Archive for the ‘Researchers’ Category
Interesting predictionsby the ARL:
“Although the purpose of academic and research library collections remains the same – to support the creation and dissemination of new knowledge – the nature of collections is moving away from ‘local’ to collaborative and multi-institutional. New forms of scholarship are transforming user expectations for broad, barrier free collection discovery and access. Libraries must transform their approaches to meet new user demands.”
Key findings – the research environment
- Global/interdisciplinary research will grow
- Open content will proliferate
Key findings – the future of libraries
- Researchers must understand intellectual property frameworks – libraries can provide support
- Other new roles for research libraries include: digital preservation and data management experts and as supporters helping researchers collaborate even more
- There will also be roles to support the open content movement
- Metrics about value to the research community must be improved
- Resources will increasingly be allocated to the development of tools
- There will continue to be moves to providing just in time services rather than building just in case collections
Reported by the Information Today Europe blog, Research libraries in the 21st century, 21 may 2012, Available from: http://www.infotodayeurope.com/2012/05/22/reserach-libraries-in-the-21st-century/ [Accessed 23 May 2012]
An interesting study by JISC and RIN reported in the latest issue of Research Information:
“Data centres are helping to spread and reinforce a culture of openness and data sharing among researchers, according to the recent report, ‘Data centres: their use, value and impact’ by JISC and RIN. For researchers as both consumers and producers of data, data centres offer some compelling benefits, the report revealed. (…)
Data centres also make it easier for researchers to gain recognition for their work via data sharing. Research has shown a positive correlation between data sharing and enhanced citation and impact of the data and the publications associated with it. In addition, data centres allow researchers to relinquish responsibility for preservation and access to older data, and so focus their attention on their current research interests.
Despite these advantages, there is evidence that researchers are less willing to deposit their own data in data centres than they are to access and use someone else’s material. (…)
One barrier is that sharing data, no matter how it is done, has cost implications for the researcher, both in preparing it and in dealing with subsequent questions from re-users. Depositing in a data centre brings these costs to the fore, where they can be a disincentive. But in the longer term there is a saving, since the researcher does not have to deal with subsequent requests for re-use. (…)
Data centres are developing rapidly, and will continue to do so. There are a number of things that must be done so that they can achieve their real potential to support researchers, and deliver full value to funders and the wider community.
Read further at;
Ashley, Kevin. Data centres enable sharing and research recognition. Research Information, April/May 2012, Available from: http://www.researchinformation.info/features/feature.php?feature_id=364 [Accessed 18th April 2012]
If you want people to find and read your research, build up a digital presence in your discipline, and use it to promote your work when you have something interesting to share. It’s pretty darn obvious, really:
If (social media interaction is often) then (Open access + social media = increased downloads).
Terras, Melissa. Is blogging and tweeting about research papers worth it? The Verdict. Melissa’s blog, Posted on 3rd April 2012, Available from: http://melissaterras.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/is-blogging-and-tweeting-about-research.html [Accessed 18th April 2012]
• Curate the peer review of your scholarly communications
• Make your work visible to scholarly search engines
• Track the impact & reuse of what you share online
• Disseminate anywhere and collect all feedback here
• Support Open Access to research
This new service hopes to complement the conventional quantitative metric system with a whole new set of qualitative indicators that are comprehensive, transparent and immediately verifiable by researchers and funding institutions, allowing scientists themselves to curate the peer reviewing of their own papers.
The RIN has just published the second part of the study dedicated to how UK researchers have changed their behaviours in response to the revolution in access, about how they make use of online journals, or about the benefits that flow from that use.
- Intensive users view and download more articles per capita – they spend much less time on each visit • they do not use many of the online facilities provided on the publishers’ platform • they are much more likely to enter via gateway sites (Google, WoS, PubMed)
- Usage is rising and cost-per-use is falling: In the years from 2003-4 to 2006-7, the number of article downloads more than doubled, with growth at a compound annual rate of 21.7%. In 2006-7 users downloaded over 100 million articles, and each registered FTE library user downloaded on average 47 articles a year. As the number of downloads has risen, so the average direct cost of each download (excluding overheads, time and other indirect costs) has fallen, so that in 2006-7 it was £0.80.
- Researchers use services such as Google and Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Knowledge because they are typically seeking a wide reach in their results, both of journal articles and other kinds of sources. No single publisher platform can provide that reach.
- Life scientists are the most likely (50%) to use e-journals ‘most’ or ‘every working day
- Log analysis showed high concentrations of downloads and page views on the top 5% of journals in all disciplines, with the rates particularly high in economics and chemistry.
- Researchers now expect immediate access to the full text, and they are frustrated when they find that their university does not have the necessary subscription, or that they are asked for a password they do not have, or that they are asked to pay for a download.
