Search

This paper reports on the development of a metadata application profile (AP), MetaFAIR, designed to support research data management (RDM) to make research data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. The development of MetaFAIR followed a three‐step process that included learning about the characteristics of datasets from researchers to establish their context and requirements, as well as iterative design and testing with researchers' feedback. Guided by the FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability), MetaFAIR focuses on accommodating description needs particular to computational social science datasets while seeking to provide general enough elements to describe data collections across many different domains. In this paper, MetaFAIR is placed in the context of historical and recent developments in the areas of RDM and application profile creation; following this contextualization, the paper describes the central considerations and challenges of the MetaFAIR development process and discusses its significance for future work in RDM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although open access (OA) to research outputs has been proven to improve research readership, citation, and impact, the uptake of OA in some disciplines has remained low. In this paper, we investigated and compared OA publishing practices of early career and mid‐career researchers in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (HASS) disciplines in Canada. The descriptive survey design with the use of online questionnaire was employed. Participants were drawn from a group of 15 public research universities via their openly available emails on university websites. Survey data was analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics. Findings show that in the last three years, 74.1% of mid‐career researchers have published in OA journals, compared to 63.1% of early career researchers. However, OA publishing of monographs (21.3%) and conference proceedings (29.9%), as well as the frequency and extent OA publishing remains low among all participants. ANOVA results (F [2, 218] = 3.683, p =.027, 휂2 =.033) showed that 3.3% of the variance in researchers' OA publishing frequency can be attributed to their disciplines. Overall, OA publishing among researchers in the HASS disciplines is still low. Hence, there is a need to identify factors that facilitate or hinder HASS researchers' OA publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Publishing research data is widely expected to increase its reuse and to inspire new research. In the social sciences, data from surveys, interviews, polls, and statistics are primary resources for research. There is a long tradition to collect and offer research data in data archives and online repositories. Researchers use these systems to identify data relevant to their research. However, especially in data search, users' complex information needs seem to collide with the capabilities of data search systems. The search capabilities, in turn, depend to a high degree upon the metadata schemes used to describe the data. In this research, we conducted an online survey with 72 social science researchers who expressed their individual information needs for research data like they would do when asking a colleague for help. We analyzed these information needs and attributed their different components to the categories: topic, metadata, and intention. We compared these categories and their content to existing metadata models of research data and the search and filter opportunities offered in existing data search systems. We found a mismatch between what users have as a requirement for their data and what is offered on metadata level and search system possibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated how researchers in criminology dealt with their research data and explored the potential factors that would influence their willingness to share and reuse others' research data. Our findings unveiled three factors, trust, contract, and value, deeply rooted in researchers' attitudes and their data sharing and reuse patterns and behaviors. Through comprehending their concern behind sharing and reusing research data, we seek crucial insights that could be beneficial in developing a criminological research data repository, further consolidating the research data infrastructure in social science. Sharing and reusing data can advance scientific research and provide innovative possibilities for practice in criminology (e.g., new correctional methods, new crime prevention policies), providing sustained and thriving energy for the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) in many domains has revealed numerous ethical issues from data and design to deployment. In response, countless broad principles and guidelines for ethical AI have been published, and following those, specific approaches have been proposed for how to encourage ethical outcomes of AI. Meanwhile, library and information services too are seeing an increase in the use of AI‐powered and machine learning‐powered information systems, but no practical guidance currently exists for libraries to plan for, evaluate, or audit the ethics of intended or deployed AI. We therefore report on several promising approaches for promoting ethical AI that can be adapted from other contexts to AI‐powered information services and in different stages of the software lifecycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a SIG‐KM sponsored panel presented by members of the SIG‐KM officer team. First, the panel will overview their experience in knowledge management (KM) as scholars and scholar‐practitioners. They will briefly discuss their career development successes and hurdles as a roadmap for others to follow. Second, the panel will discuss career pathways for KM scholars and scholar‐practitioners in a global knowledge economy. Finally, they will hold an open discussion with audience members to share their experiences, expectations and hopes for the KM and the broader field of information science. [90 minute session]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]