The Experts below are selected from a list of 31851 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Cassidy R Sugimoto - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
age stratification and cohort effects in Scholarly Communication a study of social sciences
Scientometrics, 2016Co-Authors: Cassidy R Sugimoto, Thomas Sugimoto, Andrew Tsou, Stasa Milojevic, Vincent LariviereAbstract:Aging is considered to be an important factor in a scholar's propensity to innovate, produce, and collaborate on high quality work. Yet, empirical studies in the area are rare and plagued with several limitations. As a result, we lack clear evidence on the relationship between aging and Scholarly Communication activities and impact. To this end, we study the complete publication profiles of more than 1000 authors across three fields--sociology, economics, and political science--to understand the relationship between aging, productivity, collaboration, and impact. Furthermore, we analyze multiple operationalizations of aging, to determine which is more closely related to observable changes in Scholarly Communication behavior. The study demonstrates that scholars remain highly productive across the life-span of the career (i.e., 40 years), and that productivity increases steeply until promotion to associate professor and then remains stable. Collaboration increases with age and has increased over time. Lastly, a scholar's work obtains its highest impact directly around promotion and then decreases over time. Finally, our results suggest a statistically significant relationship between rank of the scholar and productivity, collaboration, and impact. These results inform our understanding of the scientific workforce and the production of science.
-
theories of informetrics and Scholarly Communication
2016Co-Authors: Cassidy R SugimotoAbstract:Scientometrics have become an essential element in the practice and evaluation of science and research, including both the evaluation of individuals and national assessment exercises. This book brings together the theories that guide informetrics and Scholarly Communication research. It is a much needed compilation by leading scholars in the field that gathers together the theories that guide our understanding of authorship, citing, and impact.
-
Scholarly Communication as a core competency prevalence activities and concepts of Scholarly Communication librarianship as shown through job advertisements
Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 2015Co-Authors: Craig Finlay, Andrew Tsou, Cassidy R SugimotoAbstract:INTRODUCTION The dynamic nature of the Scholarly Communication landscape has produced a need for the creation of positions specifically focused on these issues. Yet, no clear title or job description for Scholarly Communication librarianship has emerged. The lack of standardization in this area is problematic for educators, professionals, and prospective professionals. METHODS Analyzing 13,869 job advertisements published between 2006 and 2014, this study attempts to examine the prevalence of Scholarly Communication terms and activities and the types of positions in which these terms and activities appear. RESULTS This study finds an increase in the use of the term “Scholarly Communication” in the title or text of job advertisements over the last nine years, with more than 7% of positions in the most recent year containing the term. CONCLUSIONS An analysis of the levels of engagement with Scholarly Communication demonstrates that jobs with substantial levels of engagement are increasing; whereas those requiring passive knowledge or awareness of Scholarly Communication issues are decreasing. Jobs with Scholarly Communication as a primary job responsibility are differentiated by a focus on repositories, open access, copyright, authors’ rights, and intellectual property differentiate core Scholarly Communication positions.
-
beyond gatekeepers of knowledge Scholarly Communication practices of academic librarians and archivists at arl institutions
College & Research Libraries, 2014Co-Authors: Cassidy R Sugimoto, Andrew Tsou, Sara Naslund, Alexandra Hauser, Melissa Brandon, Danielle Winter, Cody Behles, Craig S FinlayAbstract:Librarians and archivists are intimately involved in Scholarly Communication systems, both as information providers and instructors. However, very little is known regarding their activities as scholars. This study seeks to examine the Scholarly Communication practices of librarians and archivists, the role that tenure plays in Scholarly Communication practices, and the degree to which institutional support is provided in librarians’ efforts to consume and disseminate research and reports of best practices. A questionnaire was sent to professional librarians and archivists at 91 ARL institutions. The responses demonstrate that ARL librarians and archivists are avid consumers and creators of scholarship, and they use emerging technologies to stay up-to-date on the profession’s latest research.
