“The following questionnaire is part of the research conducted for the European project TRIPLE. The questionnaire is aimed at the general public. In the following you will be asked mainly a number of questions about your attitudes about the funding of science and about crowdfunding, the practice of funding a project or venture by raising money from a large number of people who each contribute a relatively small amount, typically via the internet. Known crowdfunding platforms include kickstarter, Indiegogo or gofundme. This research will help the project in taking some decisions for the creation of a crowdfunding platform for supporting research in Social Sciences and Humanities….”
“The EOSC Portal is a gateway to information and resources in EOSC, providing updates on its governance and players, the projects contributing to its development and implementation, key events for the EOSC community, as well as training materials for its different components.
The EOSC Portal Catalogue & Marketplace acts as a user-friendly entry point to the multitude of services and resources for researchers across different domains, provided by leading European and international organisations.
The Horizon 2020 project EOSC Enhance is launching an open survey targeting the entire EOSC community, to look more closely at individuals who create EOSC, understand who they are, where they come from and, most importantly, what they need in their everyday (research) activities. With this portion of knowledge, with the feedback gathered in this survey, the project wishes to capture most needed and expected enhancements that can be introduced in the next Portal release in autumn 2021. …”
Abstract: This article reports the results of a 2019 survey of academic librarians that investigated their attitudes, practices, and policies regarding open access (OA). This study asks if academic librarians write policies to ensure that they approach OA intentionally and systematically across all library services. The results indicate that, though librarians report favorable beliefs about OA and integrating OA into technical and public services, they seldom create OA policies.
Abstract: The Metadata 2020 initiative is an ongoing effort to bring various scholarly communications stakeholder groups together to promote principles and standards of practice to improve the quality of metadata. To understand the perspectives and practices regarding metadata of the main stakeholder groups (librarians, publishers, researchers and repository managers), we conducted a survey during summer 2019. The survey content was generated by representatives from the stakeholder groups. A link to an online survey (17 or 18 questions depending on the group) was distributed through multiple social media, listserv, and blog outlets. Responses were anonymous, with an optional entry for names and email addresses for those who were willing to be contacted later. Complete responses (N=211; 87 librarians, 27 publishers, 48 repository managers, and 49 researchers) representing 23 countries on four continents were analyzed and summarized for thematic content and ranking of awareness and practices. Across the stakeholder groups, the level of awareness and usage of metadata methods and practices was highly variable. Clear gaps across the groups point to the need for consolidation of schema and practices, as well as broad educational efforts in order to increase knowledge and implementation of metadata in scholarly communications.
SMILE is a free online access medical education (FOAMEd) platform created by two UK surgical trainees and a medical student that delivered over 200 medical lectures during lockdown.
The role of Social Media in the development of SMILE was interrogated using a survey sent to all SMILE participants and by analysing activity on SMILE social media platforms.
1306 students responded to the online survey with 57.2% saying they heard of SMILE through Facebook. Engagement using facebook remained highest with 13,819 members, over 800 user comments and >16,000 user reactions.
4% of the students heard of SMILE through Twitter or Instagram.
Facebook analytics revealed the highest level of traffic when lectures were most commonly held suggesting students used Facebook to access lectures.
Other educators were able to find SMILE on social media, leading to collaborations with other platforms.
Throughout the survey many mentioned how social media created and maintained a community of medical students enhancing group-based learning
We demonstrate that social media platforms provide popular and cost-effective methods to promote, sustain & deliver medical education for students and educators.
Along with emerging open access journals (OAJ) predatory journals increasingly appear. As they harm accurate and good scientific research, we aimed to examine the awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons.
In an online survey between August and December 2019 the knowledge on predatory journals and OAJ was tested with a hyperlink made available to the participants via the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) email distributor.
Three hundred fifty orthopaedic and trauma surgeons participated, of which 291 complete responses (231 males (79.4%), 54 females (18.6%) and 5?N/A (2.0%)) were obtained. 39.9% were aware of predatory journals. However, 21.0% knew about the “Directory of Open Access Journals” (DOAJ) as a register for non-predatory open access journals. The level of profession (e.g. clinic director, consultant) (p =?0.018) influenced the awareness of predatory journals. Interestingly, participants aware of predatory journals had more often been listed as corresponding authors (p <?0.001) and were well published as first or last author (p <?0.001). Awareness of OAJ was masked when journal selection options did not to provide any information on the editorial board, the peer review process or the publication costs.
