Post on 29-Nov-2014
description
Impact of Web 2.0 on ScholarlyCommunication
Rob Procter, Robin Williams, James Stewart, Alex Voss,Meik Poschen, Helene Snee, Yuwei Lin
Workshop on Scientific Writing and NewPatterns of Scientific Communication5th International Conference on e-Social Science, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Project Study ‘Use and relevance of web 2.0
resources for researchers’ funded January2009 to September 2009 by the ResearchInformation Network (RIN), UK
Project partners:National Centre for e-Social Science (NCeSS),
University of ManchesterThe Institute for the Study of Science, Technology
and Innovation (ISSTI), University of Edinburgh
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
RIN - http://www.rin.ac.uk/
The Research Information Network in the UK iscurrently sponsored by the four HigherEducation funding bodies, the three NationalLibraries, and the seven Research Councils
Role: undertake evidence-based research intoinformation and data issues that relate toprofessional academic researchers to developpolicy, guidance and advocacy on that basis.
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Research Question
To what extent are Web 2.0 tools are beingadopted as a scholarly tool in differentinstitutions and departments across theUK, in different subject fields anddisciplines, and at different stages of thescholarly communications process?
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Project Aim Understand changing practices of scholarly
communication and publication by researchers Explore the role of new Web-based services in
this change Results will be used to inform investment
decisions in research support by UK researchcouncils and HEIs
To inform debate on the future of research andpublication practices
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Scholarly communication
Often refers primarily to the process ofpublication of peer-reviewed research
Broader view in the RIN Web 2.0 project:range of activities that scholars undertake as
part of their everyday activities
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
RIN Web 2.0 Study (1)
Objectives Who is using what, where? What is shaping that use? The implications for Scholarly
Communications
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
RIN Web 2.0 Study (2)
Methods Quantitative and representative survey of
UK scholarly community to discover basicuse and awareness
50 in-depth interviews on scholarlycommunications and Web 2.0
5 case studies of promoters, developersand users of specific ‘Web 2.0’ services
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Where we are now Survey stage
6000 email request for participation in the survey wentout (as of yesterday), 842 of which were notcontactable (i.e. email bounced).
Response rate: 500/(6000-842) = 9.7%Aim: 800 responses
Start of interviews with users and non-users (ofWeb 2.0) informed by the survey this week
Use case phase started with nature.com (NaturePublishing Group) and myExperiment
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Survey Main objective: Assess the current contours of
engagement with and use of Web 2.0 tools indifferent types of scholarly communication by UKacademics: profiling use by age, position,discipline and gender
Inform the interviews with non-/adopters Preliminary descriptive results are based on
approximately 470 responses (as of last week) Number in line with our calculations to achieve a
margin of error of no more than +/-5% aroundour results.
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Survey Sampling: Motivation
Need to survey a random sample of UKacademicsrepresentative if possibleself-selection needs to be avoided
No list of researchers in the UK But can check a generated list by
comparing answers against HESAstatistics
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Web Mining (1)
Yahoo search for “mailto” and universitydomain name – 1000 results max (YahooAPI limitation, google same)
For list of 132 domain names in ac.ukdomain
Gives us 92965 unique urls to look at Harvesting these takes a long time, so
prioritise:.ac.uk domain names first (4911)
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Web Mining (2) Pattern matching results in 6120 distinct
emails Filtering out addresses such as “info@...”,
“postgrad@...”, “admin@...” Now is a good opportunity to check for
domain names not used in initial round…Verified using lookup service at whois.ja.netInitially: 132 domains, then 344, then 577
Goto 1Now 187k URLs, 43861 unique email addresses
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Quality Assurance (1) Initial aim was to create as long a list as
possible, now need to start selecting Need to ensure, as far as possible, that we:
Use only email addresses that are activeSelect people who are research active (as
researchers or investigators)Email each person only once (despite multiple
email addresses and aliases)Cover a range of institutions, disciplines, levels of
seniority etc.
