This document summarizes interviews conducted with researchers and librarians in biomedical sciences about their use of digital technologies for scientific work. Researchers primarily use traditional databases like PubMed but have little awareness of open science resources. They disseminate work through traditional publications but are unsure when sharing data is appropriate. Evaluation of work focuses on impact factors but understanding of bibliometrics is lacking. Interviewees identified needs for improved data management skills, understanding open science, evaluating scientific quality, and adopting social networks for dissemination. Overall, training is needed to help researchers see value in participatory digital scholarship.

1. EXPLORING RESEARCHERS’ DISCOURSES ABOUT PRODUCING, DISSEMINATING AND
EVALUATING SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION ON THE WEB.
THE CASE OF BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES
Juliana E. Raffaghelli
Sara Valla
Stefania Cucchiara
Alessandra Giglio
Donatella Persico
Institute for
Educational
Technologies
National Research
Council of Italy

2. DOING RESEARCH: A CHANGING PROFESSION
 Web development
 Openness in science and
education (Open Science)
 Participatory culture (Jenkins et
al. 2006)
 New professional practices and
ways of experience the
academic profession (Borgman,
2007; Scanlon, 2014)
 DIGITAL SCHOLARSHIP (Weller,
2011)
Luigi Mengato, 2007 CC
https://www.flickr.com/photos/luigimengato/4732436051/

3. NEW WAYS OF DOING RESEARCH: DIGITAL SCOLARSHIP
 Search
 Manage references
and data
 Share, Disseminate
 Evaluate
Juliana Raffaghelli, CC
/
Open
Access
Social Web
Open Science  Digital
Scholarship

4. NEW WAYS OF DOING RESEARCH: DIGITAL SCHOLARSHIP
A new professoriate
(Weller, 2011, based on Boyer, 1990)
 a) discovery (or the process of creating
knowledge);
 b) integration (or the creation of new
knowledge across disciplines);
 c) application (or the dissemination and
exploitation of knowledge);
 d) teaching (or the core of the University’s
endeavor).
Social media and scholarship
(Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012)
 Networked and participatory scholarship is
based on questioning traditions and
formulating a new deontological approach
to the way scientific information is
produced and shared.

5. CRITICAL ISSUES
 Digital Scholarship is still at its infancy as research topic (Veletsianos, 2013)
 Studies done on early adopters, do not show what the majority do (Esposito, 2013)
 Diversified impact of digital technologies in research practices across disciplines
(Harley, Acord, Earl-Novell, Lawrence, & King, 2010)
 Youngest researchers tend to use more traditional sources and ways of knowledge
building and sharing, while established researchers are sometimes eager to try new
ways (Harley et al., 2010)
 This finding goes against the “Millennials” hypothesis
 Disentaglement (different behavior with technologies in the personal and professional
life)

6. OUR CASE
 A set of non-structured interviews with a group of 7 researchers and 3 librarians
 Coming from the field of the Life Sciences and Medicine in the Italian context
 Focus: exploring how our study group experience the main dimensions of Digital
Scholarship - defined as the production, dissemination and evaluation of scientific
information with the adoption of web tools.
 Aim: identifying the learning needs of these researchers as a base for a learning
design of a course on the “use of digital resources to produce, disseminate and
evaluate scientific information”.

7. METHOD & PARTICIPANTS
 Non-structured interviews, 30-
40 minutes
 Principles of qualitative
research, whereby the
phenomena studied are ill-
structured, and require a work
of conceptualization and
categorization (Lincoln,
Lynham, & Guba, 2011)
 Categorization of results using
a grid regarding 4 areas
(introduction, searching and
managing scientific
information, producing and
disseminating scientific
information, evaluating
scientific information)
Progressive
number
Role Disciplinary Field Profile Mode of Interview
#1 PhD Student Biology and Molecular
Pathology
JUNIOR - 2nd year of the PhD
programme
Face to Face (FTF)
#2 PhD Student Structural Biology JUNIOR - Less than 5 years of
experience, summing PhD and
prior experience.
FTF
#3 Expert Librarian Medicine LIBRARIAN - Expert trainer in the
issue of uses of PubMed and
scientific databases
FTF
#4 Biologist,
postdoctoral
researcher at her
1st year
Pheripheric Neuropathy (ADVANCED) JUNIOR - Less than
5 years
Skype
#5 Specialty trainee in
Genetics
Pheripheric Neuropathy JUNIOR - Less than 5 years of
experience, clinical research.
Skype
#6 Expert Researcher Neurosciences ESTABLISHED RESEARCHER -
Specialty concluded; 2nd year
as PhD student, focus in the field
of pathology of sleep. More than
6 years of experience
Skype
#7 Expert Librarian Medicine LIBRARIAN - Expert Trainer on the
use of scientific databases and
information sciences
FTF
#8 Expert Researcher Biochemistry ESTABLISHED RESEARCHER - 6
years of experience in the field;
PhD concluded and ongoing
post-doctoral research.
FTF
#9 Expert Librarian Generalist, covering several
areas of STEM
LIBRARIAN - Expert trainer and
manager of information science
systems
FTF
#10 Specialty trainee Medicine (Pediatrics) JUNIOR - External assistant to the
research team. Clinical Research
Skype
ParticipantsMethod

8. INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
Interview area Description
For each of the following areas (except for the introduction) the questions were three-fold: a) How do you use digital
technologies in your work as a researcher? b) Which problems do you see in this use? Which training needs do you
Categorization of Results:
Introduction We started the interview with an introduction to the theme. Nowadays scientific information has grown in an
exponential way, particularly in the field of biomedical sciences. Furthermore, biomedical information on the Web
is endless from a quantitative point of view; as a result, it can be perceived as dispersive and fragmentary. It seems
crucial to adopt strategies and tools, necessary to select the sources of biomedical information qualitatively more
valid, ad to raise awareness on the use, production, sharing and evaluation of scientific information. ITD-CNR is
designing a course on addressing these needs among young researchers. With this interview, we would like to have
your opinion on some of the key problems found in your professional practice; possibly, we wish to explore your
learning needs in connection with the problems identified.
Introducing the aims of the interviews
Searching and
managing
scientific
information.
This area of the interview focused on the problem of producing the background for an article or research problem;
the researchers were asked to explain how they search and retrieve scientific information, and how they manage
this information while in the first phase of production of a piece of scientific work.
From traditional search in libraries and
databases
To the use of the open web and social
media where researchers share not only
final products but also “raw data” and other
resources for research
Producing and
Disseminating
scientific
information.
In this area the researchers were asked to illustrate their own strategies to share their work and disseminate its results
among the scientific community and the general public.
From publication in traditional ways
(prestigious Journal, Co-edited Books,
Monographs.)
To the adoption of open publications and
social media (blogs, sector social networks,
Facebook, Twitter, etc)
Evaluating
scientific
information
The last area was devoted to the problem of systems for evaluating the quality of research products. Here the
researchers were asked to think about the strategies used to analyze the quality of a paper; and how they are
applied to their own work; they were also invited to comment on the problem of evaluating the quality of research
on a general way.
From the use of traditional bibliometric
indicators, to peer-evaluation.
To the use of Altmetrics and open peer-

9. RESULTS
Categories analyzed Results
Instruments used Problems Training Needs
Scientific Information
searching, retrieval and
management
• Traditional databases (mainly
PubMed)
• Top-down approach (Info search led
by Research Unit Coordinators, not by
the researcher)
• Young researchers: Little awareness of
problems in the phase of information
search
• Librarians: awarness of lack of skills for
adequate information search and
retrieval
• Little awareness of Open Science’s
resources (from databases to
references’ management systems)
• Acknowledge need of improving
«data management» skills.
• Overall, improve awareness about
Open Science
• Improve skills to work with data «on
the cloud»
• Improve skills for collaborative
management of data
Dissemination of Scientific
Information
• Traditional (Journals with high Impact
Factor; prestigious conferences)
• E-mail, telephone, Skype.
• Top-down oriented approach
(dissemination opportunities decided
by Research Unit Coordinators)
• When & how to share data
• Tension regarding scientific reputation
at the beginning of the career, to
disseminate in social networks or
through Open Science spaces
• Improve knowledge and skills to
adopt dedicated social networks
(e.g. Research Gate)
• To better understand open
publication and the impact on the
researcher’s career.
Evaluation of Scientific
Information
• Eventually, analysis of impact factor
and h-index while consulting
publications
• Librarians: Selection of quality journals
on the basis of impact factor, support
• Lack of awareness even at the level
of traditional tools
• Understanding bibliometrics and
altmetrics to evaluate scientific
quality and productivity.
• Introduction to open peer review
* Grouped in three categories derived by the foreseen course topics.
* Further distributed into three outputs types: use of instruments (particularly digital ones); problems identified; training
needs identified with regard to the category and its relating instruments.

10. DISCUSSION
 Differences between young researchers (that started their research activity immediately after their
degree) and young professionals doing clinical research (with some professional experience).
 Less awareness on managing, disseminating and evaluating scientific information, and more on searching
useful sources that addressed clinical interventions.
 “Millennials” do not adopt technologies as expected at work (in line with Harley et al, 2010).
 Disentanglement (Veletsianos, 2013).
 The role of the institution in shaping professional skills, more than the availability of technologies.
 In a “continuum” between simply using digital resources for concrete tasks, and expressing the own
professional identity through the use of digital resources, we found most researchers attached to a
focused (and somehow superficial) use.
 Institutional and “research cultures” could promote, amongst their collaborators, the adoption of
digital technologies in such a way.

11. CONCLUSIONS
 We assume that training activities
could endow researchers with a critical
awareness on their own professional
activity and deontology
 In this way, participatory web
embedded in the concept of Digital
Scholarship perfectly fits
 A changing research culture requires:
 Factual and conceptual knowledge
related to Digital Scholarship;
 Procedural and operational knowledge,
practical skills, professional experience and
problem management with several digital
tools and in different digital spaces;
 Ability to understand the context, manage
interactions with other social actors, and
adopt an ethical behavior that is expression
of a professional project.
Promoting Digital
Scholarship should be
related to such
elements:
• exploring contexts of
intervention and
existing research
cultures;
• going through flexible
interventions, offering
participants the
possibility to
understand the “big
picture” about Digital
Scholarship,
• and hence deciding
which are the
Krish Tipirneni, 2006 CC
Flickr,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/krish4u/470892327/

12. THANK YOU!
 ANY QUESTION?
Corresponding author: Juliana Raffaghelli – jraffaghelli@gmail.com
Korephotos, 2008 CC
https://www.flickr.com/photos/korephotos/29440
49443/