The impending hazard of predatory journals is unknown to many orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Early stage clinical researchers must be trained to differentiate between predatory and scientifically accurate journals.
There now exists many alternatives to direct journal access, such as podcasts, blogs, and news sites for physicians and the general public to stay up-to-date with medical literature. Currently however, there is a scarcity of literature that investigates these readership characteristics of open access medical news sites and how they may have shifted with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19).
The current study aimed to employ readership and survey data to characterize open access medical news readership trends in relation to COVID-19 in addition to overall readership trends regarding pandemic related information delivery.
Anonymous aggregate readership data was obtained from 2 Minute Medicine® (www.2minutemedicine.com), an open-access, physician-run medical news organization that has published over 8000 original physician-written text and visual summaries of new medical research since 2013. In this retrospective observational study, the average article views, actions (defined as the sum of views, shares, and outbound link clicks), read times, and bounce rate (probability to leave a page in <30s) were compared between COVID-19 articles published between January 1 to May 31, 2020 (N = 40) to non-COVID-19 articles (N = 145) published in the same time period. A voluntary survey was also sent to subscribed 2 Minute Medicine readers to further characterize readership demographics and preferences scored by Likert Scale.
COVID-19 articles had significantly more median views than non-COVID-19 articles (296 vs. 110, U = 748.5, P < 0.001). There were no differences in average read times or bounce rate. Non-COVID-19 had more median actions than COVID-19 articles (2.9 vs. 2.5, U = 2070.5, P < 0.05). On a Likert scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), survey data revealed that 66% (78/119) of readers Agreed or Strongly Agreed that they preferred staying up to date with emerging literature surrounding COVID-19 using sources such as 2 Minute Medicine versus direct journal access. A greater proportion of survey takers also indicated open access news sources to be one of their primary means of staying informed (71.7%) than direct journal article access (50.8%). A lesser proportion of readers indicated reading one or less full length medical study following introduction to 2 Minute Medicine compared to prior (16.9% vs. 31.8%, P < 0.05).
There is a significantly increased readership in one open-access medical literature platform during the pandemic, reinforcing that open-access physician-written sources of medical news represent an important alternative to direct journal access for readers to stay up to date with medical literature.
Abstract: This study assesses the perceived level of Open Access (OA) awareness, challenges, and opportunities in context of university libraries of Pakistan. The differences between public and private sector university libraries in terms of their awareness, challenges and opportunities were also analyzed in this study. Survey research design, based on a structured questionnaire, was employed to meet the objectives of the study. The population of the study was libraries of Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC) recognized universities located in Punjab and Islamabad (Pakistan). The findings revealed that majority of university libraries were fully aware of HEC-National Digital Library (NDL) OA resources, OA journals, and Pakistan Research Repository, whereas, somewhat aware of Budapest OA Initiative, and Diamond OA Model. Lack of additional resources (staff, time, efforts), unreliability of OA information resources, and inadequate tools and infrastructure were identified as top challenges. However, free access, increase in library value, and fulfilling users need with shrinking budget were top three identified opportunities. The study did not find any significant statistically difference between public and private university libraries in terms of their level of awareness, perceived challenges and opportunities. This study is administered in institutional context and fills the literature gap.
Abstract: Despite the calls for change, there is significant consensus that when it comes to evaluating publications, review, promotion, and tenure processes should aim to reward research that is of high “quality,” has an “impact,” and is published in “prestigious” journals. Nevertheless, such terms are highly subjective and present challenges to ascertain precisely what such research looks like. Accordingly, this article responds to the question: how do faculty from universities in the United States and Canada define the terms quality, prestige, and impact? We address this question by surveying 338 faculty members from 55 different institutions. This study’s findings highlight that, despite their highly varied definitions, faculty often describe these terms in overlapping ways. Additionally, results shown that marked variance in definitions across faculty does not correspond to demographic characteristics. This study’s results highlight the need to more clearly implement evaluation regimes that do not rely on ill-defined concepts.
Challenges of the current environment are balanced by opportunities – more digital delivery, more efficient systems, greater collaboration.
Consumption has not reduced, but delivery mechanisms need adaptation to ensure the right products in the right media are offered and delivered.
Changes to the cost base by redeploying staff and rethinking premises are underway and support improved resource allocation.
Leadership is required to accommodate adaptive and flexible remote working.
Ensuring access and implementing licences that permit non?commercial use is both a moral and a practical response….”