Étiquette : Scholarly Communication

Catégories
EN

Do Early Career Researchers Consider AI as an Opportunity or a Threat? A Pathfinding Study

Authors : David Nicholas, David Clark,  Abdullah Abrizah, John Akeroyd, Eti Herman, Jorge Revez, Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo, Marzena Swigon, Tatyana Polezhaeva, Anne Gere

The article presents the latest (2025) iteration of the Harbingers longitudinal project on early career researchers (ECRs), artificial intelligence (AI) and scholarly communications. In conversation with a purposive and diverse sample of more than 60 ECRs in six countries and numerous subjects, we present an evaluation of a pressing issue: what impact will AI have on their work and career?

An important issue is that widespread media speculation suggests that it is entry-level positions that will be hit hardest by AI. While ECRs were asked 50 plus questions during interviews, none were directly asked about changes to job security and employment prospects, yet much of relevance was volunteered in answering related AI questions.

Adding a new methodological dimension to the Harbingers project, we employed AI (NotebookLM) for an initial qualitative analysis of the interview data, with findings reviewed and corrected by the national interviewers. We conclude that AI is a double-edged sword which has huge potential as well as posing significant challenges.

The AI-assisted analysis proved effective at identifying broad themes, though human oversight was essential to capture nuance, differences between cohorts, and unusual cases. Finally, given that we were working with a select and relatively small sample to inform a larger study, the data should be seen as illuminating and filling a research lacuna, rather than a definitive result in a fast-changing field.

URL : Do Early Career Researchers Consider AI as an Opportunity or a Threat? A Pathfinding Study

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2068

Catégories
EN

Mobilizing Knowledge in the Humanities and Social Sciences: Exploring Competing Articulations of Openness in Policy and Practice

Author : Corina MacDonald

Knowledge mobilization (KMb) is a policy discourse and framework used by major Canadian research funding bodies to promote and monitor the efficiency of knowledge transfer between the university and society. Since 2009, most humanities and social science (HSS) researchers applying for federal funding must complete a KMb module that describes their intended non-academic collaborators and audiences, planned outreach activities, and metrics to gauge their success.

The ideals of public engagement set out in KMb policy are worthy ones for scholars to strive towards. The framework can also provide legitimation for a diverse range of research practices, relationships, and outputs. Applicants must think about sharing their work throughout the research process rather than simply at its end. This introduces a more expansive understanding of the relations of knowledge producers and their publics than is found in Canadian open access policies and mandates.

Many practices commonly understood as open research, such as data sharing, diamond open access publishing, or sharing via blogs or podcasts, would be considered knowledge mobilization activities, as would practices of community-engaged research or knowledge co-production. KMb policy thus governs much of the making public of humanities research in Canada; however, it embodies conflicting ideas about the value of shared knowledge. Its emphasis on knowledge as transferable imposes temporal, material, and cognitive restrictions on scholarship.

Critics of KMb dismiss it as performative and a tool of institutional governance or argue that it quantifies research as a return on investment. The critiques and possibilities of knowledge mobilization policy offer insight into wider contemporary struggles over the meaning of openness for HSS research. This article explores its impact on Canadian HSS scholars in relation to critical debates about changing relations of knowledge, labor, and value in humanities scholarship.

URL : Mobilizing Knowledge in the Humanities and Social Sciences: Exploring Competing Articulations of Openness in Policy and Practice

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3998/jep.7849

Catégories
EN

The scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours of Gen – Z researchers: a pathfinding study

Authors : David Nicholas, David Clark, Abdullah Abrizah, Jorge Revez, Blanca Rodrí guez-Bravo, Marzena Swigon, John Akeroyd

In preparation for a major study of Generation–Z early career researchers’ (ECRs) scholarly communications attitudes and practices we report on how different Gen-Z researchers included in our earlier studies of ECRs were.

It is a qualitative, pilot study that covered a convenience sample of around 30 Gen-Z ECRs from 8 countries and all subjects and compared to 120 of their older colleagues. Conversational, in-depth interviews lasting an hour or more were the main form of data collection.

An AI analysis, employing Claude AI, was used both to provide an initial analysis of the data and also assess the published literature on the topic. The findings were that there is enough evidence to suggest that there are enough differences between Gen-Z and their Millennial colleagues – even though all are ECRs – to merit further research.

Younger researchers in particular appear to be strategically adopting AI for efficiency and career advancement, while older researchers possess heightened awareness, and caution, regarding the philosophical and ethical consequences of technological transformation in scholarly communication.

URL : The scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours of Gen – Z researchers: a pathfinding study

DOI : https://doi.org/10.33774/coe-2026-s8b36

 

Catégories
EN

Humanities scholars’ needs for open social scholarship platforms as online scholarly information sharing infrastructure

Authors : Daniel Tracy, Graham Jensen

The contemporary scholarly communication environment is characterized by the growth in mandates and infrastructure for open access publication and open approaches to the research lifecycle, with a consequent explosion in the number of online platforms seeking to provide infrastructure for open scholarship. These include corporate academic social networks and scholar-governed infrastructure created as a reaction against those networks, as well as the recent major transformation of the social media landscape in the wake of changes at Twitter (now X), previously a major outlet for scholarly engagement with the public.

