scholarly social media applications platforms for knowledge sharing and networking, kobæk strand,...

Tekst starter uden punktopstilling For at få punkt-opstilling på teksten, brug forøg indrykning For at få venstre-stillet tekst uden punktopstilling, brug formindsk indrykning

Overskrift her

For at ændre ”Enhedens navn” og ”Sted og dato”: Klik i menulinjen, vælg ”Indsæt” > ”Sidehoved / Sidefod”. Indføj ”Sted og dato” i feltet for dato og ”Enhedens navn” i Sidefod

Platforms for

knowledge sharing

& networking

Scholarly social media applications

M. Svendsen, Københavns Universitetsbibliotek, MEF institutseminar, Kobæk Strand, 19.08.2015


Overskrift her


Outline of today’s brief talk

1. Innovations in research communication: changing digital workflows in

platforms for knowledge sharing and collaboration

2. Enhancing outreach: publishing Open Access & the scholarly SoMe profile

3. UCPH Library – Digital scholarship projects: Digital Library Labs & Linked,

Open & Social (DEFF, Denmark’s Electronic Research Library)

4. Discussion: Q&A


Overskrift her


Science 2.0 = Internet driven & ’Open’

Open Science Umbrella. Image credit: Flikr user 지우 황 CC BY 2.0

• Open scholarhip practice in HEI: Open education resources (OER); MOOCs; open source software; open annotation/peer review…

• ‘Sharing is caring’: key to transparency and the changes in scientific practice, influenced by social media, networks, open tools and analytics.


Overskrift her


Innovation in research workflows:

from discovery assessment of impact

Majority of research

Kramer, Bianca; Bosman, Jeroen (2015): 101 Innovations in Scholarly Communication - the Changing

Research Workflow. Figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1286826

http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1286826


Overskrift her


Types of workflows:

from traditional innovative

Kramer, Bianca; Bosman, Jeroen (2015): 101 Innovations in Scholarly Communication - the Changing

Research Workflow. Figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1286826

Trending workflow fases

social discovery + file sharing tools

datadriven + crowd-sourced

analysis

collaborative online writing

open access publishing

scholarly outreach +

identification

article level metrics



Overskrift her


2. Enhancing outreach: publishing OA & the scholarly SoMe profile

Open Access publishing

Gold hybrid OA

journal, APC = 5200 $

Traditional TA

journal

Green OA

archiving

in CURIS

http://goo.gl/9zH3Pv

http://goo.gl/9zH3Pv


Overskrift her


2. Enhancing outreach: publishing OA & in scholarly SoMe networks

Scholarly SoMe dissimination

of Open Access publications

Persistent linking +

identifiction btw. SoMe

networks profiles (author

ID’s)…

…and the storage/archving

of the publication (DOI’s)


Overskrift her


Scholarly Social Media Networks

A survey published by Van Noorden, R. in Nature (aug. 2014) provided:

Data by 3500 respondents from 95 countries and found:

• Google Scholar (known by > 70 %)

• ResearchGate (RG) – 2nd best known scholarly SoMe platform w. 29 % of its

current user registrations in 2013

• Academia.edu and RG used by 20 % of the responsdents

Retrieved 28.5, 2015: http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.15711!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/512126a.pdf

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.15711!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/512126a.pdf


Overskrift her


Scholarly Social Media Networks / 2

• New (ongoing) survey study on scholarly communication tool usage (University of Utrecht): Innovations in Scholarly Communication changes since aug. 2014:

• Copenhagen University Library contributes to this study by sending out surveys in autumn 2015 via a custom URL.

https://101innovations.wordpress.com/tag/updates-insights/


Overskrift her


Scholarly Social Media Networks / 3

• Take the survey and get a snapshot of your own workflow profile and

compare to your peers: https://101innovations.wordpress.com/

• Own results (Librarian):

https://101innovations.wordpress.com/2015/8/5/survey-results-id2556/

https://101innovations.wordpress.com/

https://101innovations.wordpress.com/









Overskrift her


Common denominators of the 5 fastest growing scholarly SoMe platforms:

• build by researchers for researchers (often domain specific within STEM or SSH)

• aim to increase scholarly reputation & discoverability of research by file-sharing and

dissimination of research output (articles, presentations, data sets, grey literature:

notes, drafts and negative results)

• built in tools to measure impact (attention via downloads, views, no. of followers etc.)

• generally interpret science in the broadest sense encouraging the spread of Open

Science and scholarship

Platforms sorted by year of emergence / worldwide reg.users

• (2007) ≈ 3 mio. @ Mendeley - Connecting users to empower research

• (2008) ≈ 24 mio. @ Academia.edu - Share research

• (2008) ≈ 4 mio. @ Research Gate - Scientific network

• (2011) ≈ < 1 mio. @ Figshare - Credit for all your research

(2012) ≈ 1,4 mio. @ OrcID - Connecting research & researchers

(integration w. Mendeley, Figshare, Scopus, WoS, CURIS (PURE)

• Similarity in brand images though differences in domain focus and primary goals

Classification of scholarly SoMe network / 1

https://www.mendeley.com/

http://www.academia.edu/

https://www.researchgate.net/

http://figshare.com/

http://orcid.org/


Overskrift her


Nentwich & König (2014) list main featured and common functions build in the

software designs for scientific purposes:

1. User profile – the digital scholarly representation and portrait of the researcher

Follows same general practice of other known social media sites

2. Communication - messaging, chat, blogging, discussion fora / groups,

videoconferencing

3. Networking - list of contacts, person-search functions , invitations

4. Directing attention – displaying and customization of public profile, e.g. feeds,

notifications, like/share buttons, own metrics

5. Groups – collaboration, shared bibliographies, file uploads, alerts, event

mangement, collaborative online writing, selective membership options

6. Literature-related functions – integration of other databases, access to

publications, archives, access statistics, visualization of co-author networks

The structure of the these networks can be a valuable data source to explore

aspects of informal science communication outside the traditional publishing

spheres and institutional settings.

