Whose Research is it Anyway? Academic Social Networks Versus Institutional Repositories

Abstract:  INTRODUCTION Looking for ways to increase deposits into their institutional repository (IR), researchers at one institution started to mine academic social networks (ASNs) (namely, ResearchGate and Academia.edu) to discover which researchers might already be predisposed to providing open access to their work. METHODS Researchers compared the numbers of institutionally affiliated faculty members appearing in the ASNs to those appearing in their institutional repositories. They also looked at how these numbers compared to overall faculty numbers. RESULTS Faculty were much more likely to have deposited their work in an ASN than in the IR. However, the number of researchers who deposited in both the IR and at least one ASN exceeded that of those who deposited their research solely in an ASN. Unexpected findings occurred as well, such as numerous false or unverified accounts claiming affiliation with the institution. ResearchGate was found to be the favored ASN at this particular institution. DISCUSSION The results of this study confirm earlier studies’ findings indicating that those researchers who are willing to make their research open access are more disposed to do so over multiple channels, showing that those who already self-archive elsewhere are prime targets for inclusion in the IR. CONCLUSION Rather than seeing ASNs as a threat to IRs, they may be seen as a potential site of identifying likely contributors to the IR.

Whose Research is it Anyway? Academic Social Networks Versus Institutional Repositories

Abstract:  INTRODUCTION Looking for ways to increase deposits into their institutional repository (IR), researchers at one institution started to mine academic social networks (ASNs) (namely, ResearchGate and Academia.edu) to discover which researchers might already be predisposed to providing open access to their work. METHODS Researchers compared the numbers of institutionally affiliated faculty members appearing in the ASNs to those appearing in their institutional repositories. They also looked at how these numbers compared to overall faculty numbers. RESULTS Faculty were much more likely to have deposited their work in an ASN than in the IR. However, the number of researchers who deposited in both the IR and at least one ASN exceeded that of those who deposited their research solely in an ASN. Unexpected findings occurred as well, such as numerous false or unverified accounts claiming affiliation with the institution. ResearchGate was found to be the favored ASN at this particular institution. DISCUSSION The results of this study confirm earlier studies’ findings indicating that those researchers who are willing to make their research open access are more disposed to do so over multiple channels, showing that those who already self-archive elsewhere are prime targets for inclusion in the IR. CONCLUSION Rather than seeing ASNs as a threat to IRs, they may be seen as a potential site of identifying likely contributors to the IR.

How to Build an Open Science Network in Your Community

“If you’re familiar with the open science movement, you may have also experienced the reality that the implementation of open practices hasn’t been driven by a wide-scale adoption at the institutional or organizational level. But rather, the opposite—through grassroots campaigns led by individual, early adopters….

Fortunately, there are many grassroots networks worldwide that have navigated these obstacles and have the wisdom to share. For the benefit of those seeking to grow open science networks, we tapped into this wisdom through a conversation with leaders in community-led open science initiatives.

 
This conversation – conducted via a webinar called “Local Grassroots Networks Engaging Open Science in Their Communities” – highlights the formation and sustainability efforts of several grassroots networks successfully fostering culture change in their local research communities.

 
The webinar features insights from COS Executive Director Brian Nosek, Anita Eerland of the Open Science Community Utrecht, Marcus Munafò and Laura Fortunato of the UK Reproducibility Network, and Aleksandar Bogdanoski of the Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences who collectively offer their experiences regarding:
 

How to gain the support of stakeholders through inclusivity and how to empower key actors to push for change
How to create capacity for training, education opportunities, and content libraries
How and where to seek funding and partnerships for initiatives
How to understand the regional obstacles that stand in the way of good science in your community and generate evidence to overcome these obstacles….”

A journal club to fix science

“We need all those who care about better research to stay invested, and this will not happen by telling the next generation of scientists to just sit back and hope. Early-career researchers do not need to wait passively for coveted improvements. We can create communities and push for bottom-up change.

ReproducibiliTea is one way to do this. Sam Parsons, Sophia Crüwell and I (all trainees) started this grass-roots journal club in early 2018, at the experimental-psychology department at the University of Oxford, UK. We hoped to promote a stronger open-science community and more prominent conversations about reproducibility. The initiative soon spread, and is now active at more than 27 universities in 8 countries….”

Open access availability of Catalonia research output: Case analysis of the CERCA institution, 2011-2015

Abstract:  The open access availability of publications by Catalonia’s CERCA research centres was analysed to determine the extent to which authors use open access journals, repositories, social networks and other websites to disseminate their research results. A sample of 3,730 journal articles published by authors from CERCA research centres between 2011 and 2015 and available on Web of Science (out of a total output of 44,423) was analysed to identify how many were available in open access, full-text format. The results revealed that 75,8% of the total (2,828 articles) had at least one version available in open access, but just 52% (1,940 articles) had at least one version available in either journals (whether pure or hybrid open access journals or those with embargo periods) or repositories, a finding that highlights the powerful role played by academic social networks in the sharp increase in open access availability. Of the 2,828 articles for which at least one open access version was found, a total of 9,868 copies were located. With respect to versions, the publisher’s final version, i.e. the type formatted for publication by journal publishers, was found in 75,3% of cases. The number of articles published in open access journals (567) was very close to the number of articles published in hybrid journals or journals with embargo periods (624). Only 40,4% of the articles in the sample were located in repositories, being the subject repositories the heaviest used. Fifty percent of the articles (1,881 publications) were posted on academic social networks, the most popular of which were ResearchGate and Academia. According to thematic areas, all six areas (science, life sciences, medical and health sciences, engineering and architecture and humanities) exceeded 70% of articles in open access.

Self-archiving options on social networks: a review of options

Abstract:  Purpose

 

The purpose of the study is to investigate the extent to which academic librarians in Nigerian universities utilize self-archiving options to make their research papers visible globally.

Design/methodology/approach

 

An online survey was designed using SurveyMonkey software to collect data from 394 academic librarians in Nigerian universities.

Findings

 

The study revealed that the academic librarians in Nigerian universities know and actually use self-archiving options such as ResearchGate, institutional repository and academia.edu to self-archive their publications. While, self-archiving platforms like Kudos, Mendeley.com and personal websites/servers are not popularly used by the academic librarians. Factors such as increased exposure to previously published work broadens the dissemination of academic research generally, which increases institutions’ visibility, were among the options the academic librarians indicated as very important factors that motivate them to contribute their scholarly output to self-archiving options.

Practical implications

 

The study called for academic librarians in developing countries to voluntarily sign-up to register with self-archiving options such as ResearchGate, Kudos, Mendeley.com, Academia.edu and others to enable them to self-archive their published papers for access globally by students, researchers.

Originality/value

 

Self-archiving of papers by authors will lead to an increased visibility of the author and possible citation of the work and chances of collaboration with international colleagues for research projects.

Scipedia – Communicating science

“Publish in our open access journals or collections. Upload your work created in LaTeX, Word or Google Docs using our file import tools. Use Scipedia’s online collaborative editor to improve its content and to insert supplementary material such as video, datasets, models and more….”

Scienceroot | The first Blockchain-Based Scientific Ecosystem

“Our goal is to create an ecosystem where anyone in the scientific community around the globe will have the ability to gather funding, interact, discuss research ideas, collaborate and in the end, publish their work through a more efficient, intuitive and transparent platform….

The current system of attaining funding, collaboration, and publishing findings is outdated and inefficient. Scienceroot aims to leverage the decentralizing power of blockchain technology and incentivizing power of cryptoeconomics to solve the biggest problems with the status quo….”