-
visualizing and comparing four facets of Scholarly Communication producers artifacts concepts and gatekeepers
Scientometrics, 2013Co-Authors: Cassidy R Sugimoto, Blaise CroninAbstract:This paper extends Borgman's (Communication Research 16: 583, 1989) three-facet framework (artifacts, producers, concepts) for bibliometric analyses of Scholarly Communication by adding a fourth gatekeepers. The four-facet framework was applied to the field of Library and Information Science to test for variations in the networks produced using operationalizations of each of these four facets independently. Fifty-eight journals from the Information Science and Library Science category in the 2008 Journal Citation Report were studied and the network proximity of these journals based on Venue-Author-Coupling (producer), journal co-citation analysis (artifact), topic analysis (concept) and interlocking editorial board membership (gatekeeper) was measured. The resulting networks were examined for potential correlation using the Quadratic Assignment Procedure. The results indicate some consensus regarding core journals, but significant differences among some networks. Holistic measures of Scholarly Communication that take multiple facets into account are proposed. This work is relevant in an assessment-conscious and metrics-driven age.
Christoph Lange - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
analysing Scholarly Communication metadata of computer science events
International Conference Theory and Practice Digital Libraries, 2017Co-Authors: Said Fathalla, Christoph Lange, Sahar Vahdati, Sören AuerAbstract:Over the past 30 years we have observed the impact of the ubiquitous availability of the Internet, email, and web-based services on Scholarly Communication. The preparation of manuscripts as well as the organisation of conferences, from submission to peer review to publication, have become considerably easier and efficient. A key question now is what were the measurable effects on Scholarly Communication in computer science? Of particular interest are the following questions: Did the number of submissions to conferences increase? How did the selection processes change? Is there a proliferation of publications? We shed light on some of these questions by analysing comprehensive Scholarly Communication metadata from a large number of computer science conferences of the last 30 years. Our transferable analysis methodology is based on descriptive statistics analysis as well as exploratory data analysis and uses crowd-sourced, semantically represented Scholarly Communication metadata from OpenResearch.org.
-
integration of Scholarly Communication metadata using knowledge graphs
International Conference Theory and Practice Digital Libraries, 2017Co-Authors: Afshin Sadeghi, Christoph Lange, Mariaesther Vidal, Sören AuerAbstract:Important questions about the scientific community, e.g., what authors are the experts in a certain field, or are actively engaged in international collaborations, can be answered using publicly available datasets. However, data required to answer such questions is often scattered over multiple isolated datasets. Recently, the Knowledge Graph (KG) concept has been identified as a means for interweaving heterogeneous datasets and enhancing answer completeness and soundness. We present a pipeline for creating high quality knowledge graphs that comprise data collected from multiple isolated structured datasets. As proof of concept, we illustrate the different steps in the construction of a knowledge graph in the domain of Scholarly Communication metadata (SCM-KG). Particularly, we demonstrate the benefits of exploiting semantic web technology to reconcile data about authors, papers, and conferences. We conducted an experimental study on an SCM-KG that merges scientific research metadata from the DBLP bibliographic source and the Microsoft Academic Graph. The observed results provide evidence that queries are processed more effectively on top of the SCM-KG than over the isolated datasets, while execution time is not negatively affected.
-
opening Scholarly Communication in social sciences by connecting collaborative authoring to peer review
arXiv: Digital Libraries, 2017Co-Authors: Afshin Sadeghi, Johannes Wilm, Philipp Mayr, Christoph LangeAbstract:The objective of the OSCOSS research project on "Opening Scholarly Communication in the Social Sciences" is to build a coherent collaboration environment that facilitates Scholarly Communication workflows of social scientists in the roles of authors, reviewers, editors and readers. This paper presents the implementation of the core of this environment: the integration of the Fidus Writer academic word processor with the Open Journal Systems (OJS) submission and review management system.