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Quality Assurance (2)
Processing harvested website contentusing lingpipe for name extraction givescandidate names
Need given name or title, surname to sendmeaningful invitation emailCan match some names to gender (Mr/Ms)
where no academic title is available
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Quality Assurance (3)
Automated processing gets you only sofar…
Utilising peoples’ skills with crowdsourcing
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Survey Structure (1)
Personal information section (includinginstitution, research area/discipline)
Scholarly CommunicationsUse/importance of use of different forms of
publication, communication and resource media
Knowledge and experience of 'Web 2.0'ServicesAwareness/use of new internet services and tools
sometimes known as 'Web 2.0’
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Survey Structure (2)
Use of the Web 2.0 in scholarlycommunicationsGeneral use/importance of Web 2.0 tools in
researchUse/importance of specific Web 2.0 tools and
services in research Survey Follow Up request
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Survey: First Results Summary of the data & initial descriptive analysis
examining the patterns of responses ofa) all respondents; and b) ‘early adopters’
We define ‘early adopters’ of Web 2.0 by thecombination of the following three survey responses: Q3.2 How often do you do (at least one of) the following (write a
blog; comment on others’ blogs; contribute to a private wiki;contribute to a public wiki; add comments to online journalarticles; post slides, etc.) in the course of your researchactivities?: frequently
Q4.4 Do you publish your work in progress publicly on a website,blog, etc?: yes
Q5.5 How would you describe your attitude to using newtechnologies in scholarly communications?: enthusiastic
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Age DistributionPlease specify your age.
Under 25
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
over 65
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
PositionPlease specify your position.
Professor
Reader
Senior Lecturer
Lecturer
Research Fellow
Research Assistant
PhD Candidate
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Gender The ratio of male to female respondents is
62:38 According to HESA data (2008), the ratio
of male to female academics in the UK is58:42
75% of early adopter respondents aremale.
57% of non-adopter respondents aremale.
82% of sceptical respondents are male
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
DisciplinePlease describe your research interests by selecting as many of the 2008 RA E categories below that apply.
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
1
3 I
nfe
ctio
n a
nd
5 O
ther
7 H
ealth
9 P
sych
iatr
y,
11 N
urs
ing a
nd
13 P
harm
acy
15 P
re-c
linic
al
17 E
art
h
19 P
hysi
cs
21 A
pplie
d
23 C
om
pute
r
25 G
enera
l
27 C
ivil
29 M
eta
llurg
y
31 T
ow
n a
nd
33 A
rchaeolo
gy
35 A
ccounting
37 L
ibra
ry a
nd
39 P
olit
ics
and
41 S
ociolo
gy 43
45 E
duca
tion
47 A
merica
n
49 A
sian
51 R
uss
ian,
53 G
erm
an,
55 Iberian a
nd
57 E
nglis
h
59 C
lass
ics,
61 T
heolo
gy,
63 A
rt a
nd
65 D
ram
a,
67 M
usi
c
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Dissemination Ratings:Overall
Please rate the importance of the following for the DISSEMINA TION of your research.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Conference or workshop proceedings
Conference or workshop presentations
Print-based subscription journals
Online subscription journals
Open access, online-only journals
Online pre-prints (pre-published electronic copies)
Monographs
Edited Books
Institutional web pages
Personal web pages
Wikis or blogs
Online Open Notebooks
Personal communications
Email lists and web groups
Demonstrations, exhibitions and performances
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Dissemination Ratings:Early Adopters
Please rate the importance of the following for the DISSEMINA TION of your research.
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Conference or workshop proceedings
Conference or workshop presentations
Print-based subscription journals
Online subscription journals
Open access, online-only journals
Online pre-prints (pre-published electronic copies)
Monographs
Edited Books
Institutional web pages
Personal web pages
Wikis or blogs
Online Open Notebooks
Personal communications
Email lists and web groups
Demonstrations, exhibitions and performances
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Likelihoodof Changes
Please rate the likelihood of the following changes in scholarly communications
within your field over the next 5 years.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Existing peer review
processes will
become increasingly
unsustainable
Formal peer review
will be increasingly
complemented by
reader-based
ratings, annotations,
downloads or
citations
New types of online
publication, using
new kinds of media
formats and content,
will grow in
importance
Open access online
publication supported
by an author-pays
funding model will
predominate
Likely
Unlikely
No opinion
Please rate the likelihood of the following changes in scholarly communications
within your field over the next 5 years.
