Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications

Abstract

Sharing research resources of different kinds, in new ways, and on an increasing scale, is a central element of the unfolding e-Research vision. Web 2.0 is seen as providing the technical platform to enable these new forms of scholarly communications. We report findings from a study of the use of Web 2.0 services by UK researchers and their use in novel forms of scholarly communication. We document the contours of adoption, the barriers and enablers, and the dynamics of innovation in Web services and scholarly practices. We conclude by considering the steps that different stakeholders might take to encourage greater experimentation and uptake.

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

“…Star-rating systems are used frequently at a high-level in academia, and are commonly used to define research excellence, albeit perhaps in a flawed and an arguably detrimental way; e.g., the Research Excellence Framework in the UK ( ref.ac.uk) ( Mhurchú et al , 2017; Moore et al , 2017; Murphy & Sage, 2014). A study about Web 2.0 services and their use in alternative forms of scholarly communication by UK researchers found that nearly half (47%) of those surveyed expected that peer review would be complemented by citation and usage metrics and user ratings in the future ( Procter et al , 2010a; Procter et al , 2010b). Amazon provides an example of a sophisticated collaborative filtering system based on five-star ratings, usually combined with several lines of comments and timestamps.…”

Rebooting science? Implications of science 2.0 main trends for scientific method and research institutions

“…Nevertheless, the growth of open collaboration is sketchy and its usage is relatively low. For example, UK researchers have only a passive use of well-known generic tools such as Google Scholar (73%) and Wikipedia (69%) (Procter et al, 2010). Also the usage of web 2.0-based services for novel forms of scholarly communication is relatively low, e.g.…”

“…Finally, 30% at least occasionally post slides and other content on public websites. ( Procter et al, 2010) 21 http://project.liquidpub.org/liquid-publications-scientific-publications-meet-the-web-1 22 http://nanopub.org/wordpress/?page_id=65 23 http://openbiblio.net/ with members of the public in order to accomplish scientific research (Wiggins & Crowston, 2011). Citizen science is also often seen as a part of a wider trend of crowdsourced science or 'collaboratories 'where a large network of people collaborate after an open call for contribution (Wiggins et al 2011).…”

“…The mode of participation has changed however, with the availability of cheap electronics instruments and software that allows for a pervasive remote monitoring of the environment at an unprecedented scale. There are almost 250.000 amateur astronomers in the US only (Kannappan 2001 (Procter et al, 2010). Cooperation happens before papers are finalised: bibliographies, data, experiments, code, annotations and hypothesis are shared during the scientific process, rather than at the end through the eventual paper publication (Burgelman et al 2010 The proposed definition and framework is therefore comprehensive and reflects fully the variety of initiatives identified.…”

Current and Evolving Models of Peer Review

“…Although most researchers recognize the aforementioned virtues of the traditional peer review system and consider the reviewing function as an essential element of scientific communication, it is also true that some of its characteristics have been subject to criticism (Procter et al 2010;Mulligan and Hall 2013), and a call for the introduction of changes.…”