EN

Open Access, Innovation, and Research Infrastructure

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Benedikt Fecher, Gert G. Wagner

In this article we argue that the current endeavors to achieve open access in scientific
literature require a discussion about innovation in scholarly publishing and research infrastructure.

Drawing on path dependence theory and addressing different open access (OA) models and recent political endeavors, we argue that academia is once again running the risk of outsourcing the organization of its content.

URL : Open Access, Innovation, and Research Infrastructure

Alternative location : http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/4/2/17

EN

A Vision for Open Cyber-Scholarly Infrastructures

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Costantino Thanos

The characteristics of modern science, i.e., data-intensive, multidisciplinary, open, and heavily dependent on Internet technologies, entail the creation of a linked scholarly record that is online and open.

Instrumental in making this vision happen is the development of the next generation of Open Cyber-Scholarly Infrastructures (OCIs), i.e., enablers of an open, evolvable, and extensible scholarly ecosystem.

The paper delineates the evolving scenario of the modern scholarly record and describes the functionality of future OCIs as well as the radical changes in scholarly practices including new reading, learning, and information-seeking practices enabled by OCIs.

URL : A Vision for Open Cyber-Scholarly Infrastructures

Alternative location : http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/4/2/13

EN

ARL Libraries and Research: Correlates of Grant Funding

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

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

EN

What does the UK public want from academic science communication?

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

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

EN

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

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

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

EN

The Natural Selection of Bad Science

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

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

FR

Économie et bibliothèques : Une dialectique au long cours numérique

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

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