Impact of Web 2.0 on Scholarly Communication

Impact of Web 2.0 on Scholarly
Communication
Rob Procter, Robin Williams, James Stewart, Alex Voss,
Meik Poschen, Helene Snee, Yuwei Lin

Workshop on Scientific Writing and New
Patterns of Scientific Communication
5th International Conference on e-Social Science, Cologne, 24 June 2009

Project
 Study ‘Use and relevance of web 2.0
resources for researchers’ funded January
2009 to September 2009 by the Research
Information Network (RIN), UK
 Project partners:
 National Centre for e-Social Science (NCeSS),
University of Manchester
 The Institute for the Study of Science, Technology
and Innovation (ISSTI), University of Edinburgh

Workshop on Scientific Writing and New Patterns of Scientific
Communication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009

RIN - http://www.rin.ac.uk/
 The Research Information Network in the UK is
currently sponsored by the four Higher
Education funding bodies, the three National
Libraries, and the seven Research Councils
 Role: undertake evidence-based research into
information and data issues that relate to
professional academic researchers to develop
policy, guidance and advocacy on that basis.


Research Question

To what extent are Web 2.0 tools are being
adopted as a scholarly tool in different
institutions and departments across the
UK, in different subject fields and
disciplines, and at different stages of the
scholarly communications process?


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 research
councils and HEIs
 To inform debate on the future of research and
publication practices


Scholarly communication

 Often refers primarily to the process of
publication 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


RIN Web 2.0 Study (1)
Objectives
 Who is using what, where?
 What is shaping that use?
 The implications for Scholarly
Communications


RIN Web 2.0 Study (2)
Methods
 Quantitative and representative survey of
UK scholarly community to discover basic
use and awareness
 50 in-depth interviews on scholarly
communications and Web 2.0
 5 case studies of promoters, developers
and users of specific ‘Web 2.0’ services


Where we are now
 Survey stage
 6000 email request for participation in the survey went
out (as of yesterday), 842 of which were not
contactable (i.e. email bounced).
 Response rate: 500/(6000-842) = 9.7%
 Aim: 800 responses
 Start of interviews with users and non-users (of
Web 2.0) informed by the survey this week
 Use case phase started with nature.com (Nature
Publishing Group) and myExperiment

Survey
 Main objective: Assess the current contours of
engagement with and use of Web 2.0 tools in
different types of scholarly communication by UK
academics: 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% around
our results.

Survey Sampling: Motivation
 Need to survey a random sample of UK
academics
representative if possible
self-selection needs to be avoided
 No list of researchers in the UK
 But can check a generated list by
comparing answers against HESA
statistics

Web Mining (1)
 Yahoo search for “mailto” and university
domain name – 1000 results max (Yahoo
API limitation, google same)
 For list of 132 domain names in ac.uk
domain
 Gives us 92965 unique urls to look at
 Harvesting these takes a long time, so
prioritise:.ac.uk domain names first (4911)

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.net
Initially: 132 domains, then 344, then 577
 Goto 1
Now 187k URLs, 43861 unique email addresses


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 active
Select 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.

 Processing harvested website content
using lingpipe for name extraction gives
candidate names
 Need given name or title, surname to send
meaningful invitation email
Can match some names to gender (Mr/Ms)
where no academic title is available


 Automated processing gets you only so
far…
 Utilising peoples’ skills with crowdsourcing


Survey Structure (1)
 Personal information section (including
institution, research area/discipline)
 Scholarly Communications
 Use/importance of use of different forms of
publication, communication and resource media
 Knowledge and experience of 'Web 2.0'
Services
 Awareness/use of new internet services and tools
sometimes known as 'Web 2.0’


Survey Structure (2)
 Use of the Web 2.0 in scholarly
communications
General use/importance of Web 2.0 tools in
research
Use/importance of specific Web 2.0 tools and
services in research
 Survey Follow Up request


Survey: First Results
 Summary of the data & initial descriptive analysis
examining the patterns of responses of
a) all respondents; and b) ‘early adopters’
 We define ‘early adopters’ of Web 2.0 by the
combination 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 journal
articles; post slides, etc.) in the course of your research
activities?: 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 new
technologies in scholarly communications?: enthusiastic


Age Distribution
Please specify your age.

Under 25
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
over 65


Position
Please specify your position.

Professor
Reader
Senior Lecturer
Lecturer
Research Fellow
Research Assistant
PhD Candidate


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 is
58:42
 75% of early adopter respondents are
male.
 57% of non-adopter respondents are
male.
 82% of sceptical respondents are male

10.0%
12.0%
14.0%

0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
1

3 Infection and

5 Other

7 Health

9 Psychiatry,

11 Nursing and

13 Pharmacy

15 Pre-clinical

17 Earth

19 Physics

21 Applied

23 Computer

25 General

27 Civil

29 Metallurgy

31 Town and

33 Archaeology

35 Accounting

37 Library and

39 Politics and
Discipline

41 Sociology

43

45 Education

47 American

49 Asian

51 Russian,

53 German,
Please describe your research interests by selecting as many of the 2008 RA E categories below that apply.

55 Iberian and

57 English

59 Classics,

61 Theology,

63 Art and

65 Drama,

67 Music

Dissemination Ratings:
Overall
Please rate the importance of the following for the DISSEMINA TION of your research.

Demonstrations, exhibitions and performances
Email lists and web groups
Personal communications
Online Open Notebooks

Wikis or blogs
Personal web pages
Institutional web pages
Edited Books
Monographs

Online pre-prints (pre-published electronic copies)
Open access, online-only journals
Online subscription journals
Print-based subscription journals

Conference or workshop presentations
Conference or workshop proceedings

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0


Dissemination Ratings:
Early Adopters
Please rate the importance of the following for the DISSEMINA TION of your research.