Classification of scholarly SoMe network / 2


Overskrift her


The scholarly self(ie): a typology of researcher profiles

• 5 main types of academic persona (Barbour & Marshall, 2012) could be observed on the social web as the:

1. Formal self: a rather static and simple self w. minimal interaction: typically CMS for institutional faculty websites (UCPH reseracher profile)?

2. Networked self: a public individual presentation in an academic frame focusing on sharing ideas and networking: typically scholarly SoMe profiles (Mendeley, RG, academia.edu)

3. Comprehensive self: an online persona who uses SoMe for personal as well as academic purposes with no strict separation: typically online presence at networking sites (LinkedIn, FB and Twitter)

4. Teaching self: engaged in instructional activities w. strong focus on students (not colleagues) and an equal partner to the digital natives.

5. Uncontainable self: online but opting out w. no SoMe engagement at all risking that others will create one for the person and be defamed

• The extent of SoMe engagement varies according to activity level and time invested (from: me-too presence – cyberentrepreneurship).

• In academia, the most frequent scenario is often a low degree of user participation (from: passive networking to more infrequent online activities).


Overskrift her


Considerations & critique: rules of thumb

General considerations:

• In academia: many opposing opinions on the value of use of operating and

investing time in scholarly networks

• Lack of transparency, critical evaluation and monitoring of these commercial

businesses

• The interpretation of legal aspect to open access publications – the problem

of the researcher ‘home page’!

Specific critique:

• NOT a CRIS system or institutional repository w. proper exchange formats

and metadata (oai-pmh)

• Despite appealing domains like (.edu) most are commercial enterprises

earning money by selling analysis of user activities in their databases like

FB, Twitter etc. = key information (ex. Elsevier buying up Mendeley)

• The increasing demand from research funding of non-commercial CC

licensing of Open Access content is conflicting w. the business models of

these networks


Overskrift her


UCPH Library – Digital scholarship projects

2 strategic projects closely related to today’s talk:

1. 3 Digital Library Labs (Hum, Samf, Sund/Science), internal projects at the Faculty Libraries w. funding from Ministry of Culture (Official opening in January 2016)

Main idea: intelligent research and study environment providing domain specific software combined with cutting-edge hardware and installations for events, teaching and formal training in digital tools for analysis, computation and presentation (more info: Library Lab blog, #DSSLucph)

2. Linked, Open & Social (collaborative research library project under DEFF, Denmark’s Electronic Research Library, running in 2015-2017)

Main idea: Information & knowledge sharing via SoMe and mobile platforms and consolidation of a national infrastructure in the library sector. 3 combined elements: (more info: DEFF project call)

1) SoMe for scholars provided by libraries (eg. Mendeley for Institutions)

2) Linked Open Data & Altmetrics to research communication

3) Linked Open Data to library metadata & authority files

http://christianlauersen.net/

https://twitter.com/hashtag/DSSLucph

http://projekter.kulturstyrelsen.dk/projekt/linked-open-social-ffu-biblioteket-version-20


Overskrift her


Research Support Services /

Copenhagen University Library

New website (pr. Oct. 1): http://kub.kb.dk/forskerservice/

Book us for: Tailored modules or courses on reference management, open access publishing, outreach (CURIS & OrcID), bibliometrics

Mailbox: [email protected]

Personal contact:

Open Access Coordinator, Digital Social Science Lab (Project head),

Michael Svendsen, M: [email protected] @tullemich

OrcID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5807-5326

http://kub.kb.dk/forskerservice/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

https://twitter.com/tullemich

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5807-5326

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5807-5326

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5807-5326

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5807-5326

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5807-5326

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5807-5326

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5807-5326


Overskrift her


References

• Barbour, K., & Marshall, D. (2012). The academic online: Constructing

persona through the world wide web. First Monday, 17, n.p. Retrieved May

29,2015 from: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3969

• Kramer, Bianca; Bosman, Jeroen (2015): 101 Innovations in Scholarly

Communication - the Changing Research Workflow. Figshare.


• Nentwich, M. & König, R. (2014). Academia goes Facebook? The potential

of social network sites in the scholarly realm. In: S. Bartling, & S. Friesike

(Eds.), Opening science (pp. 107-124). Springer Int. Publ.

• Van Noorden, R. (2014): Scientists and the social network. Nature,

512(7513), 126-129. Retrieved May 28, 2015, from:

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.15711!/menu/main/topColumns/topLe

ftColumn/pdf/512126a.pdf

http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3969





Overskrift her
