impact of web 2.0 on scholarly communication

Impact of Web 2.0 on ScholarlyCommunication

Rob Procter, Robin Williams, James Stewart, Alex Voss,Meik Poschen, Helene Snee, Yuwei Lin

Workshop on Scientific Writing and NewPatterns of Scientific Communication5th International Conference on e-Social Science, Cologne, 24 June 2009

Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009

Project Study ‘Use and relevance of web 2.0

resources for researchers’ funded January2009 to September 2009 by the ResearchInformation Network (RIN), UK

Project partners:National Centre for e-Social Science (NCeSS),

University of ManchesterThe Institute for the Study of Science, Technology

and Innovation (ISSTI), University of Edinburgh


RIN - http://www.rin.ac.uk/

The Research Information Network in the UK iscurrently sponsored by the four HigherEducation funding bodies, the three NationalLibraries, and the seven Research Councils

Role: undertake evidence-based research intoinformation and data issues that relate toprofessional academic researchers to developpolicy, guidance and advocacy on that basis.


Research Question

To what extent are Web 2.0 tools are beingadopted as a scholarly tool in differentinstitutions and departments across theUK, in different subject fields anddisciplines, and at different stages of thescholarly communications process?


Project Aim Understand changing practices of scholarly

communication and publication by researchers Explore the role of new Web-based services in

this change Results will be used to inform investment

decisions in research support by UK researchcouncils and HEIs

To inform debate on the future of research andpublication practices


Scholarly communication

Often refers primarily to the process ofpublication of peer-reviewed research

Broader view in the RIN Web 2.0 project:range of activities that scholars undertake as

part of their everyday activities


RIN Web 2.0 Study (1)

Objectives Who is using what, where? What is shaping that use? The implications for Scholarly

Communications


RIN Web 2.0 Study (2)

Methods Quantitative and representative survey of

UK scholarly community to discover basicuse and awareness

50 in-depth interviews on scholarlycommunications and Web 2.0

5 case studies of promoters, developersand users of specific ‘Web 2.0’ services


Where we are now Survey stage

6000 email request for participation in the survey wentout (as of yesterday), 842 of which were notcontactable (i.e. email bounced).

Response rate: 500/(6000-842) = 9.7%Aim: 800 responses

Start of interviews with users and non-users (ofWeb 2.0) informed by the survey this week

Use case phase started with nature.com (NaturePublishing Group) and myExperiment


Survey Main objective: Assess the current contours of

engagement with and use of Web 2.0 tools indifferent types of scholarly communication by UKacademics: profiling use by age, position,discipline and gender

Inform the interviews with non-/adopters Preliminary descriptive results are based on

approximately 470 responses (as of last week) Number in line with our calculations to achieve a

margin of error of no more than +/-5% aroundour results.


Survey Sampling: Motivation

Need to survey a random sample of UKacademicsrepresentative if possibleself-selection needs to be avoided

No list of researchers in the UK But can check a generated list by

comparing answers against HESAstatistics


Web Mining (1)

Yahoo search for “mailto” and universitydomain name – 1000 results max (YahooAPI limitation, google same)

For list of 132 domain names in ac.ukdomain

Gives us 92965 unique urls to look at Harvesting these takes a long time, so

prioritise:.ac.uk domain names first (4911)


Web Mining (2) Pattern matching results in 6120 distinct

emails Filtering out addresses such as “info@...”,

“postgrad@...”, “admin@...” Now is a good opportunity to check for

domain names not used in initial round…Verified using lookup service at whois.ja.netInitially: 132 domains, then 344, then 577

Goto 1Now 187k URLs, 43861 unique email addresses


Quality Assurance (1) Initial aim was to create as long a list as

possible, now need to start selecting Need to ensure, as far as possible, that we:

Use only email addresses that are activeSelect people who are research active (as

researchers or investigators)Email each person only once (despite multiple

email addresses and aliases)Cover a range of institutions, disciplines, levels of

seniority etc.


