Search

Tweets are used as alternative metrics (altmetrics) to measure the impact or attention of research. However, Twitter data can only be used for research evaluation purposes, if biases do not influence tweet decisions on papers. The existence of biases can only be reasonably investigated using an experimental design with controlled (marginal) manipulations. In this comment, we propose to undertake an experimental approach to study the decision of scientists to ‘tweet’ on a paper. We describe the design of a study that might allow the experimental investigation of tweet decisions including randomized variations and theoretically derived mechanisms for explaining the empirical results. The described study design should be adaptable to other social media platforms (e.g., Facebook or ResearchGate). This comment is intended to be a plea for using an experimental design to investigate biases in tweet decisions. It is an advantage of tweets –in contrast to citations– that an experimental approach can be applied to investigate the decision of scientists to communicate on papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Harbingers project, which studied the working lives and scholarly communication behaviour of early career researchers (ECRs) over 6 years, found evidence of changing attitudes to questionable (grey) publishing. Thus, whilst predatory publishers have come to be treated with equanimity, as a problem easily dealt with, there was growing concern with the high volume of low-grade research being generated, some of which by 'grey' open access publishers for want of a better name (questionable and non-standard have also been used). With the recent announcement (2023) that the government of Malaysia (a Harbinger case country) is not providing Article Processing Charges (APCs) for articles published by MDPI, Frontiers and Hindawi on quality and cost grounds, we set out to see what lay behind this decision and whether other countries exhibited similar concerns. Information was obtained by asking Harbinger country leads, mostly embedded in research universities, from Australia, China, France, Israel, Malaysia, Poland, Spain, UK, and the US to conduct desk research to establish what is happening. It was found that countries, like ECRs, appear to have formed into two different camps, with China, Poland, France, and Spain joining Malaysia in the camp of those who felt concerned about these publishers and the UK, US, Israel, and Australia belonging to the camp of the unconcerned. Explanations for the split are furnished and whether the Malaysian position will prevail elsewhere is considered. Finally, in this paper, we have aired issues/concerns, rather than provided robust, systematic data. For a systematic study we shall have to wait for the fuller study we are hoping to conduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After two-years of repeat interviewing around 170 early career science/social science researchers from China, France, Malaysia, Poland, Russia, Spain, UK and US about their work life and scholarly communications in pandemic-times, the Harbingers project is now in possession of a mountain of data on what constitutes a very important academic topic. The purpose of the paper is to share the early highlights of the data, with a focus on the main and lasting impacts of the pandemic. The data presented comes from the national interviewers, who had conducted 3 rounds of interviews with their 20 or so early career researchers (ECRs) over two years and, thus, knew them well. They were asked to provide an ‘aerial view’ by identifying the most important impacts they had detected while things were still fresh in their minds. The main findings are that: 1) ECRs, the research workhorses, have generally proved to be resilient and perseverant and some have prospered; 2) the pandemic has fast-tracked researchers to a virtual and remote scholarly world, with all the advantages and disadvantages that comes with it. The data, however, is nuanced, with significant differences occurring between countries, especially China and France. The paper also updates a literature review on the topic previously published in this journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to explore the editorial response of journals to research articles that may contain methodological errors or misconduct. A total of 17,244 articles commented on in PubPeer, a post-publication peer review site, were processed and classified according to several error and fraud categories. Then, the editorial response (i.e., editorial notices) to these papers were retrieved from PubPeer, Retraction Watch, and PubMed to obtain the most comprehensive picture. The results show that only 21.5% of the articles that deserve an editorial notice (i.e., honest errors, methodological flaws, publishing fraud, manipulation) were corrected by the journal. This percentage would climb to 34% for 2019 publications. This response is different between journals, but cross-sectional across all disciplines. Another interesting result is that high-impact journals suffer more from image manipulations, while plagiarism is more frequent in low-impact journals. The study concludes with the observation that the journals have to improve their response to problematic articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Around 170 early career researchers (ECRs) from 8 countries were interviewed about the whole range of their scholarly communication attitudes/behaviours during pandemic times and this paper analyses what they said about predatory journals in a wide range of scholarly communication contexts. Because of the delicacy of the topic there was just one question exclusively directed at predatory journals, which asked about policies rather than actions, which yielded nevertheless wide-ranging comments on the topic. ECRs also volunteered information on predatory journals in another half dozen questions, most notably including one on questionable research practices. The source of data was mainly the final interview of three undertaken, with some comparisons made to rounds one and two. Findings