InfoDoc MicroVeille – Page 354 – Veille dédiée aux Sciences de l'Information et des Bibliothèques // Collecting and Sharing research papers in Library and Information science ISSN 2429-3938

Tweets Do Measure Non – Citational Intellectual Impact

Posté le 19 janvier 2016 par Hans Dillaerts

Purpose

The aim of the paper is to identify the motive behind the social media indicators in focus to tweets and attempts to identify what is measured or indicated by tweets, based on these motives.

Design/methodology/approach

Documents with non zero tweets were manually collected from a source of 5 journals – Nature Biotechnology, Nature Nanotechnology, Nature Physics, Nature Chemistry and Nature Communications for the period January 2014 – October 2014 so as to depict the contemporary trend, as tweets tends to have L shaped curve in time-wise distribution.

Findings

Investigations suggest that the motives behind the tweets are research reach, research acceptance and research usage. Further analysis revealed that the motive behind self – tweets are research visibility, which is one of the attributes of social media and therefore self tweets may not be a complex problem as expected seeing that documents are self tweeted not more than once in most cases.

Furthermore, identifying and classifying tweets based on users – Publishers, Frequent tweeters who apparently tweet all documents of an issue and Authors will increase the effectiveness of altmetrics in research evaluation. It was also found that association between subjects can be identified by the analysis of tweets pattern among subjects.

Originality/value

Study proposes an overall hierarchical structure of impact based on the change/advancement instigated. The study confirms that tweets do measure non – academic intellectual impact that is not captured by traditional metrics.

URL : http://www.itlit.net/v2n2art2.pdf

Wikiometrics: A Wikipedia Based Ranking System

Posté le 9 janvier 2016 par Hans Dillaerts

We present a new concept – Wikiometrics – the derivation of metrics and indicators from Wikipedia. Wikipedia provides an accurate representation of the real world due to its size, structure, editing policy and popularity. We demonstrate an innovative mining methodology, where different elements of Wikipedia – content, structure, editorial actions and reader reviews – are used to rank items in a manner which is by no means inferior to rankings produced by experts or other methods. We test our proposed method by applying it to two real-world ranking problems: top world universities and academic journals. Our proposed ranking methods were compared to leading and widely accepted benchmarks, and were found to be extremely correlative but with the advantage of the data being publically available.

URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.01058

Reproducible Research Practices and Transparency across the Biomedical Literature

Posté le 7 janvier 2016 par Hans Dillaerts

There is a growing movement to encourage reproducibility and transparency practices in the scientific community, including public access to raw data and protocols, the conduct of replication studies, systematic integration of evidence in systematic reviews, and the documentation of funding and potential conflicts of interest.

In this survey, we assessed the current status of reproducibility and transparency addressing these indicators in a random sample of 441 biomedical journal articles published in 2000–2014. Only one study provided a full protocol and none made all raw data directly available. Replication studies were rare (n = 4), and only 16 studies had their data included in a subsequent systematic review or meta-analysis. The majority of studies did not mention anything about funding or conflicts of interest.

The percentage of articles with no statement of conflict decreased substantially between 2000 and 2014 (94.4% in 2000 to 34.6% in 2014); the percentage of articles reporting statements of conflicts (0% in 2000, 15.4% in 2014) or no conflicts (5.6% in 2000, 50.0% in 2014) increased.

Articles published in journals in the clinical medicine category versus other fields were almost twice as likely to not include any information on funding and to have private funding. This study provides baseline data to compare future progress in improving these indicators in the scientific literature.

URL : Reproducible Research Practices and Transparency across the Biomedical Literature

DOI : 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002333

The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline

Posté le 7 janvier 2016 par Hans Dillaerts

Open collaboration systems like Wikipedia need to maintain a pool of volunteer contributors in order to remain relevant. Wikipedia was created through a tremendous number of contributions by millions of contributors. However, recent research has shown that the number of active contributors in Wikipedia has been declining steadily for years, and suggests that a sharp decline in the retention of newcomers is the cause.

This paper presents data that show that several changes the Wikipedia community made to manage quality and consistency in the face of a massive growth in participation have ironically crippled the very growth they were designed to manage. Specifically, the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia’s primary quality control mechanism and the algorithmic tools used to reject contributions are implicated as key causes of decreased newcomer retention.

Further, the community’s formal mechanisms for norm articulation are shown to have calcified against changes – especially changes proposed by newer editors.

URL : https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfaker13rise-preprint.pdf

Les revues littéraires en ligne : entre éditorialisation et réseaux d’intelligences

Posté le 2 janvier 2016 par Hans Dillaerts

Cet article propose un état des lieux sur les revues littéraires numériques. Cette tâche pourrait sembler facile si l’on considère que ces expériences existent depuis très peu de temps. Les premières revues en ligne apparaissent, en effet, au début des années 1990.

Pourtant, la question est beaucoup plus complexe que ce que l’on pourrait penser, et cela, pour une série de raisons qui seront analysées dans cet article. Il n’est tout d’abord pas évident de s’entendre sur ce que l’on définit par l’expression « revue littéraire numérique ».

D’une part car on fait référence, avec le mot « numérique », à une série d’expériences et de pratiques hétérogènes et différentes qui peuvent difficilement être regroupées ensemble. D’autre part parce que ce qu’on appelle désormais la « révolution numérique » a déterminé des changements importants quant au sens des contenus, de leur production, de leur validation et de leur distribution et a par conséquent fortement affecté la signification du mot « revue » lui-même.

Il faudra ainsi prendre séparément en considération une série de phénomènes différents et essayer de rendre compte de pratiques hétérogènes qui se chevauchent et empiètent l’une sur l’autre. L’article proposera d’abord une analyse des enjeux de la numérisation des revues, à savoir le processus de transposition des revues papier au format électronique.

Il s’attaquera ensuite aux expériences des revues numériques dès leur création pour comprendre s’il y a une différence, et laquelle, entre les premières et les secondes.

Pour finir, on tentera de comprendre en quoi le numérique en tant que phénomène culturel — et en particulier les changements de diffusion et de circulation des contenus ainsi que les différentes formes de ce que l’on appelle désormais « éditorialisation » — a transformé l’idée même de revue et donné lieu à des pratiques et à des expériences complexes et hybrides dont la place dans le panorama culturel est difficile à saisir.

URL : https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1866/11379/revues-litteraires-en-ligne-vitali-rosati.pdf

A Two-Step Model for Assessing Relative Interest in E-books Compared to Print

Posté le 31 décembre 2015 par Hans Dillaerts

Librarians often wish to know whether readers in a particular discipline favor e-books or print books. Because print circulation and e-book usage statistics are not directly comparable, it can be hard to determine the relative interest of readers in the two types of books. This study demonstrates a two-step method by which librarians can assess the appeal of books in various formats.

First, a nominal assessment of use or nonuse is performed; this eliminates the difficulty of comparing print circulation to e-book usage statistics.

Then, the comparison of actual use to Percentage of Expected Use (PEU) is made. By examining the distance between PEU of e-books to PEU of print books in a discipline, librarians can determine whether patrons have a strong preference for one format over another.

URL : http://m.crl.acrl.org/content/77/1/20