Quality Assurance (2)

Processing harvested website contentusing lingpipe for name extraction givescandidate names

Need given name or title, surname to sendmeaningful invitation emailCan match some names to gender (Mr/Ms)

where no academic title is available


Quality Assurance (3)

Automated processing gets you only sofar…

Utilising peoples’ skills with crowdsourcing


Survey Structure (1)

Personal information section (includinginstitution, research area/discipline)

Scholarly CommunicationsUse/importance of use of different forms of

publication, communication and resource media

Knowledge and experience of 'Web 2.0'ServicesAwareness/use of new internet services and tools

sometimes known as 'Web 2.0’


Survey Structure (2)

Use of the Web 2.0 in scholarlycommunicationsGeneral use/importance of Web 2.0 tools in

researchUse/importance of specific Web 2.0 tools and

services in research Survey Follow Up request


Survey: First Results Summary of the data & initial descriptive analysis

examining the patterns of responses ofa) all respondents; and b) ‘early adopters’

We define ‘early adopters’ of Web 2.0 by thecombination of the following three survey responses: Q3.2 How often do you do (at least one of) the following (write a

blog; comment on others’ blogs; contribute to a private wiki;contribute to a public wiki; add comments to online journalarticles; post slides, etc.) in the course of your researchactivities?: frequently

Q4.4 Do you publish your work in progress publicly on a website,blog, etc?: yes

Q5.5 How would you describe your attitude to using newtechnologies in scholarly communications?: enthusiastic


Age DistributionPlease specify your age.

Under 25

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

over 65


PositionPlease specify your position.

Professor

Reader

Senior Lecturer

Lecturer

Research Fellow

Research Assistant

PhD Candidate


Gender The ratio of male to female respondents is

62:38 According to HESA data (2008), the ratio

of male to female academics in the UK is58:42

75% of early adopter respondents aremale.

57% of non-adopter respondents aremale.

82% of sceptical respondents are male


DisciplinePlease describe your research interests by selecting as many of the 2008 RA E categories below that apply.

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

1

3 I

nfe

ctio

n a

nd

5 O

ther

7 H

ealth

9 P

sych

iatr

y,

11 N

urs

ing a

nd

13 P

harm

acy

15 P

re-c

linic

al

17 E

art

h

19 P

hysi

cs

21 A

pplie

d

23 C

om

pute

r

25 G

enera

l

27 C

ivil

29 M

eta

llurg

y

31 T

ow

n a

nd

33 A

rchaeolo

gy

35 A

ccounting

37 L

ibra

ry a

nd

39 P

olit

ics

and

41 S

ociolo

gy 43

45 E

duca

tion

47 A

merica

n

49 A

sian

51 R

uss

ian,

53 G

erm

an,

55 Iberian a

nd

57 E

nglis

h

59 C

lass

ics,

61 T

heolo

gy,

63 A

rt a

nd

65 D

ram

a,

67 M

usi

c


Dissemination Ratings:Overall

Please rate the importance of the following for the DISSEMINA TION of your research.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Conference or workshop proceedings

Conference or workshop presentations

Print-based subscription journals

Online subscription journals

Open access, online-only journals

Online pre-prints (pre-published electronic copies)

Monographs

Edited Books

Institutional web pages

Personal web pages

Wikis or blogs

Online Open Notebooks

Personal communications

Email lists and web groups

Demonstrations, exhibitions and performances


Dissemination Ratings:Early Adopters

Please rate the importance of the following for the DISSEMINA TION of your research.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Conference or workshop proceedings

Conference or workshop presentations

Print-based subscription journals

Online subscription journals

Open access, online-only journals

Online pre-prints (pre-published electronic copies)

Monographs

Edited Books

Institutional web pages

Personal web pages

Wikis or blogs

Online Open Notebooks

Personal communications

Email lists and web groups

Demonstrations, exhibitions and performances


Likelihoodof Changes

Please rate the likelihood of the following changes in scholarly communications

within your field over the next 5 years.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Existing peer review

processes will

become increasingly

unsustainable

Formal peer review

will be increasingly

complemented by

reader-based

ratings, annotations,

downloads or

citations

New types of online

publication, using

new kinds of media

formats and content,

will grow in

importance

Open access online

publication supported

by an author-pays

funding model will

predominate

Likely

Unlikely

No opinion

Please rate the likelihood of the following changes in scholarly communications

within your field over the next 5 years.

