“When You Use Social Media You Are Not Working”: Barriers for the Use of Metrics in Social Sciences

Authors: Lemke Steffen, Mehrazar Maryam, Mazarakis Athanasios, Peters Isabella

Abstract: The Social Sciences have long been struggling with quantitative forms of research assessment—insufficient coverage in prominent citation indices and overall lower citation counts than in STM subject areas have led to a widespread weariness regarding bibliometric evaluations among social scientists. Fueled by the rise of the social web, new hope is often placed on alternative metrics that measure the attention scholarly publications receive online, in particular on social media. But almost a decade after the coining of the term “altmetrics” for this new group of indicators, the uptake of the concept in the Social Sciences still seems to be low. Just like with traditional bibliometric indicators, one central problem hindering the applicability of altmetrics for the Social Sciences is the low coverage of social science publications on the respective data sources—which in the case of altmetrics are the various social media platforms on which interactions with scientific outputs can be measured. Another reason is that social scientists have strong opinions about the usefulness of metrics for research evaluation which may hinder broad acceptance of altmetrics too. We conducted qualitative interviews and online surveys with researchers to identify the concerns which inhibit the use of social media and the utilization of metrics for research evaluation in the Social Sciences. By analyzing the response data from the interviews in conjunction with the response data from the surveys, we identify the key concerns that inhibit social scientists from (1) applying social media for professional purposes and (2) making use of the wide array of metrics available. Our findings show that aspects of time consumption, privacy, dealing with information overload, and prevalent styles of communication are predominant concerns inhibiting Social Science researchers from using social media platforms for their work. Regarding indicators for research impact we identify a widespread lack of knowledge about existing metrics, their methodologies and meanings as a major hindrance for their uptake through social scientists. The results have implications for future developments of scholarly online tools and show that researchers could benefit considerably from additional formal training regarding the correct application and interpretation of metrics.V

Citation:   Lemke S, Mehrazar M, Mazarakis A and Peters I (2019) “When You Use Social Media You Are Not Working”: Barriers for the Use of Metrics in Social Sciences. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 3:39. doi: 10.3389/frma.2018.00039

VIEW

 

Source: Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics

Seeking Sustainability and Inclusivity with Transparent Practices for Research Data Management

Author: Heather Soyka

Abstract: When thinking about how to encourage research data management education and activity, one option is to do that work in public. By demonstrating and modeling good practices, providing stepping stones and clear pathways from beginner to more advanced, and welcoming experimentation, questions, and contributions, communities can encourage public participation and a culture of growth and shared ownership for participants and future members.

Citation:   Lemke S, Mehrazar M, Mazarakis A and Peters I (2019) “When You Use Social Media You Are Not Working”: Barriers for the Use of Metrics in Social Sciences. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 3:39. doi: 10.3389/frma.2018.00039

VIEW

 

Source: Research Library Issues

What is Open Science, and How Can Radical Collaboration Facilitate It?

Author: Meghan Potterbusch

Abstract: Open science is a multi-faceted movement serving as a goal and a motivation for many stakeholders, from researchers to information professionals and from funders to the general public. Aspects of open science include: open sharing of research materials such as data and code, collaborative research platforms, crowdsourcing platforms, blogs, open peer review, open educational resources, altmetrics, and more. These diverse aspects can be classified into schools of thought and are emphasized by members of various open-focused communities to different degrees (from intense belief to neutral to opposition in some cases). Regardless of the differences in views between diverse communities and differences in aspects or approaches, each of these forms of open science allows for additional levels of understanding, participation, or both by people external to the group producing the science.