Demonstrations, exhibitions and performances
Email lists and web groups
Personal communications

Online Open Notebooks
Wikis or blogs

Personal web pages

Institutional web pages
Edited Books
Monographs
Online pre-prints (pre-published electronic copies)
Open access, online-only journals

Online subscription journals
Print-based subscription journals

Conference or workshop presentations

Conference or workshop proceedings

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00


Please rate the likelihood of the following changes in scholarly communications
within your field over the next 5 years.

400

Likelihood
350
300
250 Likely
200 Unlikely

of Changes 150
100
50
No opinion

0
Existing peer review Formal peer review New types of online Open access online
processes will will be increasingly publication, using publication supported
become increasingly complemented by new kinds of media by an author-pays
unsustainable reader-based formats and content, funding model will
ratings, annotations, will grow in predominate
downloads or importance
citations

Please rate the likelihood of the following changes in scholarly communications
within your field over the next 5 years.

20
18
16
14
12 Likely
10 Unlikely
8
6 No opinion
4
2
0
Existing peer review Formal peer review New types of online Open access online
processes will become will be increasingly publication, using new publication supported
increasingly
unsustainable
complemented by
reader-based ratings,
kinds of media
formats and content,
by an 'author-pays'
Early
Workshop funding model willWriting and New Patterns of
annotations,
downloads or citations
will grow in
on Scientific
predominate
importance
Adopters
Scientific

How often do you do the following in the course of your research activities? (Please also indicate if you do

Participation in
them outside of work).

400

Web 2.0 350

300

scholarly 250

200
Never
Occasionally
Frequently (At least once a week)

communication 150

100
I do this outside of work

activities 50

0
Write a blog Comment on Contribute to Contribute to Add Post slides, Participate in
other people's a private wiki a public wiki comments to texts, images, an Open
blogs (e.g., online journal code, S ource
Wikipedia) articles or algorithms, software
more general videos or project
media other media
publications on an open or
public content
sharing site
How often do you do the following in the course of your research activities? (Please also
indicate if you do them outside of work).

30

25
Never
20
Occasionally
15
Frequently (At least once a week)
10
I do this outside of work
5

0
Write a blog Comment Contribute Contribute Add Post slides, Participate
on other to a private to a public comments texts, in an Open
people's wiki wiki (e.g., to online images, S ource
blogs Wikipedia) journal code, software
articles or algorithms, project

Early
more videos or
general other media
media on an open
publications or public
content
Communication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009 Adopters
sharing site

Do you publish your WORK IN PROGRESS?

Publishing 350

300

work in 250

200 No

progress 150

100
Yes
No, but I intend to in future

50

0
Privately, within a Openly, within my Publicly, on a
small network of research website, blog etc
collaborators community

Do you publish your WORK IN PROGRESS?

20
18
16
14
12 No
10 Yes
8 No, but I intend to in future
6
4
2
0
Privately, within a Openly, within my Publicly, on a
Early
small network of
collaborators
research
community
website, blog etc Adopters

Do you use blogs, wikis or other Web 2.0 tools to communicate with
the following?

Communicating 350
300

with different 250
200
No
Yes

audiences 150
100
50
No, but I intend to in future

0
Research Users of your The general public
communities research beyond
outside your own academia (e.g.,
field policy makers,
industrial clients,
the media)
Do you use blogs, wikis or other Web 2.0 tools to communicate with
the following?

20
18
16
14 No
12
10 Yes
8
6 No, but I intend to in future
4
2
0
Research Users of your The general public
communities research beyond
outside your own
field
academia (e.g.,
policy makers,
Early
industrial clients,
the media)
Adopters

What bodies are encouraging the use of Web 2.0-based services in your research field?

Factors 450

400

encouraging
350

300

use of Web
250 Yes
No
200 Don't know

2.0
150

100

50

0
My local My My Libraries Computer Research Other Conference
research department institution and S upport and Funding funding organisers
group Information S ervices Councils body
S ervices

What bodies are encouraging the use of Web 2.0-based services in your research field?

20

18

16

14

12
Yes
10 No

8 Don't know

6

4

2

0
My local My My Libraries Computer Research Other Conference
Early
research
group
department institution and
Information
S upport
S ervices
and Funding
Councils
funding
body
organisers
Communication, e-SS’09, Cologne, 24 June 2009 Adopters

S ervices

Early Adopters (1)
 ‘Early adopters’ report some interestingly
different characteristics and behaviours
compared with the respondents overall:
 Proportions of early adopters involved in collaborative
research are higher in all categories
 Early adopters rank wikis, blogs and personal web
pages more highly for disseminating their research
 A majority of early adopters report ‘using Web 2.0
tools to communicate with audiences beyond their
immediate research community’


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 Web
2.0 based services, in particular by: ‘my local
research group’, ‘my department’, ‘research
and funding councils’ and ‘conference
organisers’
A greater proportion of early adopters agree
that changes in scholarly communications are
likely

Thank You

‘Use and relevance of web 2.0 resources for
researchers’
http://www.ncess.ac.uk/research/hub_research/useandrese
archofweb2/

Meik Poschen
meik.poschen@manchester.ac.uk


Impact of Web 2.0 on Scholarly Communication

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Impact of Web 2.0 on Scholarly Communication

Similar to Impact of Web 2.0 on Scholarly Communication (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Impact of Web 2.0 on Scholarly Communication