How We Participate in the Scholarly Communication Life Cycle

Weimer, Katherine H.; Andrew, Paige G.

doi:10.1080/15420353.2013.824397

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These concerns include issues around recognition of author contribution; new forms of publishable research materials; ownership of knowledge; team contributions over the lifespan of a project; non-author contributions; and the impact that stakeholders have However, when it comes to making research results available to the public, the typical scholarly communication workflow remains very traditional, closely following an age old path; one that starts with the submission of an initial article draft to a publisher or editor, follows through private peer review, and frequently ends in a single form of final output: an article published in a scholarly journal. This process remains the gold standard for information flow from scientists to communities of others scientists to the mainstream public knowledge base (Weimer & Andrew, 2013). The dissemination of scientific material that relies solely on this publication model neglects and loses out on the many other research products outlined above while simultaneously driving many of the behaviors of scientists wanting to attain the gold standard of publishable results -generally a citation, measured in bibliometric assessment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifting Paradigms in Information Flow: An Open Science Framework (OSF) for Knowledge Sharing Teams

Potterbusch

Lotrecchiano

2018

InformingSciJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim/Purpose: This paper explores the implications of machine-mediated communication on human interaction in cross-disciplinary teams. The authors explore the relationships between Open Science Theory, its contributions to team science, and the opportunities and challenges associated with adopting open science principles. Background: Open Science Theory impacts many aspects of human interaction throughout the scholarly life cycle and can be seen in action through various technologies, which each typically touch only one such aspect. By serving multiple aspects of Open Science Theory at once, the Open Science Framework (OSF) serves as an exemplar technology. As such it illustrates how Open Science Theory can inform and expand cognitive and behavioral dynamics in teams at multiple levels in a single tool. Methodology: This concept paper provides a theoretical rationale for recommendations for exploring the connections between an open science paradigm and the dynamics of team communication. As such theory and evidence have been culled to initiate a synthesis of the nascent literature, current practice and theory. Contribution: This paper aims to illuminate the shared goals between open science and the study of teams by focusing on science team activities (data management, methods, algorithms, and outputs) as focal objects for further combined study. Findings: Team dynamics and characteristics that will affect successful human/machine assisted interactions through mediators of workflow culture, attitudes about ownership of knowledge, readiness to share openly, shifts from group-driven to user-driven functionality, group-organizing to self-organizing structures, and the development of trust as teams regulate between traditional and open science dissemination. Recommendations for Practitioners: Participation in open science practices through machine-assisted technologies in team projects/scholarship should be encouraged. Recommendation for Researchers: The information provided highlights areas in need of further study in team science as well as new primary sources of material in the study of teams utilizing machine-assisted methods in their work. Impact on Society: As researchers take on more complex social problems, new technology and open science practices can complement the work of diverse stakeholders while also providing opportunities to broaden impact and intensify scholarly contributions. Future Research: Future investigation into the cognitive and behavioral research conducted with teams that employ machine-assisted technologies in their workflows would offer researchers the opportunity to understand better the relationships between intelligent machines and science teams’ impacts on their communities as well as the necessary paradigmatic shifts inherent when utilizing these technologies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifting Paradigms in Information Flow: An Open Science Framework (OSF) for Knowledge Sharing Teams

Potterbusch

Lotrecchiano

2018

InformingSciJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Bibliography to Ten Years of theJournal of Map & Geography Libraries:Advances in Geospatial Information, Collections, and Archives, Volumes 1–10 (2004–2014)

2015

Journal of Map & Geography Libraries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarly communication: a concept analysis

Fleming-May

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose“Scholarly Communication” is a frequent topic of both the professional and research literature of Library and Information Science (LIS). Despite efforts by individuals (e.g. Borgman, 1989) and organizations such as the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) to define the term, multiple understandings of it remain. Discussions of scholarly communication infrequently offer a definition or explanation of its parameters, making it difficult for readers to form a comprehensive understanding of scholarly communication and associated phenomena.Design/methodology/approachThis project uses the evolutionary concept analysis (ECA) method developed by nursing scholar, Beth L. Rodgers, to explore “Scholarly Communication” as employed in the literature of LIS. As the purpose of ECA is not to arrive at “the” definition of a term but rather exploring its utilization within a specific context, it is an ideal approach to expand our understanding of SC as used in LIS research.Findings“Scholarly Communication” as employed in the LIS literature does not refer to a single phenomenon or idea, but rather is a concept with several dimensions and sub-dimensions with distinct, but overlapping, significance.Research limitations/implicationsThe concept analysis (CA) method calls for review of a named concept, i.e. verbatim. Therefore, the items included in the data set must include the phrase “scholarly communication”. Items using alternate terminology were excluded from analysis.Practical implicationsThe model of scholarly communication presented in this paper provides language to operationalize the concept.Originality/valueLIS lacks a nuanced understanding of “scholarly communication” as used in the LIS literature. This paper offers a model to further the field's collective understanding of the term and support operationalization for future research projects.

show abstract

How We Participate in the Scholarly Communication Life Cycle

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Shifting Paradigms in Information Flow: An Open Science Framework (OSF) for Knowledge Sharing Teams

Shifting Paradigms in Information Flow: An Open Science Framework (OSF) for Knowledge Sharing Teams

Bibliography to Ten Years of theJournal of Map & Geography Libraries:Advances in Geospatial Information, Collections, and Archives, Volumes 1–10 (2004–2014)

Scholarly communication: a concept analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About