Citation: Megan Potterbusch. “What is Open Science, and How Can Radical Collaboration Facilitate It?” Research Library Issues, no. 296 (2018): 44–48. https://doi.org/10.29242/rli.296.6

 

Source: Research Library Issues

The F3-index. Valuing reviewers for scholarly journals

Authors: Federico Bianchi, Francisco Grimaldo, Flaminio Squazzoni

Abstract: This paper presents an index that measures reviewer contribution to editorial processes of scholarly journals. Following a metaphor of ranking algorithms in sports tournaments, we created an index that considers reviewers on different context-specific dimensions, i.e., report delivery time, the length of the report and the alignment of recommendations to editorial decisions. To test the index, we used a dataset of peer review in a multi-disciplinary journal, including 544 reviewers on 606 submissions in six years. Although limited by sample size, the test showed that the index identifies outstanding contributors and weak performing reviewers efficiently. Our index is flexible, contemplates extensions and could be incorporated into available scholarly journal management tools. It can assist editors in rewarding high performing reviewers and managing editorial turnover.

Citation:   Lemke S, Mehrazar M, Mazarakis A and Peters I (2019) “When You Use Social Media You Are Not Working”: Barriers for the Use of Metrics in Social Sciences. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 3:39. doi: 10.3389/frma.2018.00039

View

 

s

Source: Journal of Informetrics

The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals

Authors: Giangiacomo Bravo, Francisco Grimaldo, Emilia López-Iñesta, Bahar Mehmani, & Flaminio Squazzoni

Abstract: To increase transparency in science, some scholarly journals are publishing peer review reports. But it is unclear how this practice affects the peer review process. Here, we examine the effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals involved in a pilot study at Elsevier. By considering 9,220 submissions and 18,525 reviews from 2010 to 2017, we measured changes both before and during the pilot and found that publishing reports did not significantly compromise referees’ willingness to review, recommendations, or turn-around times. Younger and non-academic scholars were more willing to accept to review and provided more positive and objective recommendations. Male referees tended to write more constructive reports during the pilot. Only 8.1% of referees agreed to reveal their identity in the published report. These findings suggest that open peer review does not compromise the process, at least when referees are able to protect their anonymity.

Citation:   Lemke S, Mehrazar M, Mazarakis A and Peters I (2019) “When You Use Social Media You Are Not Working”: Barriers for the Use of Metrics in Social Sciences. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 3:39. doi: 10.3389/frma.2018.00039


View

 

The Radical Collaboration of RDA and What It Means for Developing Institutional Data Management Services

Author: Amy Nurnberger

Abstract: The Research Data Alliance (RDA) is an organization dedicated to
reducing barriers to data sharing and exchange. While there are many
technical barriers that must still be surmounted, it is a core principle of
RDA that technical impediments are not the only ones. Often the more
challenging barriers are the less visible social roadblocks and those
blockades constructed at the intersections of the technical and the
social. In my experience in developing and working in institutional data
management services, these services are also dedicated to easing the
way to data sharing and are likewise subject to a similar set of barriers.
The connections between how RDA works, how data management
services develop in institutions, and how radical collaboration happens
may map out a route to more successful service development practices.

Citation: Amy Nurnberger. “The Radical Collaboration of RDA and What It Means for Developing Institutional Data Management Services.” Research Library Issues, no. 296 (2018): 23–32. https://doi.org/10.29242/rli.296.3.

VIEW

 

Source: Research Library Issues

The doctoral dissertation and scholarly communication: Adapting to changing publication practices among graduate students

Author: Roxanne Shirazi

Abstract: When I first began working with electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs), the conversation in libraries appeared to revolve around open access and publication embargoes. It seemed to me that the primary task for scholarly communication librarians in this area was to broaden access to graduate research while protecting future publication opportunities for individual authors. As graduate students begin to publish earlier in their careers, the relationship between the doctoral dissertation and scholarly publishing is evolving. Many students now include their own previously published work in a dissertation, requiring instruction in publication contracts and copyright transfer agreements at the point of submission to the graduate school. 

There are repercussions to publishing as a graduate student for which our institutions are not well prepared, and to which we could apply our expertise. By engaging in the ETD preparation process, scholarly communication librarians have an opportunity to help graduate students navigate the complex infrastructure of scholarly publishing and offer valuable guidance that will be useful throughout their academic careers.

