Download to read offline
Uploaded byEsther De Smet
Digital Scholarly Practices
Digital scholarly practices are evolving. Researchers now have online presences and share information via social media platforms, which can increase visibility and citations. Metrics now track how research is discussed online, through mentions on platforms like Twitter. While these "alternative metrics" or "altmetrics" correlate with citations, social media discussions do not necessarily predict traditional citation impact. Altmetrics provide additional contextual information about research impact and engagement beyond citations alone.
More Related Content
Similar to Digital Scholarly Practices
More from Esther De Smet
Digital Scholarly Practices
- 1. DIGITAL SCHOLARLY PRACTICES DigitalLiterary Studies - 13 May 2019 - Esther De Smet Senior Research Policy Advisor @ResearchUGent RESEARCH DEPARTMENT POLICY & QUALITY ENHANCEMENT UNIT Contemporary research communication
- 2. THE NETWORKED SCHOLAR Goodierand Czerniewicz adapted the functional building blocks of social media (‘Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media’ by Jan H. Kietzmann, Kristopher Hermkens , Ian P. McCarthy , Bruno S. Silvestre in Business Horizons, Volume 54, Issue 3, May–June 2011, Pages 241–251) and applied them to what is called ‘the networked scholar’. Academic’s Online presence – a four step guide to taking control of your visibility Sarah Goodier & Laura Czerniewicz http://hdl.handle.net/11427/2652
- 3.
- 4. INNOVATIONS IN SCHOLARLYCOMMUNICATION 4 How is information created, shared, and processed in academia? Project by Bianca Kramer and Jeroen Bosman (Utrecht University Library) 2015-2016 survey https://101innovations.wordpress.com/ http://dx.doi.org/10,6084/m9.figshare.1286826
- 5. 5 INNOVATIONS IN SCHOLARLYCOMMUNICATION Boom!
- 6. INNOVATIONS IN SCHOLARLYCOMMUNICATION Workflow examples
- 7. 7 INNOVATIONS IN SCHOLARLYCOMMUNICATION G-E-O Model
- 8. 8 Using these toolsto make science more open? INNOVATIONS IN SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION
- 9.
- 10.
- 11. 11 Melanie Imming &Jon Tennant. (2018, June 8). Sticker open science: just science done right. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.128557
- 12. WHEN SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATIONBECOMES RESEARCH COMMUNICATION (AND THE OTHER WAY ROUND)
- 13. 13 WHEN SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATIONBECOMES RESEARCH COMMUNICATION (AND THE OTHER WAY ROUND) Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network, Richard van Noorden (Nature, August 2014)
- 14. 14 WHEN SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATIONBECOMES RESEARCH COMMUNICATION (AND THE OTHER WAY ROUND) In tune with contemporary research practices Internal + external communication Different voice Extra channel Creating a community (online/offline) Develop in-house expertise
- 15. 15 WHEN SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATIONBECOMES RESEARCH COMMUNICATION (AND THE OTHER WAY ROUND)
- 16. 16 WHEN SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATIONBECOMES RESEARCH COMMUNICATION (AND THE OTHER WAY ROUND) Status anxiety: should academics be using social media? D. Lupton Reaching out. Nature blog by Soapbox Science (7 June 2012) Status anxiety Attention economy Accelerated academy
- 17. 17 WHEN SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATIONBECOMES RESEARCH COMMUNICATION (AND THE OTHER WAY ROUND) What doyouwant toachievebyengagingwith social media?What isyour communication/outreachstrategy? Considerproducingsocial mediacontent asa normal part of your (working)life Developasenseof theadvantagesand limitationsof eachdifferent platform Berealisticabout thetimeavailabletoyou. Knowwhocanhelpyou. Beawareof your digital footprint.Invest in visibility. Re-usecontent but adapt.Get your timingand storyright. Allaboutfindingabalance&havingfun! AdaptationofTopTipsforacademicsonbloggingandsocialmediabyMarkCarrigan
- 18.
