped conspiracy theorists to reinforce their group’s identity as skeptics and allowed scientists to express concerns with the state of their profession.

Our study contributes to research on the intricate relations between scientific knowledge and conspiracy theories online, as well as the role of social media platforms for new genres of scholarly communication.

URL : Clickbait or conspiracy? How Twitter users address the epistemic uncertainty of a controversial preprint

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231180575

The neglect of equity and inclusion in open science policies of Europe and the Americas

Posté le par

Authors : Natascha Chtena, Juan Pablo Alperin, Esteban Morales, Alice Fleerackers, Isabelle Dorsch, Stephen Pinfield, Marc-André Simard

National, international, and organizational Open Science (OS) policies are being formulated to improve and accelerate research through increased transparency, collaboration, and better access to scientific knowledge.

Yet, there is mounting concern that OS policies—which are predicated on narrow understandings of openness, accessibility, and objectivity—do not effectively capture the ethos of OS and particularly its goal of making science more collaborative, inclusive, and socially engaged.

This study explores how OS is conceptualized in emerging OS policies and to what extent notions of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and public participation are reflected in policy guidelines and recommendations. We use a qualitative document research approach to critically analyze 52 OS policy documents published between January 2020 and December 2022 in Europe and the Americas.

Our results show that OS policies overwhelmingly focus on making research outputs publicly accessible, neglecting to advance the two aspects of OS that hold the key to achieving an inclusive and inclusive scientific culture—namely, EDI and public participation. While these concepts are often mentioned and even embraced in OS policy documents, concrete guidance on how they can be promoted in practice is overwhelmingly lacking.

Rather than advancing the openness of scientific findings first and promoting EDI and public participation efforts second, we argue that incentives and guidelines must be provided and implemented concurrently to advance the OS movement’s stated goal of making science open to all.

URL : The neglect of equity and inclusion in open science policies of Europe and the Americas

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1590/SciELOPreprints.7366