disclose the existence of a whole raft of formal and informal assessment policies/codes that direct ECRs to legitimate journals and away from predatory ones. Despite being junior, ECRs are very accultured to the criteria of what is considered as prestige and quality and believe predatory publishing is not even conceivable. They are far more concerned about low-quality research, preprints and borderline 'grey' journals. The pandemic has increased the level of questionable practices and low-quality research, but predatory journals were only singled out by a relatively small number of ECRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper studies the social structure of Spanish and Latin American communication researchers through the representation and analysis of three coauthorship networks at the national, institutional, and individual level. Such networks are built from papers indexed in the 'Communication' category by Web of Science and published between 2000 and 2019 by authors attached to a Spanish or Latin American institution (n = 5,040). The goal is to characterize the structural features of each network, identify the most central actors, and illustrate the most relevant relationships among nodes. The results show that the most central country is Spain, followed by the USA and other European nations. Among the Latin American states, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico are placed at the most relevant nodes. Latin American collaboration is preferentially addressed to the USA, especially since 2015. Regarding institutions, Spanish public universities in Madrid and Catalonia achieve the highest degrees of centrality. However, the most central Latin American institutions are private universities. The most relevant authors are Spanish researchers until 2015, when they are replaced at the top by Latin American scholars. Collaboration at both the individual and institutional levels shows a deep regional tendency, while the internationalization of researchers and universities is only more visible since 2015. This work identifies a tendency towards internal cohesion at different network levels as the number of connected nodes grows in each period. We conclude that a proper Spanish-Latin America community of communication researchers does not exist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After two-years of talking to around 170 early career science/social science researchers from China, France, Malaysia, Poland, Russia, Spain, UK and US about their work life and scholarly communications during the pandemic, the Harbingers-2 project is in possession of a mountain of verbatim data. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the kinds of comments ECRs are raising, with a focus on those that provide a particular interesting and illuminating take on ECRs' experiences under difficult times. Comments, for instance, that might challenge the established order of things or that presage big changes down the line. The selection of comments presented here were made by the national interviewers shortly after the completion of the last of three rounds of interviews (two interviews in the case of Russia). The understandings, appreciations and suggestions thus raised by the ECRs are insightful and constructive, which is what we might have expected from this cohort who are very much at the forefront of the research enterprise and veritable research workhorses. Sixteen broad scholarly topics are represented by quotes/comments, with the main focus of the comments on a subset of these: research performance and assessment, scholarly communication transformations, networking and collaboration, social media and access to information/libraries, which suggests, perhaps, where the action, concerns and interest mainly lie. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholarly monographs provide a good example to show the evolution of the impact that digital publishing has had over the last few decades in the transmission and communication of scientific information. On the one hand, in the area of Social Sciences and Humanities relevance in quantitative terms has been undermined, giving prominence to other document types such as research papers published in academic journals. Moreover, their visibility and accessibility have been conditioned by a number of factors that form an intrinsic part of the digital medium itself. Based on these two fundamental premises, this paper aims to analyze only the situation of scholarly monographs in institutional systems for research assessment and tenure, from the perspective of the various proposed requirements regarding accreditation for the different figures of university teaching staff and the request for Spanish recognition of six-year research periods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to address the video as a new scholarly communication form, alternative to the traditional written paper. Although the use of video could be a worthwhile option for any field of study in which videographic practice would facilitate the communication of the research findings and thus enhance our understanding of them, this practice seems especially useful when the object of study itself is the audiovisual language. For this reason and because the number of media scholars communicating their research outputs in videos has increased in recent years to the extent of becoming a new trend, I focus on the exploration of this practice in this discipline. However, could the video meet academic standards, and thus be considered as a new scholarly form? If the answer is affirmative, what exactly makes a video academic? Offering some answers to these questions is the main purpose of this article, which reviews how the transition from the written paper to the audiovisual form is evolving. This exploration will include not only these types of videos but also the online journals that make the publication of such videos possible, thereby facilitating a study of how these online platforms allow new ways of communicating research outputs in academic contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the structural