-
the opening Scholarly Communication in social sciences project oscoss
arXiv: Digital Libraries, 2016Co-Authors: Philipp Mayr, Christoph LangeAbstract:The OSCOSS project (Opening Scholarly Communication in Social Sciences), which will be outlined, aims at providing integrated support for all steps of the Scholarly Communication process. Incl. collaborative writing of a scientific paper, collecting data related to existing publications, interpreting and including data in a paper, submitting the paper for peer review, reviewing the paper, publishing an article, and, finally, facilitating its consumption by readers. The OSCOSS project will support this process considering in particular the perspective of three main actors detailed in the use case descriptions below: readers, authors and reviewers.
-
openaire lod services Scholarly Communication data as linked data
International Workshop on Semantic Analytics Visualization, 2016Co-Authors: Giorgos Alexiou, Christoph Lange, Sahar Vahdati, George Papastefanatos, Steffen LohmannAbstract:OpenAIRE, the Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe, enables search, discovery and monitoring of publications and datasets from more than 100,000 research projects. Increasing the reusability of the OpenAIRE research metadata, connecting it to other open data about projects, publications, people and organizations, and reaching out to further related domains requires better technical interoperability, which we aim at achieving by exposing the OpenAIRE Information Space as Linked Data. We present a scalable and maintainable architecture that converts the OpenAIRE data from its original HBase NoSQL source to RDF. We furthermore explore how this novel integration of data about research can facilitate Scholarly Communication.
Gyorgy Baffy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
scientific authors in a changing world of Scholarly Communication what does the future hold
The American Journal of Medicine, 2020Co-Authors: Gyorgy Baffy, Michele M Burns, Beatrice Hoffmann, Subha Ramani, Sunil SabharwalAbstract:Scholarly Communication in science, technology, and medicine has been organized around journal-based scientific publishing for the past 350 years. Scientific publishing has unique business models and includes stakeholders with conflicting interests-publishers, funders, libraries, and scholars who create, curate, and consume the literature. Massive growth and change in Scholarly Communication, coinciding with digitalization, have amplified stresses inherent in traditional scientific publishing, as evidenced by overwhelmed editors and reviewers, increased retraction rates, emergence of pseudo-journals, strained library budgets, and debates about the metrics of academic recognition for Scholarly achievements. Simultaneously, several open access models are gaining traction and online technologies offer opportunities to augment traditional tasks of scientific publishing, develop integrated discovery services, and establish global and equitable Scholarly Communication through crowdsourcing, software development, big data management, and machine learning. These rapidly evolving developments raise financial, legal, and ethical dilemmas that require solutions, while successful strategies are difficult to predict. Key challenges and trends are reviewed from the authors' perspective about how to engage the Scholarly community in this multifaceted process.
Meik Poschen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the role of academic publishers in shaping the development of web 2 0 services for Scholarly Communication
New Media & Society, 2013Co-Authors: James Stewart, Rob Procter, Robin Williams, Meik PoschenAbstract:This paper examines how two contrasting academic publishers are responding to the opportunities and challenges of Web 2.0 to innovate their services. Our findings highlight the need to take seriously the role of publishers in the move towards a vision of more rapid and open Scholarly Communication and to understand the factors that shape their role as intermediaries in the innovation pathways that may be needed to achieve it.
Mike Thelwall - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
disciplinary differences in twitter Scholarly Communication
Scientometrics, 2014Co-Authors: Kim Holmberg, Mike ThelwallAbstract:This paper investigates disciplinary differences in how researchers use the microblogging site Twitter. Tweets from selected researchers in ten disciplines (astrophysics, biochemistry, digital humanities, economics, history of science, cheminformatics, cognitive science, drug discovery, social network analysis, and sociology) were collected and analyzed both statistically and qualitatively. The researchers tended to share more links and retweet more than the average Twitter users in earlier research and there were clear disciplinary differences in how they used Twitter. Biochemists retweeted substantially more than researchers in the other disciplines. Researchers in digital humanities and cognitive science used Twitter more for conversations, while researchers in economics shared the most links. Finally, whilst researchers in biochemistry, astrophysics, cheminformatics and digital humanities seemed to use Twitter for Scholarly Communication, scientific use of Twitter in economics, sociology and history of science appeared to be marginal.