Citation: Shirazi, R. (2018). The doctoral dissertation and scholarly communication: Adapting to changing publication practices among graduate students. College & Research Libraries News, 79(1), 34. doi: https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.79.1.34

VIEW

 

Source: College & Research Libraries News

Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures

Authors: B. Preedip Balaji, M. Dhanamjaya

Abstract: Digital scholarship and electronic publishing among the scholarly communities are changing when metrics and open infrastructures take centre stage for measuring research impact. In scholarly communication, the growth of preprint repositories over the last three decades as a new model of scholarly publishing has emerged as one of the major developments. As it unfolds, the landscape of scholarly communication is transitioning, as much is being privatized as it is being made open and towards alternative metrics, such as social media attention, author-level, and article-level metrics. Moreover, the granularity of evaluating research impact through new metrics and social media change the objective standards of evaluating research performance. Using preprint repositories as a case study, this article situates them in a scholarly web, examining their salient features, benefits, and futures. Towards scholarly web development and publishing on semantic and social web with open infrastructures, citations, and alternative metrics—how preprints advance building web as data is discussed. We examine that this will viably demonstrate new metrics and in enhancing research publishing tools in scholarly commons facilitating various communities of practice. However, for the preprint repositories to sustain, scholarly communities and funding agencies should support continued investment in open knowledge, alternative metrics development, and open infrastructures in scholarly publishing.

Citation: Balaji BP, Dhanamjaya M. Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures. Publications 2019; 7(1):6. DOI: 10.3390/publications7010006

View

SourcePublications

 

The Infrastructure of Openness: Results from a Multi-Institutional Survey on OER Platforms

Author: Rob Nyland

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to understand how higher education institutions are selecting and using technology platforms for the creation and delivery of OER. A survey about OER technology was sent to various higher education institutions, resulting in 33 responses. The results suggest that institutions are most commonly using existing tools like the Learning Management System (LMS) to deliver OER, however third-party courseware also has a strong presence. The results also suggest that there is little evidence that institutions engage in structured evaluations when selecting OER technologies, but rather the selection process is most often driven by faculty preference. Institutions were also asked about their level of satisfaction with their technologies ability to support the 5Rs of openness. Respondents were most satisfied with the ability to retain, but least satisfied with the ability to remix content.

Citation Nyland, R. (2018). The Infrastructure of Openness: Results from a Multi-Institutional Survey on OER Platforms. International Journal of Open Educational Resources,1(1). doi:10.18278/ijoer.1.1.3

View

Source: International Journal of Open Educational Resources

Open Access and the Graduate Author: A Dissertation Anxiety Manual

Authors: Jill Cirasella and Polly Thistlethwaite

Abstract: The process of completing a dissertation is stressful—deadlines are scary, editing is hard, formatting is tricky, and defending is terrifying. (And, of course, postgraduate employment is often uncertain.) Now that dissertations are deposited and distributed electronically, students must perform yet another anxiety-inducing task: deciding whether they want to make their dissertations immediately open access (OA) or, at universities that require OA, coming to terms with openness. For some students, mostly in the humanities and some of the social sciences, who hope to transform their dissertations into books, OA has become a bogeyman, a supposed saboteur of book contracts and destroyer of careers.

This chapter examines the various access-related anxieties that plague graduate students. It is a kind of diagnostic and statistical manual of dissertation anxieties—a “Dissertation Anxiety Manual,” if you will—describing anxieties surrounding book contracts, book sales, plagiarism, juvenilia, the ambiguity of the term online, and changes in scholarly research and production.

Citation: Cirasella, J., & Thistlethwaite, P. (2017). Open access and the graduate author: A dissertation anxiety manual. In K. L. Smith & K. A. Dickson (Eds.), Open access and the future of scholarly communication: Implementation (pp. 203-224). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Source: CUNY Academic Works