connectedness and associations of international student mobility and scholarly communication on a global scale. First, it examines the exchange of international students. Next, it investigates network structures of international student mobility and scholarly communication on two social media platforms, Twitter and Mendeley. It also determines which social media platform predicts more inter-country student exchange networks than the other and their statistical relationship. Data are obtained from Unesco for student mobility networks and Altmetric. com for scholarly communication on social media. Scholarly communication activities are measured by two factors: Mendeley-based research citations and Twitter-mediated research mentions. As a result, China and the USA exchanged most international students. The network structures of student mobility and online scholarly communication followed the ideas of World System Theory that describes core, periphery, and semi-periphery areas. The network analyses showed that the USA hosted the largest number of overseas students and was positioned at the center of student mobility and scholarly communication on Mendeley. The UK was in the central position on Twitter. Furthermore, research citations on Mendeley had a higher statistical correlation with international student mobility than research mentions on Twitter had. More importantly, a greater number of research citations on Mendeley predicted an increase in student mobility, and the Twitter network showed the highest density and shortest geodesic distance. The findings of this research may suggest that social media can be used effectively to spread academic ideas in the real and online worlds while considering the features of social media and related policies in different countries. Besides, worldwide intellectual mobility may enhance decentralization and co-development of the global academic society, which would be better assisted by proper utilization of social media. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores early career researchers' (ECRs) appreciation and utilisation of open access (OA) publishing. The evidence reported here results from a questionnaire-based international survey with 1600 participants, which forms the second leg and final year of a four year long, mixed methods, longitudinal study that sought to discover whether ECRs will be the harbingers of change when it comes to scholarly communications. Proceeding from the notion that today's neophyte researchers, believed to hold millennial values of openness to change, transparency and sharing, may be best placed to power the take-up of OA publishing, the study sought to discover: the extent to which ECRs publish OA papers; the main reasons for their doing or not doing so; and what were thought to be the broader advantages and disadvantages of OA publishing. The survey data is presented against a backdrop of the literature-based evidence on the subject, with the interview stage data providing contextualisation and qualitative depth. The findings show that the majority of ECRs published in OA journals and this varied by discipline and country. Most importantly, there were more advantages and fewer disadvantages to OA publishing, which may be indicative of problems to do with cost and availability, rather than reputational factors. Among the many reasons cited for publishing OA the most important one is societal, although OA is seen as especially benefiting ECRs in career progression. Cost is plainly considered the main downside. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the current paradigm of the publication culture in Spain, examining the negative and positive forces that shape the dominant dynamics in the production, dissemination and evaluation of scholars' works. Following the intentional sampling of maximum variety, we planned a set of interviews with scholars in the area of communication that represented the heterogeneity of academic ranks, gender, and territories of Spain. The final output consisted of thirty-five semi-structured interviews that took place between May 2018 and May 2019. Scholarship on how researchers and university professors experience publication cultures is abundant, however the national and international studies that address this phenomenon from a holistic approach are practically non-existent. Comprising three actions or systems -production, dissemination and evaluation-, the current publishing culture is depicted as a structure tuned to a set of global-accepted requirements that seem easy to understand and replicate. Under such model, most of the scholars experience discomfort because overproduction is widespread, social transference is rare, and the production and diffusion of scientific works frequently occur at the expense of scholars themselves. The goal seems to be inspired by the cost- and time-effective system of evaluation processes that, despite academics' general opposition, official bodies and university departments have adopted to circumvent the costly task of assessing scientists' outcomes on an individual basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific research in the communication field has experienced great growth in recent years. Recent technological changes, as well as the emergence of Web 2.0 and 3.0 and new forms of communication, such as social networks, have led to new and varied studies in the discipline. This paper analyzes the scientific production of the 27 countries with the greatest scientific production in the communication field in the period from 2003 to 2018. The results indicate that: the most productive countries are the USA, UK, and Spain; there is less international collaboration than in other disciplines, but there is a network of European collaboration that is quite dense and has great impact, and another network in Pacific countries (Asia + Oceania), albeit with lower density and impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the structural connectedness and associations of international student mobility and scholarly communication on a global scale. First, it examines the exchange