Web 2.0 is a loosely defined intersection of web application features that facilitate participatory information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration on the World Wide Web. A Web 2.0 site allows users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to websites where usersare limited to the passive viewing of content that was created for them.
From this data, Olivier Beauchesneextracted and aggregated scientific collaboration between cities all over the world from 2005 to 2009. For example, if a UCLA researcher published a paper with a colleague at the University of Tokyo, this would create an instance of collaboration between Los Angeles and Tokyo. The result of this process is a very long list of city pairs, like Los Angeles-Tokyo, and the number of instances of scientific collaboration between them. Following that, I used the geoname.org database to convert the cities’ names to geographical coordinates.The next steps were then similar to those of the Facebook friendship map. I used a Mercator projection to project the geographical coordinates onto the map and used the Great Circle algorithm to trace the lines of collaboration between cities. The brightness of the lines is a function of the logarithm of the number of collaborations between a pair of cities and the logarithm of the distance between those same two cities.
Profiling academics online
Profiling Academics Online (PAO) Port Louis 08.05.12 By Francois van Schalkwyk
[ web 2.0 stats ] 1.5m users 140m users 39 638 public groups Data on 85m research papers150m members (as at 9.02.2012) >25m users 10m in Middle East and Africa reached 10m users in 16 days Second-biggest search engine 205 444 eBooks, 1 828 622 textbooks, after Google 55 374 authors, 101 subjects, millions of users
In the past 30 years, the average distance betweencollaborators has increased 5-fold (from 334km in 1980 to 1500km in 2009)(Waltman, Tijsen & Van Eck 2011)
Needs expressed by FoS• Need for increased collaboration (and removal of geographic barriers)• Need for new publishing channels
Those who work in collaboration with different institutions are significantly more likely to be frequent or occasional users of web 2.0 services associated with producing, sharing or commenting on scholarly content. (RIN 2010) Based on cohort of approx. 1000 UK researchers
Effective technology transfer• UoM has a key role to play as a flagship university in knowledge creation and innovation (i.e. knowledge application)• Effective technology transfer relies not only on faculty-generated research (and the organisational/national/regional systems that support their work), but on relationships with the private sector and government. (John Douglass, Center for Studies in Higher Education - UC Berkeley)
SCAP assumptions1. Increasing the visibility of academics, their expertise and their knowledge outputs increases their chances of gaining access to networks2. There are 3 key networks that academics can access by increasing their online visibility: 1. Academic, discipline-specific networks 2. Academic—industry networks 3. Research funding networks3. Web 2.0 technologies provide tools that can increase the online visibility of academics on a global scale
What is PAO?The use of online/web 2.0 technologies1. To increase the visibility of academics2. To make knowledge objects available, accessible and visible (Knowledge objects: ‘traditional’ publications such as journal articles as well as unpublished or preprint papers, presentations, teaching resources, lab notes, data sets, etc.)
ExamplesPULL (passive) PUSH (active) MEASURE/TRACKMendeley Blog Goo.glLinkedIn Twitter Google ScholarResearchGate Comment ISIAcademia.edu Review Publish or PerishAbout.meUoM page
The PAO Process• Selection of up to 10 participants from FoS for pilot project• Meet and brief participants (Wednesday)• Baseline presence• Create online profiles and create content• Maintain and up-date profiles, and online communication• Duration: 5 months (May to September 2012)• Measure presence / assess impact• Present findings (November 2012)
What will participants have to do?4 Cs:• Create• Curate• Communicate• Collaborate
What will participants have to do?• Follow the steps in the Toolkit provided• Complete Step 1: Updating CVs by end-May• Complete Steps 2 to 10 over 4-month period (June to September 2012)• Only 4 out of 10 steps compulsory• Maintain and up-date profiles, and online communication• Make CVs and Google Scholar data available to RA/SCAP team
What will SCAP do?• Provide Toolkits• Provide participants with 3G cards for the duration of the project• Make a research assistant available to provide support in creating and maintaining profiles• Provide remote support
General comments• Mindful of varying levels of skills and expertise. No minimum requirement for participation.• Tools suggested in the toolkit are not meant to be exhaustive or prescriptive. SCAP encourages exploration of new and alternative technologies.