EN

Published Librarian Research, 2008 through 2012: Analyses and Perspectives

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

This research paper reviews published library science literature from 2008 through 2012 using a purposive sample of 13 Library and Information Science (LIS) journals. The texts of 1,778 LIS articles were analyzed and classified as research versus non-research. Of these articles, 769 (43.1%) determined as research were examined in order to collect data on numerous variables including authorship, topic, type of research, data collection, and data analysis techniques.

The selected LIS journals draw a representative sample of practitioner research with 438 (57%) research articles solely written by practitioners, 110 (14.3%) research articles written collaboratively by at least one practitioner and one academic. The overall authorship pattern was widely multi-authored with 64.5% of the research articles written by two or more authors. It is hoped that the results of this investigation will provide insight for more extensive collaborative librarianship research in the future.

URL : Published Librarian Research, 2008 through 2012: Analyses and Perspectives

Alternative location : http://collaborativelibrarianship.org/index.php/jocl/article/view/320

EN

The Scaling Relationship between Citation-Based Performance and Scientific Collaboration in Natural Sciences

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

The aim of this paper is to extend our knowledge about the power-law relationship between citation-based performance and collaboration patterns for papers of the Natural Sciences domain. We analyzed 829,924 articles that received 16,490,346 citations. The number of articles published through collaboration account for 89%. The citation-based performance and collaboration patterns exhibit a power-law correlation with a scaling exponent of 1.20, SD=0.07. We found that the Matthew effect is stronger for collaborated papers than for single-authored.

This means that the citations to a field research areas articles increase 2.30 times each time it doubles the number of collaborative papers. The scaling exponent for the power-law relationship for single-authored papers was 0.85, SD=0.11. The citations to a field research area single-authored articles increase 1.89 times each time the research area doubles the number of non-collaborative papers.

URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.05266

EN

Altmetrics as traces of the computerization of the research process

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

I propose a broad, multi-dimensional conception of altmetrics, namely as traces of the computerization of the research process. Computerization should be conceived in its broadest sense, including all recent developments in ICT and software, taking place in society as a whole. I distinguish four aspects of the research process: the collection of research data and development of research methods; scientific information processing; communication and organization; and, last but not least, research assessment.

I will argue that in each aspect, computerization plays a key role, and metrics are being developed to describe this process. I propose to label the total collection of such metrics as Altmetrics. I seek to provide a theoretical foundation of altmetrics, based on notions developed by Michael Nielsen in his monograph Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Altmetrics can be conceived as tools for the practical realization of the ethos of science and scholarship in a computerized or digital age.

URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.05131

EN

On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

A statistical analysis of full text downloads of articles in Elseviers ScienceDirect covering all disciplines reveals large differences in download frequencies, their skewness, and their correlation with Scopus-based citation counts, between disciplines, journals, and document types. Download counts tend to be two orders of magnitude higher and less skewedly distributed than citations. A mathematical model based on the sum of two exponentials does not adequately capture monthly download counts.

The degree of correlation at the article level within a journal is similar to that at the journal level in the discipline covered by that journal, suggesting that the differences between journals are to a large extent discipline specific. Despite the fact that in all study journals download and citation counts per article positively correlate, little overlap may exist between the set of articles appearing in the top of the citation distribution and that with the most frequently downloaded ones.

Usage and citation leaks, bulk downloading, differences between reader and author populations in a subject field, the type of document or its content, differences in obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations, different functions of reading and citing in the research process, all provide possible explanations of differences between download and citation distributions.

URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.05129

EN

Making Open Access work: The “state-of-the-art” in providing Open Access to scholarly literature

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Purpose

 The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of one of the most important and controversial areas of scholarly communication: Open Access publishing and dissemination of research outputs. It identifies and discusses recent trends and future challenges for various stakeholders in delivering Open Access (OA) to the scholarly literature.

Design/methodology/approach

 The study is based on a number of interrelated strands of evidence which make up the current discourse on OA, comprising the peer-reviewed literature, grey literature and other forms of communication (including blogs and e-mail discussion lists). It uses a large-scale textual analysis of the peer-reviewed literature since 2010 (carried out using the VOSviewer tool) as a basis for discussion of issues raised in the OA discourse.

Findings

 A number of key themes are identified, including the relationship between “Green” OA (deposit in repositories) and “Gold” OA (OA journal publication), the developing evidence base associated with OA, researcher attitudes and behaviours, policy directions, management of repositories, development of journals, institutional responses and issues around impact and scholarly communication futures. It suggests that current challenges now focus on how OA can be made to work in practice, having moved on from the discussion of whether it should happen at all.

Originality/value

 The paper provides a structured evidence-based review of major issues in the OA field, and suggests key areas for future research and policy development.

URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2015-0167

EN

For what it’s worth – the open peer review landscape

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is twofold, first, to discuss the current and future issues around post-publication open peer review. Second, to highlight some of the main protagonists and platforms that encourages open peer review, pre-and post-publication.

Design/methodology/approach

The first part of the paper aims to discuss the facilitators and barriers that will enable and prevent academics engaging with the new and established platforms of scholarly communication and review. These issues are covered with the intention of proposing further dialogue within the academic community that ultimately address researchers’ concerns, whilst continuing to nurture a progressive approach to scholarly communication and review. The paper will continue to look at the prominent open post-publication platforms and tools and discuss whether in the future it will become a standard model.

Findings

 The paper identifies several problems, not exclusive to open peer review that could inhibit academics from being open with their reviews and comments of other’s research. Whilst identifies opportunities to be had by embracing a new era of academic openness.

Practical implications

 The paper summarises key platforms and arguments for open peer review and will be of interest to researchers in different disciplines as well as the wider academic community wanting to know more about scholarly communications and measurement.

Originality/value

 This paper looks at many of the new platforms that have been previously ignored and discusses issues relating to open peer review that have only been touched on in brief by other published research.

URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0182

EN

Funding models for Open Access digital data repositories

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine funding models for Open Access (OA) digital data repositories whose costs are not wholly core funded. Whilst such repositories are free to access, they are not without significant cost to build and maintain and the lack of both full core costs and a direct funding stream through payment-for-use poses a considerable financial challenge, placing their future and the digital collections they hold at risk.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors document 14 different potential funding streams for OA digital data repositories, grouped into six classes (institutional, philanthropy, research, audience, service, volunteer), drawing on the ongoing experiences of seeking a sustainable funding for the Digital Repository of Ireland (DRI).

Findings

There is no straight forward solution to funding OA digital data repositories that are not wholly core funded, with a number of general and specific challenges facing each repository, and each funding model having strengths and weaknesses. The proposed DRI solution is the adoption of a blended approach that seeks to ameliorate cyclical effects across funding streams by generating income from a number of sources rather than overly relying on a single one, though it is still reliant on significant state core funding to be viable.

Practical implications

The detailing of potential funding streams offers practical financial solutions to other OA digital data repositories which are seeking a means to become financially sustainable in the absence of full core funding.

Originality/value

The review assesses and provides concrete advice with respect to potential funding streams in order to help repository owners address the financing conundrum they face.

URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-01-2015-0031