02468
101214161820
Existing peer review
processes will become
increasingly
unsustainable
Formal peer review
will be increasingly
complemented by
reader-based ratings,
annotations,
downloads or citations
New types of online
publication, using new
kinds of media
formats and content,
will grow in
importance
Open access online
publication supported
by an 'author-pays'
funding model will
predominate
Likely
Unlikely
No opinion
EarlyAdopters
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Participation inWeb 2.0scholarly
communicationactivities
How often do you do the following in the course of your research activities? (Please also indicate if you do
them outside of work).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Write a blog Comment on
other people's
blogs
Contribute to
a private wiki
Contribute to
a public wiki
(e.g.,
Wikipedia)
Add
comments to
online journal
articles or
more general
media
publications
Post slides,
texts, images,
code,
algorithms,
videos or
other media
on an open or
public content
sharing site
Participate in
an Open
Source
software
project
Never
Occasionally
Frequently (At least once a week)
I do this outside of work
How often do you do the following in the course of your research activities? (Please also
indicate if you do them outside of work).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Write a blog Comment
on other
people's
blogs
Contribute
to a private
wiki
Contribute
to a public
wiki (e.g.,
Wikipedia)
Add
comments
to online
journal
articles or
more
general
media
publications
Post slides,
texts,
images,
code,
algorithms,
videos or
other media
on an open
or public
content
sharing site
Participate
in an Open
Source
software
project
Never
Occasionally
Frequently (At least once a week)
I do this outside of work
EarlyAdopters
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Publishingwork in
progress
EarlyAdopters
Do you publish your WORK IN PROGRESS?
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Privately, within a
small network of
collaborators
Openly, within my
research
community
Publicly, on a
website, blog etc
No
Yes
No, but I intend to in future
Do you publish your WORK IN PROGRESS?
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Privately, within a
small network of
collaborators
Openly, within my
research
community
Publicly, on a
website, blog etc
No
Yes
No, but I intend to in future
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Communicatingwith different
audiences
EarlyAdopters
Do you use blogs, wikis or other Web 2.0 tools to communicate with
the following?
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Research
communities
outside your own
field
Users of your
research beyond
academia (e.g.,
policy makers,
industrial clients,
the media)
The general public
No
Yes
No, but I intend to in future
Do you use blogs, wikis or other Web 2.0 tools to communicate with
the following?
02468
101214161820
Research
communities
outside your own
field
Users of your
research beyond
academia (e.g.,
policy makers,
industrial clients,
the media)
The general public
No
Yes
No, but I intend to in future
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Factorsencouraginguse of Web
2.0
EarlyAdopters
What bodies are encouraging the use of Web 2.0-based services in your research field?
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
My local
research
group
My
department
My
institution
Libraries
and
Information
Services
Computer
Support
Services
Research
and Funding
Councils
Other
funding
body
Conference
organisers
Yes
No
Don't know
What bodies are encouraging the use of Web 2.0-based services in your research field?
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
My local
research
group
My
department
My
institution
Libraries
and
Information
Services
Computer
Support
Services
Research
and Funding
Councils
Other
funding
body
Conference
organisers
Yes
No
Don't know
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Early Adopters (1) ‘Early adopters’ report some interestingly
different characteristics and behaviourscompared with the respondents overall:Proportions of early adopters involved in collaborative
research are higher in all categoriesEarly adopters rank wikis, blogs and personal web
pages more highly for disseminating their researchA majority of early adopters report ‘using Web 2.0
tools to communicate with audiences beyond theirimmediate research community’
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Early Adopters (2)A greater proportion of early adopters report
‘making research data available online’A greater proportion of early adopters report
that they are being encouraged to use Web2.0 based services, in particular by: ‘my localresearch group’, ‘my department’, ‘researchand funding councils’ and ‘conferenceorganisers’
A greater proportion of early adopters agreethat changes in scholarly communications arelikely
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009
Thank You
‘Use and relevance of web 2.0 resources forresearchers’
http://www.ncess.ac.uk/research/hub_research/useandresearchofweb2/
Meik Poschenmeik.poschen@manchester.ac.uk
Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of ScientificCommunication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009