This paper investigates the patterns of informal scholarly communication on social media as they manifest themselves among scholars at Umeå University. A survey was sent out to the university’s scholars, from PhD students all the way through to professors, and received 747answers from a total of 2646 requests. The survey gathered background data, data on how scholars build and maintain their academic networks via social media, and data on scholars’ use of social media for seeking information. The data thus gathered was interpreted through a comparative analysis. The main hypothesis was that, following the work of Tony Becher and Paul R. Trowler, the various faculties of the university would constitute distinguishable ”tribes” with their own customs regarding using social media for academic purposes. The data was furthermore analysed looking for patterns of use by gender, by academic position, and by the firmness of that position – or, putting it more plainly, job security. The analysis revealed that in terms of networking, the relevant variables were those of gender and academic position, with women being more avid social media networkers than men, and more junior scholars more avid than their seniors. However, in terms of the actual social networks used, there was a distinct tendency for humanist scholars to use Facebook which set them apart from the other three faculties. In terms of information seeking, there was again a finding of the more junior scholars leading the way, but also a clear indication of differences rooted in faculties. The humanist scholars were found to be by some distance more inclined to both seek information on social media, and to help others seeking it on social media, compared to the other faculties. The medical scholars, by contrast, were also by some distance the least inclined to both seeking and helping. As above, the humanists had a marked preference for using Facebook when seeking information through social media.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the relationship between the socially constructed genders is manifested in American library science. To visualize gender, bibliometric analyses of peer reviewed articles published in three core journals of library science between 1980 and 2000 inclusive, are performed. The three journals are: College & Research Libraries, Journal of Academic Librarianship and Library Quarterly.Questions:1. Does gender affect the publishing process regarding the distribution of female and male authors?2. Does gender influence female and male authors' choice of references?3. Does gender affect the share of citations received by works of women and men respectively?4. Does gender influence collaboration regarding the distribution of co-authoring female and male authors?The bibliometric analyses indicate differences between the shares of female and male authors, as well asdifferences in the attention women and men give to and receive from other female and male authors respectively. It is assumed that there exists a gender contract (an implicit agreement of how men and women are expected to behave towards each other) which is renegotiated during the period of time of this study, seemingly to the benefit of female authors as they are given a larger space in publishing. But concerning citations there is a delay in regard to male authors' tendency to cite works by women. This might indicate that the importance of gender has not diminished but become more subtle and complex. The conclusion is that gender indeed influences publishing, referencing, citation and collaboration processes of library science.

This thesis seeks to demonstrate that the new facilities of Web of Science (WoS) online can be used in new ways to enhance understanding of scholarly communication. It investigates four aspects of scholarly communication: characteristics of highly cited articles, citation levels of collaborative articles, citation levels of multi-disciplinary articles, and patterns of annual citation of highly cited articles. For the first two topics it investigates the WoS category of ‘Information Science & Library Science’ (IS&LS), whereas for the other topics it compares diverse WoS categories in science and social science. Although its main data source is WoS, its investigation of disciplinarity also uses Scopus. The thesis finds: (a) Highly cited IS&LS articles tend to be multidisciplinary and cited late, but are not necessarily first-authored by influential IS&LS researchers, (b) Amongst un-cite IS&LS articles the proportion of collaborative articles has remained almost constant over the past three decades whereas for higher cited articles it has grown steadily with time, (C) In social science subjects the level of citation of multi-disciplinary research are generally similar to that of mono-disciplinary research, whereas in science the citations levels for multi-disciplinary research are substantially lower than that of mono-disciplinary research, and (d) In both science and social science many very highly cited articles continue to be heavily cited more than twenty years after publication. This thesis also introduces and uses an indicator for measuring the extent of collaboration called ‘average partner scores’ and indicates a way in which the subject categories of WoS can be investigated without requiring a licence for the WoS database. Finally, it identifies and addresses some of the technical problems of using WoS online to investigate scholarly communication.

This thesis is about information sharing in interdisciplinary research practices. It reports one conceptual and three empirical studies. The studies have been conducted through focusing on the field of design research, and in particular on a Nordic network of design researchers. From a practice-based perspective, the exploration of the study object oscillates between three nested and interconnected frames. The main contribution of this thesis is that it illustrates how activities of information sharing not only contribute to, but actually play a central role in the shaping of the practice of design research. It is shown how information sharing works as a contributor to the development, maintenance and shaping of practices in 1) design research as it is conducted in the Nordic network; 2) in the field of design research; and 3) within interdisciplinary research. Without losing sight of the empirical material, the theoretical analysis has made it possible to illuminate the connection between activities of sharing and the enactment of a discipline. Through analysis and discussion of the four studies as a whole, the reciprocal relationship between information sharing and the area of design research is elucidated. It is shown how information sharing, as it emerges in this interdisciplinary practice, functions as a unifying force towards the probable goal of establishing a discipline. / <p>Academic dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Library and Information Science at the University of Borås to be publicly defended on Friday 25 April 2014 at 13:00 in lecture room E310, the University of Borås Allégatan 1, Borås.</p>

East Tennessee State University developed a workflow to add journal publications to their institutional repository and faculty profiles using three tools: Zotero for entering metadata, SHERPA/RoMEO for checking copyright permissions, and Unpaywall for locating full-text documents. This study evaluates availability and accuracy of the information and documents provided by Zotero, SHERPA/RoMEO, and Unpaywall for journal publications in four disciplines. The tools were less successful with works authored by arts and humanities and education faculty in comparison to works authored by medicine and health sciences and social and behavioral sciences faculty. The findings suggest that publisher practices contributed to the disciplinary differences.