02468

101214161820

Existing peer review

processes will become

increasingly

unsustainable

Formal peer review

will be increasingly

complemented by

reader-based ratings,

annotations,

downloads or citations

New types of online

publication, using new

kinds of media

formats and content,

will grow in

importance

Open access online

publication supported

by an 'author-pays'

funding model will

predominate

Likely

Unlikely

No opinion

EarlyAdopters


Participation inWeb 2.0scholarly

communicationactivities

How often do you do the following in the course of your research activities? (Please also indicate if you do

them outside of work).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Write a blog Comment on

other people's

blogs

Contribute to

a private wiki

Contribute to

a public wiki

(e.g.,

Wikipedia)

Add

comments to

online journal

articles or

more general

media

publications

Post slides,

texts, images,

code,

algorithms,

videos or

other media

on an open or

public content

sharing site

Participate in

an Open

Source

software

project

Never

Occasionally

Frequently (At least once a week)

I do this outside of work

How often do you do the following in the course of your research activities? (Please also

indicate if you do them outside of work).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Write a blog Comment

on other

people's

blogs

Contribute

to a private

wiki

Contribute

to a public

wiki (e.g.,

Wikipedia)

Add

comments

to online

journal

articles or

more

general

media

publications

Post slides,

texts,

images,

code,

algorithms,

videos or

other media

on an open

or public

content

sharing site

Participate

in an Open

Source

software

project

Never

Occasionally

Frequently (At least once a week)

I do this outside of work

EarlyAdopters


Publishingwork in

progress

EarlyAdopters

Do you publish your WORK IN PROGRESS?

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Privately, within a

small network of

collaborators

Openly, within my

research

community

Publicly, on a

website, blog etc

No

Yes

No, but I intend to in future

Do you publish your WORK IN PROGRESS?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Privately, within a

small network of

collaborators

Openly, within my

research

community

Publicly, on a

website, blog etc

No

Yes



Communicatingwith different

audiences

EarlyAdopters

Do you use blogs, wikis or other Web 2.0 tools to communicate with

the following?

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Research

communities

outside your own

field

Users of your

research beyond

academia (e.g.,

policy makers,

industrial clients,

the media)

The general public

No

Yes


Do you use blogs, wikis or other Web 2.0 tools to communicate with

the following?

02468

101214161820

Research

communities

outside your own

field

Users of your

research beyond

academia (e.g.,

policy makers,

industrial clients,

the media)

The general public

No

Yes



Factorsencouraginguse of Web

2.0

EarlyAdopters

What bodies are encouraging the use of Web 2.0-based services in your research field?

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

My local

research

group

My

department

My

institution

Libraries

and

Information

Services

Computer

Support

Services

Research

and Funding

Councils

Other

funding

body

Conference

organisers

Yes

No

Don't know

What bodies are encouraging the use of Web 2.0-based services in your research field?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

My local

research

group

My

department

My

institution

Libraries

and

Information

Services

Computer

Support

Services

Research

and Funding

Councils

Other

funding

body

Conference

organisers

Yes

No

Don't know


Early Adopters (1) ‘Early adopters’ report some interestingly

different characteristics and behaviourscompared with the respondents overall:Proportions of early adopters involved in collaborative

research are higher in all categoriesEarly adopters rank wikis, blogs and personal web

pages more highly for disseminating their researchA majority of early adopters report ‘using Web 2.0

tools to communicate with audiences beyond theirimmediate research community’


Early Adopters (2)A greater proportion of early adopters report

‘making research data available online’A greater proportion of early adopters report

that they are being encouraged to use Web2.0 based services, in particular by: ‘my localresearch group’, ‘my department’, ‘researchand funding councils’ and ‘conferenceorganisers’

A greater proportion of early adopters agreethat changes in scholarly communications arelikely


Thank You

‘Use and relevance of web 2.0 resources forresearchers’

http://www.ncess.ac.uk/research/hub_research/useandresearchofweb2/

Meik [email protected]