Analysts of this environment have pointed out that most platform initiatives focus on narrow use cases rather than building up solutions through a holistic understanding of scholar workflows. This exploratory study uses focus group interviews to draw out responses to one academically governed platform, the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) Commons, in the context of humanities scholars’ existing work.

It explores humanities scholars’ needs and behaviors related to sharing scholarly information with each other and broader audiences, particularly on the Internet. Feedback from participants sheds light on opportunities and challenges for academy-governed infrastructure for “open social scholarship.” Themes identified include technical fatigue and burnout in the current multi-platform environment, sustainability, and desires to reach and engage the right academic and non-academic audiences when appropriate.

URL : Humanities scholars’ needs for open social scholarship platforms as online scholarly information sharing infrastructure

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v30i2.13742

Catégories
EN

Disciplinary variation in scholarly impact from two article title elements

Author : James M Donovan

For understandable reasons, scholarly impact statistics have become a contentious issue for university faculty. They often look to their librarians to advise them on how best to monitor their performance, and what they could do to raise their profile. The present investigation seeks to equip those librarians with background and tools to provide useful perspective to their worried patrons. For over forty years the literature has been debating what characteristics of an article influence its later citation.

While many suppose that outcome is determined solely by the quality and originality of the piece, one of the consistent findings has been that arguably irrelevant features appear to play an important role. The present discussion focuses on two of the most prominent such features, whether the article title includes a colon, and how long that title is. Both of these variables have been widely researched, but the outcomes are not typically offered in a form that will be useful to faculty patrons.

Specifically, while both colons and shorter titles, for whatever reasons, reliably correlate with higher citations, these patterns vary by discipline and are not conveniently aggregated and reported. To fill this need, results have been extracted from seventy-four empirical investigations and presented by discipline. A wide range of disciplinary variance was found for these two variables which can be considered by an author.

This collection of findings also has permitted correction of prior hypotheses about why such apparently irrelevant elements influence citation, which can improve understanding of the drivers of scholarly impact statistics.

URL : Disciplinary variation in scholarly impact from two article title elements

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006241311576

Catégories
EN

Sustaining the “frozen footprints” of scholarly communication through open citations

Author : Zehra Taşkın

This review examines the role of open citations in fostering transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility in scholarly communication. Through a critical synthesis of diverse sources—articles, proceedings, presentations, datasets, and blog posts—it explores the motivations behind citing, the evolving meanings of citations, and key milestones in the open citation movement. Particular attention is given to initiatives like OpenCitations and the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC), highlighting their contributions to advancing open scholarship.

Key findings indicate that open citations democratize research by providing free access to citation data, improving discoverability, and facilitating the creation of public citation graphs. Technological advancements, such as advanced data models and reference mining tools, have significantly contributed to the management and utilization of citation data. Despite these benefits, challenges such as ensuring data quality and standardization, addressing structural inequalities in citation networks, and achieving universal publisher adoption persist.

The study concludes with recommendations for future efforts, emphasizing policy advocacy, technological innovation, global collaboration, and educational initiatives to promote the widespread adoption and effective use of open citations. These strategies aim to make the “frozen footprints” of scholarly communication accessible to all, fostering a more equitable and transparent scientific landscape.

URL : Sustaining the “frozen footprints” of scholarly communication through open citations

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24982

Catégories
EN

The impact of generative AI on the scholarly communications of early career researchers: An international, multi-disciplinary study

Authors : David Nicholas, Marzena Swigon, David Clark, Abdullah Abrizah, Jorge Revez, Eti Herman, Blanca Rodríguez Bravo, Jie Xu, Anthony Watkinson

The Harbingers study of early career researchers (ECRs), their work life and scholarly communications, began by studying generational—Millennial—change (c.2016), then moved to pandemic change (c.2020) and is now investigating another potential agent of change: artificial intelligence (2024–). We report here on a substantial scoping pilot study that looks at the impact of AI on the scholarly communications of international ECRs and, extends this to the arts and humanities.

It aims to fill the knowledge gap concerning ECRs whose millennial mindset may render them especially open to change and, as the research workhorses they are, very much in the frontline. The data was collected via in-depth interviews in China, Malaysia, Poland, Portugal, Spain and (selectively) the United Kingdom/United States. The data show ECRs to be thinking, probing and, in some cases, experimenting with AI.

There was a general acceptance that AI will be responsible for the growth of low-quality scientific papers, which could lead to a decline in the quality of research. Scholarly integrity and ethics were a big concern with issues of authenticity, plagiarism, copyright and poor citation practices raised. The most widespread belief was AI would prove to be a transformative force and would exacerbate existing scholarly disparities and inequalities.

URL : The impact of generative AI on the scholarly communications of early career researchers: An international, multi-disciplinary study

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1628