This dissertation addresses a specific aspect of the broad area of communication systems used among researchers. This research has undertaken to establish a broader view of the communication practices of scholars to understand the motivations behind their publication choices. Open access offers a solution to issues with the scholarly publication system such as delays in publication and restricted visibility of research due to high subscription costs. The principle of open access is to enable maximum access to findings from publicly funded research to maximise social returns on public investments. Despite the apparent benefits of open access, the uptake has been limited. ¶ This thesis research takes a holistic view of the researcher as a communicator to uncover the reasons why researchers are making the publishing decisions they are. In-depth interviews were conducted with 43 researchers in three disciplines at two institutions, the Australian National University and the University of New South Wales. The disciplines, Chemistry, Sociology and Computer Science, were known to have different publication practices, The questions asked about all aspects of researcher communication including researching, authoring, informal communication, article submission, refereeing, mentoring and data storage. ¶ The findings show that traditional arguments for open access are ineffective. The Reward function of scholarly publishing is central to managing academic careers and supports traditional publishing systems. While having work openly accessible increases an academic’s exposure and possibly therefore their citation counts, unless alternative internet-based forms of metrics are adopted, the open access option will not directly appeal to researchers. ¶ Information-seeking behaviour demonstrates how disciplinary differences affect researcher’s interaction with technology. The disciplines showed marked differences in almost all the areas explored, and the behavioural norms expressed in each discipline have direct bearing on the likelihood of members of that discipline embracing open access. The ‘institutional/disciplinary divide’ means that researchers must publish in ways that run counter to their disciplinary norms in order to satisfy institutional and grant funding requirements. ¶ Until governments, and particularly university administrations, recognise the need to consider the discipline and the need to consider the individual and respond to these needs, and until there is a realisation that different disciplines may require radically different approaches, there will not be a large-scale adoption by individual researchers of the current open access tools. Either institutional repositories need to adapt dramatically to offer work practice benefits or the broader academic population will only use institutional repositories under duress, which is not the situation envisaged by open access advocates. The alternative is for communities to develop their own subject-based repositories, a development that again is likely to be highly dependent on communication norms in different disciplines.

<p>In the academic world, open access institutional repositories (IRs) are beginning to play a vital role in storing and disseminating scholarly communication. Through this method, higher education institutions are able to showcase their intellectual outputs and to contribute to sharing and building knowledge. This evolutionary process of scholarly communication is an important feature of knowledge societies. Furthermore, IRs allow scholars to make known the research they are involved in, which can result in their academic reputation improving, as well as the reputations of the institutions they represent.</p> <p>The purpose of this study is to examine the processes of establishing IRs in the four tertiary education institutions in the Western Cape, which form part of the Cape Higher Education Consortium (CHEC). Within this consortium is the collaborative library project, the Cape Library Consortium (CALICO), which represents the four academic library services. The researcher investigated whether the four Western Cape Higher Education Institutions have established IRs and their experiences in doing so. They are examined in the light of the guidelines for successful IRs already established in the international professional literature on IRs. Throughout the study, the partnerships that are needed for the success of IRs, with a specific emphasis on the crucial role that the librarian might play in this regard, are a central focus.</p> <p>The study is a qualitative case study, relying on interviews with key informants from the four HEIs and analysing policy and other supporting documents. The study confirms comment in the literature that IRs evolve in &ldquo / messy&rdquo / and &ldquo / spotty&rdquo / ways. The key findings might be summarised in the form of four assertions:</p> <ul> <li>&ldquo / It is all about people&rdquo / </li> <li>Philosophical differences are significant</li> <li>Context and history cannot be ignored</li> <li>The role of the university library is ambiguous.</li> </ul> <p>It is hoped that the study of fledgling IR projects might provide insights useful to the broader IR research and professional literature.</p>

Geographically distributed and multidisciplinary collaborations have proven invaluable in answering a range of important scientific questions, such as understanding and controlling disease threats like SARS and AIDS or exploring the nature of matter in particle physics. Despite this, however, collaboration can often be problematic. There are institutional obstacles, collaboration tools may be poorly designed, and group coordination is difficult. To better design technologies to support research activities, we need an improved understanding of why scientists collaborate and how their collaborations work. To achieve this improved understanding, this study compares two theoretical approaches to collaboration propensityâ that is, the extent to which collaboration is perceived as useful by individual researchers. On one hand, cultural comparisons of disciplines suggest that collaboration propensity will be higher in disciplinary cultures that have a more collectivist orientation, as indicated by low levels of competition for individual recognition and few concerns about secrecy related to commercialization and intellectual property. In contrast, an approach based on social and organizational psychology suggests that collaboration propensity will vary as a function of resource concentration, fieldwide focus on a well-defined set of problems, and the need for and availability of help when difficult problems are encountered in day-to-day work. To explore this question, a mail survey of 900 academic researchers in three fields was conducted, along with 100 interviews with practicing researchers at 17 sites in the field. Results support a focus on work attributes in interpreting collaboration propensity. That is, cultural factors such as competition for individual recognition and concerns about intellectual property were not perceived as significant impediments to collaboration. Instead, characteristics like resource concentration and the need for coordination were more important in determining collaboration propensity. Implications of these findings include a call for more careful examination of the day-to-day work of scientists and engineers, and a suggestion that concerns about scientific competition impeding collaboration may be unwarranted.

This presentation was one of several presentations delivered at the First International Open Access Day event held on October 14, 2008 at UBC. In support of the open access movement, the UBC Library joined with SPARC, PLoS (Public Library of Science), and Students for FreeCulture along with 65 other institutions in celebration of this worldwide event.

This presentation was one of several presentations delivered at the First International Open Access Day event held on October 14, 2008 at UBC. In support of the open access movement, the UBC Library joined with SPARC, PLoS (Public Library of Science), and Students for FreeCulture along with 65 other institutions in celebration of this worldwide event.