Archives des mots-clés : scientific communication

Science on YouTube: Legitimation Strategies of Brazilian Science YouTubers

Posté le par

Authors : Natália Martins Flore, Priscila Muniz de Medeiros

This study analyzes the legitimation strategies displayed by YouTubers of the 10 most popular science channels regarding YouTube Brazil. Using Discourse Analysis from a French perspective, it unfolds the ethos of the YouTuber, the preferred discursive scenographies, and kinds of contents and discursive approaches of these channels.

The results show the predominant presence of didactic scenography, followed by commentary, scientist-in-action, and journalist scenographies. They unfold themselves in monologue, questions and answers, live experiments, whiteboard videos and short documentary subgenres.

The discursive ethos presents the YouTuber as an informed person who has knowledge on science subjects, teaching them to his audience or commenting on a certain theme or topic. Legitimation strategies come from personal experiences and rarely from a scientist’s identity, despite the YouTuber may use scientific authority in some cases.

The use of humor in enunciations and video editing, the reference to pop culture, and the use of an informal language, show the tendency that these channels have in presenting scientific themes in a soft and interesting way.

URL : https://journals.openedition.org/rfsic/4782

Écrilecture : la littératie informationnelle à la croisée de l’offre et des services des intermédiaires

Posté le par

Auteur/Author : Evelyne Broudoux

Nous proposons ici d’observer les usages et non usages de l’offre logicielle visant l’écriture, la lecture, la préservation des données, des références, des citations et leur traitement.

Nous établissons le lien entre cette panoplie d’outils, services, plateformes, avec les acteurs de la recherche responsables de cette offre : start-ups émanant de projets de recherche, éditeurs et groupes de médias scientifiques.

Nous complétons par une exploration des services et créations logicielles liées au web de données et à l’éditorialisation sémantique des articles qui représentent des innovations notables encore à l’état de prototypes.

URL : https://journals.openedition.org/rfsic/4738

Plus ou moins open : les revues de rang A en Sciences de l’information et de la communication

Posté le par

Auteurs/Authors : Joachim Schöpfel, Hélène Prost, Amel Fraisse

Selon une étude récente, presque la moitié des articles publiés par des chercheurs français sont diffusés en libre accès, déposés dans les archives ouvertes, comme HAL, ou mis en ligne dans des revues administrées suivant le modèle du “open access”, sans abonnement payant.

Dans cet environnement dynamique, les agences d’évaluation de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche ont un rôle à jouer, par le biais de leurs critères et outils d’évaluation.

En fonction de leur approche et méthodologie, ces établissements peuvent créer des opportunités pour le développement du libre accès, par l’incitation au partage des résultats de la recherche, ou bien, ralentir le processus par le maintien des critères habituels, dont notamment l’évaluation bibliométrique à partir du classement des publications.

Notre étude propose un regard sur notre propre discipline, avec un état des lieux dans le domaine des sciences de l’information et de la communication en France, à partir de la liste actualisée des revues de rang A publiée fin 2017 et sous l’aspect du libre accès.

L’approche est exploratoire. Il s’agit avant tout d’étudier nos propres standards et pratiques, en tant que communauté de recherche en SIC par rapport à la politique scientifique du libre accès et de la science ouverte. 38 % des revues de rang A en SIC sont en libre accès. Mais ces revues représentent seulement 4 % de l’ensemble des revues SIC en libre accès.

URL : https://journals.openedition.org/rfsic/4706

Early career researchers: observing how the new wave of researchers is changing the scholarly communications market

Posté le par

Authors : David Nicholas, Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo, Anthony Watkinson, Marzena Świgon, Jie Xu, Abdullah Abrizah, Eti Herman

The paper presents the early findings from the first two years of the Harbingers research project, a 3-year-long study of early career researchers (ECRs), the new wave of researchers, which sought to ascertain their current and changing habits with regard to scholarly communications.

The study recruited a convenience sample of 116 researchers from seven countries (China, France, Malaysia, Poland, Spain, UK and US) who were subject to repeat, in-depth interviews. Interviews were conducted face-to-face or remotely (via Skype).

A major focus of the study was to determine whether ECRs are taking the myriad opportunities proffered by digital innovations, developing within the context Open Science, Open Access and social media to disseminate their research.

The paper provides the highlights of the first-year benchmarking exercise and then investigates the strategic changes one year on.

URL : https://journals.openedition.org/rfsic/4635

Open laboratory notebooks: good for science, good for society, good for scientists

Posté le par

Authors : Matthieu Schapira, The Open Lab Notebook Consortium, Rachel J. Harding

The fundamental goal of the growing open science movement is to increase the efficiency of the global scientific community and accelerate progress and discoveries for the common good. Central to this principle is the rapid disclosure of research outputs in open-access peer-reviewed journals and on pre-print servers.

The next bold step in this direction is open laboratory notebooks, where research scientists share their research — including detailed protocols, negative and positive results — online and in near-real-time to synergize with their peers. Here, we highlight the benefits of open lab notebooks to science, society and scientists, and discuss the challenges that this nascent movement is facing.

We also present the implementation and progress of our own initiative at openlabnotebooks.org, with more than 20 active contributors after one year of operation.

URL : Open laboratory notebooks: good for science, good for society, good for scientists

DOI : https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17710.1

Do we need to move from communication technology to user community? A new economic model of the journal as a club

Posté le par

Authors : John Hartley, Jason Potts, Lucy Montgomery, Ellie Rennie, Cameron Neylon

Much of the argument around reforming, remaking, or preserving the traditions of scholarly publishing is built on economic principles, explicit or implicit. Can we afford open access (OA)?

How do we pay for high‐quality services? Why does it cost so much? In this article, we argue that the sterility of much of this debate is a result of failure to tackle the question of what a journal is in economic terms.

We offer a way through by demonstrating that a journal is a club and discuss the implications for the scholarly publishing industry.

We use examples, ranging from OA to prestige journals, to explain why congestion is a problem for club‐based publications, and to discuss the importance of creative destruction for the maintenance of knowledge‐generating communities in publishing.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1228

Open access mythbusting: Testing two prevailing assumptions about the effects of open access adoption

Posté le par

Authors : Dan Pollock, Ann Michael

This article looks at whether there is evidence to support two prevailing assumptions about open access (OA). These assumptions are: (1) fully OA journals are inherently of poorer quality than journals supported by other business models and (2) the OA business model, that is, paying for publication, is more ‘competitive’ than the subscription journal access business model.

The assumptions have been discussed in contemporary industry venues, and we have encountered them in the course of their work advising scholarly communications organizations.

Our objective was to apply data analytics techniques to see if these assumptions bore scrutiny. By combining citation‐based impact scores with data from publishers’ price lists, we were able to look for relationships between business model, price, and ‘quality’ across several thousands of journals.

We found no evidence suggesting that OA journals suffer significant quality issues compared with non‐OA journals. Furthermore, authors do not appear to ‘shop around’ based on OA price.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1209