- Publisher logs show that nearly a quarter of journal use by university researchers takes place outside the traditional 9-5 working day, and that a sixth takes place at weekends.
- Library users nevertheless have access to a much larger range of titles than ever before – Library expenditure on e-resources and training has brought spectacular success in driving a massive rise in usage and sharp falls in the average cost per download
- The use of e-journals and research outcomes: We find that article downloads correlate positively, with few outliers, with all four measures of research success.
Conclusion: UK researchers are producing more articles, with more references, from a wider range of sources.
Gray, Catherine. E-journals: their use, value and impact – final report. RIN, Online on 18th of January 2011.
Look at this very nice hompage, made with Collexis/BioMedExperts.
The Johns Hopkins University offers a wonderful promotion of their researchers.
Once again, the RIN (Research Information Network, London) publishes a fundamental report on real usage of Web 2.0 by the Research community in U.K.
This report seeks to improve our currently limited understanding of whether, and if so how, UK researchers are making use of various web 2.0 tools in the course of their work, the factors that encourage or inhibit adoption, and researchers’ attitudes towards web 2.0 and other forms of communication.
The study indicates that a majority of researchers are making at least occasional use of one or more web 2.0 tools or services for purposes related to their research:
- for communicating their work
- for developing and sustaining networks and collaborations
- or for finding out about what others are doing.
But frequent or intensive use is rare, and some researchers regard blogs, wikis and other novel forms of communication as a waste of time or even dangerous.
Regarding blog, wikis, and file-sharing services, the study found that current levels of take-up are relatively low, with 13% of respondents using such tools frequently (once a week or more), 45% using them occasionally, and 39% using them not at all.
It also found that – contrary to the perception that use of web 2.0 is of special interest to a younger, Facebook, generation – the differences between various demographic groups are relatively small,…
web 2.0 tools are for the most part not considered to be particularly important. This is unlikely to change until significant numbers of researchers see clear benefits from the use of web 2.0.
Researchers who use web 2.0 tools and services do not see them as comparable to or substitutes for other channels and means of communication. When deciding when, where and how to publish their work, researchers place the highest value on well-established channels of communication including scholarly journals, conference proceedings and monographs.
Open science (blogs, data sharing, etc.) : very few researchers are as yet operating in this way.
Social networking: 13% of respondents use SN services at least once a week for purposes related to their work.
Web 2.0 services are currently being used as supplements to established channels, rather than a replacement for them.
While a small number of researchers are making frequent and innovative use of web 2.0 tools, the majority use them only sporadically, or not at all. There is relatively little hostility to new mechanisms…
Procter, Rob. If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0. White paper, July 2010, 64 p.
Thomson Reuters introduces ISI Highly Cited as an expert gateway to the most highly influential scientists and scholars worldwide.
This freely accessible Web site gives research professionals working in a variety of occupations an invaluable tool to identify individuals, departments and laboratories that have made fundamental contributions to the advancement of science and technology in recent decades.
These individuals are the most highly cited within each category, and comprise less than one-half of one percent of all publishing researchers–truly an extraordinary accomplishment.
ISIHighlyCited.com highlights the top 250 preeminent individual researchers in each of 21 subject categories who have demonstrated great influence in their field as measured by citations to their work–the intellectual debt acknowledged by their colleagues.
The information for each researcher is as follows:
- Biographical information: education, faculty and professional posts, memberships and/or offices, current research interests, and personal Web sites.
- Full listing of publications: journal articles, book or book chapters, conference proceedings, web sites and other Internet resources
- Bibliography enhanced by links to the full bibliographic information indexed in the Web of Science
When visiting ISIHighlyCited.com, one can:
- Search for the top researchers by name, category, country, or institutional affiliation
- Track research trends through literature references using links to and through the Web of Science
- Learn about or stay current on the research authorities and trends in a number of fields
- Identify key individuals, departments and laboratories
- Locate colleagues and experts
- Discover new dimensions of a researcher’s work
- Show students the development of scientific ideas
ISIHighlyCited.com is the only online forum in the world for this type of communication and research.
A good place to start an experts identification…
This good paper underlines various initiatives world wide for central registry and programs promoted by STM publishers (Thomson’s ResearchID, Elsevier Scopus Author Identifier, etc.)
It is all about the importance of correct authors identification system in databases to analyze their real science productivity.
Rovner, Sophie L. A question of identity.Chemical & Engineering news, Vol.88, N°21, pp. 36-37. Online May 24, 2010:
Thomson and Elsevier’s marketing speeches are aligned on pressure which exists on Universities to be more or more performant…
For this blogger from OCLC organization, the expression “Research performance measurement” (RPM) sounds weird…
Dempsey, Lorcan. Research analytics. Posted on May 15, 2010.