- 19. 19 NEXT GENERATION METRICS “Highlytweeted articles were 11 times more likely to be highly cited.” (Eysenbach 2011) “Papers mentioned on Twitter are more downloaded and cited than papers which are not.” (Shuai 2011) “Twitter activity was a more important predictor of citation than 5-year journal impact factor.” (Peoples 2016) “Twitter activity was not driven by journal impact factor, the ‘highest-impact’ journals were not necessarily the most discussed online.” (Peoples 2016) “Factors driving social media and citations are different. Social media metrics cannot be seen as alternative to citations.” (Haustein 2015) “Among social media metrics, citations correlate the most with Twitter, although tweets are not a good predictor of citation impact.” (Haustein 2015)
- 20. 20 NEXT GENERATION METRICS:ALTMETRIC
- 21. 21 NEXT GENERATION METRICS:ALTMETRIC
- 22. 22 NEXT GENERATION METRICS:ALTMETRIC
- 23. 23 NEXT GENERATION METRICS:ALTMETRIC There must be an ID Not about body of work or general expertise Different traditions in different disciplines Dependent on Altmetric inclusion/tracking
- 24. Esther De Smet SeniorResearch Policy Advisor @ResearchUGent https://www.ugent.be/en/research/soc-impact.htm 24
Editor's Notes
- #3 Central to your attitude as a networked scholar is your identity, and in this case we focus on your online identity – defined as ‘the extent to which others can identify you online as a scholar’. This is why it is critical to become aware of your online presence and to shape and maintain this presence.” Shadow versus footprint
- #4 “Scientists have been harnessing the power of social media to fundamentally speed up the pace at which they are developing and sharing knowledge, both within scientific communities and with the general public (Bik and Goldstein, Ogden 2013). There is a growing diversity of “social ecosystems” that support the scientific and scholarly use of social media (Bar-Ilan et al. 2012). For example, scientists are using collaborative project spaces (Wikipedia, Google Docs, figshare, GitHub), blogs and microblogs (Research Blogging, Twitter), online content communities (YouTube, Mendeley, CiteULike, Zotero), and professional networking sites (Facebook, Academia.edu, LinkedIn, ResearchGate) to develop new ideas and collaborations that culminate in concrete scientific outputs.” (Darling 2011)
- #5 https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/11/11/101-innovations-in-scholarly-communication/ Almost half of the tools in this survey database of scholarly communication tools were created since 2013.
- #6 The push for new tools comes from funders (e.g. demanding data archiving of Open Access) but also from researchers themselves that want to capitalize on the possibilities of the internet in collaborating. Especially for experimenting / collecting / mining data, writing, journal selection, publishing and outreach we witness a surge of new tools.
- #7 For researchers it is important to know whether using a new tool will reduce time needed to get desired results or even get results that were hitherto impossible to get. Assessing this is not straightforward, because the use of tools, platforms and websites is tied together over the entire research cycle. Researchers like an efficient workflow, but big players are also taking a workflow/ecosystem view to developing their portfolio of tools. Interoperability of tools is key.
- #8 The researchers use a simple model to get a grip on this abundance and variety of tools. The G-E-O model looks at whether the tool makes science Good, Efficient or Open. So far, we see enormous amounts of efficiency tools, a fair share of openness tools but only a handful of tools that explicitly aim for reproducible or fair science.
- #13 Buzzfeed community post
- #17 “Just like a taller, more powerful radio tower will boost a signal so it can be heard at a greater distance; it makes sense that more people will read a paper if the writer is active on social media. Of course, because we wrote it, we think it’s great that our paper has proved so popular, but we have to ask: in the future, will the highest quality papers be read most? Or will it be only those papers backed up by the loudest voices?” - Academic blogging is part of a complex online academic attention economy, leading to unprecedented readership, I. Mewburn and P. Thomson for LSE Impact blog (Dec 2013)