of international students. Next, it investigates network structures of international student mobility and scholarly communication on two social media platforms, Twitter and Mendeley. It also determines which social media platform predicts more inter-country student exchange networks than the other and their statistical relationship. Data are obtained from Unesco for student mobility networks and Altmetric. com for scholarly communication on social media. Scholarly communication activities are measured by two factors: Mendeley- based research citations and Twitter-mediated research mentions. As a result, China and the USA exchanged most international students. The network structures of student mobility and online scholarly communication followed the ideas of World System Theory that describes core, periphery, and semi-periphery areas. The network analyses showed that the USA hosted the largest number of overseas students and was positioned at the center of student mobility and scholarly communication on Mendeley. The UK was in the central position on Twitter. Furthermore, research citations on Mendeley had a higher statistical correlation with international student mobility than research mentions on Twitter had. More importantly, a greater number of research citations on Mendeley predicted an increase in student mobility, and the Twitter network showed the highest density and shortest geodesic distance. The findings of this research may suggest that social media can be used effectively to spread academic ideas in the real and online worlds while considering the features of social media and related policies in different countries. Besides, worldwide intellectual mobility may enhance decentralization and co-development of the global academic society, which would be better assisted by proper utilization of social media. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The scientific literature on altmetrics published from 2005 to 2018 was analysed. The overall structure of the speciality's intellectual landscape is depicted through clusters of co-cited references, analysing journal and author co-citations. The 56,936 references cited in the 8,145 papers of all kinds retrieved from the Dimensions bibliographic database were included in the initial dataset used in the analysis. Pathfinder networks were generated with CiteSpace to determine the most prevalent journals and authors in the speciality. Conceptual structures were identified by co-citation clustering and latent semantic analysis. 'Open knowledge', 'altmetric collection', 'web indicator', 'assessing research', 'Research- Gate score', 'open data citation advantage', 'Google Scholar author citation', 'share data', 'academic tweet', 'Mendeley readership count' and 'social media metrics' were observed to be the lines of research presently favoured by specialists. Statistical indicators were calculated to determine the journals and contributors making the greatest impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some way already into the transition towards a fully Open Access scholarly communications landscape, it is useful to take a look at the findings arising from a pioneering pilot initiative launched by the European Commission to fund Article Processing Charges (APCs) associated to publications stemming from finished European FP7 projects. The article describes the methodology and results for the initiative. It also argues that beyond the flavour of the specific Open Access policy chosen by specific countries, this kind of supranational APC funding initiative could become a key element -alongside instruments like national-level offsetting agreements- to ensure a level playing field for researchers. It's finally argued that the no-hybrid policy applied in the implementation of this APC funding initiative is a suitable mechanism to contain the costs and prevent further publishing market concentration. Detailed results are provided for the close to 3-year funding exercise, showing for instance the widespread uptake across EU countries albeit with significant differences across regions. Funded publishers and journal titles are analysed, together with the evolution of the average APC fee. A summary of lessons learnt is offered at the end of the paper, both for institutions and funders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spanish research in Documentation (or Library and Information Science, LIS) began to stand out in the 1980s, in parallel with the creation of university studies in Library and Information Science, and it increased its activity significantly until the year 2000. In this period, research in Documentation was oriented to disseminate rather than innovate, and also had a low international impact, shortage of economic and human resources, and poor methodological quality. In the first 20 years of the 21st century, we have witnessed an outstanding growth and diversification of this research activity, which has led to the overcoming of most of the problems mentioned before. The objective of the text is to present a general overview of the development of Documentation research in Spain in the last 20 years based on the analysis of five fundamental aspects: publications (articles and monographs), topics and methodologies, scientific journals, research projects and doctoral theses. General descriptive data from public statistical sources and comments from a bibliographic review are provided for each of them. As a conclusion, a very positive global balance of Spanish research in Documentation in the last 20 years stands out, not only a quantitative increase (in publications, theses, research projects, etc.) but also a qualitative improvement in the use of research methods and techniques, as well as a diversification of the research topics. In any case, internationalization (collaboration with foreign authors) and the presentation of international projects could be improved. Finally, there is a risk in near future related to aging and the absence of generational renewal of the research staff that can will slow down this growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]