Search

In this, the second iteration of our continuing 'Harbingers of Change' project, over 160 early career researchers (ECRs) from eight countries were questioned about their scholarly communications. Three repeat in‐depth interviews were conducted over 2 years of the pandemic to chart changes in attitude and behaviour. This paper provides interview findings (and an extensive literature review) regarding the role played by social media platforms. It was prompted by an initial review of the data that highlighted significant changes in the attitudes and behaviour of Malaysian ECRs, especially in respect to WhatsApp. Data were provided from several open‐ended interview questions about social media, a few interviewer prompts for individual platform names, and, indirectly, from 'mentions' of individual platforms in answers to a range of questions about scholarly communications. Findings were: (1) 15 platforms were mentioned in respect to a range of scholarly activities, most notably visibility and reach; (2) Twitter (now X) was the most mentioned, by half the ECRs; (3) 'churn' is a notable observation, with large gains and losses in mentions occurring between interviews; (4) large differences between countries, with Malaysian ECRs very much leading on the adoption of social media and largely responsible for the rise of WhatsApp, French ECRs showing little interest, and China a different space where WeChat reigns supreme and foreign platforms are blocked. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investigates whether junior researchers believe that the scholarly communication system is changing in a significant way, whether they have contributed to the changes they envisaged, whether the pandemic has fast‐forwarded change and what they thought a transformed system might look like. The data are drawn from the Harbingers‐2 project, which investigated the impact of the pandemic on the scholarly communications attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers (ECRs), employing repeat interviewing with around 170 science and social science junior researchers from eight countries. The article focuses on the findings of the last of three rounds of interviews, with comparisons made with the first round, held 18 months earlier, when the pandemic was most active. A majority of ECRs thought that there had been significant changes in the scholarly system, and a large minority thought that the pandemic was responsible. Most of them wanted a system that was more open in terms of open access and open data, with a third taking personal action to bring about change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: 170 early career researchers interviewed three times over 2 years, have uniquely contributed towards a stress test of scholarly communications and cracks have been identified.The perfect storm created by the convergence of millennial values and the pandemic appears to have fast‐forwarded the cracking process, perhaps, for the good.The cracks in question are: (1) peer review; (2) reputational assessment; (3) unethical/questionable practices; (4) collaboration; (5) networking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After two‐years of repeat interviewing early career sciences/social sciences researchers from around the world about their work life and scholarly communications in pandemic‐times, the Harbingers‐2 project is in a position to release quantitative data on the pandemic's overall impact. The data comes from around 50 questions asked in the third and final round of interviews with 147 early career researchers (ECRs), which had a codifiable element to them (such as yes, no, do not know). The 19 scholarly topics covered include: pandemic‐related research; research funding; changes to the workplace/working from home; pandemic‐incurred stress and anxiety; teaching; employment security; career progression; mentoring; assessment (including metrics); collaboration; searching/finding information; ethics; networking; informal communication; publishing; sharing; pre‐prints; outreach; and scholarly transformations. The main findings are that in six broad aspects of ECRs' work‐life and scholarly behaviour, more than 50% of ECRs were impacted by the pandemic, with remote teaching having the greatest impact. By way of comparison, in another six aspects there was little change, least of all when it came to sharing activities. Among the countries studied, Malaysia stood out as being the most impacted, and of the disciplines it was the medical sciences and the soft social sciences most impacted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents findings from a study into the attitudes and practices of pandemic‐era early career researchers (ECRs) in regard to obtaining access to the formally published scholarly literature, which focused on alternative providers, notably ResearchGate and Sci‐Hub. The study is a part of the Harbingers project that has been exploring the work lives and scholarly communication practices of ECRs in pre‐pandemic times and during the pandemic, and utilizes data from two rounds of interviews with around 170 ECRs from the sciences and social sciences in eight countries. Findings show that alternative providers, as represented by ResearchGate and Sci‐Hub, have become established and appear to be gaining ground. However, there are considerable country‐ and discipline‐associated differences. ECRs' country‐specific level of usage of the alternative providers is partly traceable to the adequacy of library provisions, although there are other factors at play in shaping ECRs' attitudes and practices, most notably convenience and time saving, as well as the fact that these platforms have become embedded in the scholarly dashboard. There is a dearth of evidence of the impact of the pandemic on ECRs' ways of obtaining scholarly papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents early data from an investigation of the work lives and scholarly communication practices of 177 early career researchers (ECRs) from eight countries. Utilizing mainly coded and textual data from interviews, the paper reports on the findings that pertain to publishing papers in peer reviewed journals. We examine which factors are taken into account when choosing the journal to publish their research in, identifying similarities/differences by country, age, academic status and discipline. Also, explored is whether the pandemic has changed decision‐making. Main findings are that the aim for ECRs is to publish in the 'best' journals, variably measured by prestige, impact factor, standards of peer review and indexation. Appropriateness of audience is the only factor unrelated to the quality of the journal that figures highly among the factors that guide ECRs in the process of selecting a journal. The pandemic has made little difference to the majority of ECRs when they decide on a journal for publishing their research. However, there is a greater awareness of the need for a faster turnover rate, brought on by the importance accorded to speedy publication during the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article describes an international study informed by a 3‐year‐long qualitative longitudinal project, which sought to discover the scholarly communication attitudes and behaviour of early career researchers (ECRs). Using a combination of small‐scale interviews and a larger‐scale survey, ECRs were questioned on their searching and reading behaviour, publishing practices, open data, and their use of social media. Questionnaire invitations were sent out via publisher lists, social media networks, university research networks, and specialist ECR membership organizations. One‐thousand and six‐hundred responses were received, with many coming from China, Russia, and Poland. Results showed that ECRs are adopting millennial‐facing tools/platforms, with Google, Google Scholar, social media, and smartphones becoming embedded in their scholarly activities. Open data sharing obtains widespread support but somewhat less practice. There are some differences in attitudes and behaviour according to age and subject specialism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study from the Harbingers research project provides a comprehensive assessment of the main features of the scholarly communications system as viewed by early career researchers (ECRs) in the final year of the study (2018). Aspects covered are: discovery and access, authorship practices, peer review, publishing strategies, open access publishing, open data, sharing, collaboration, social media, metrics, impact, reputation, libraries, publishers, and scholarly transformations. Nearly 120 science and social science researchers from seven countries were questioned about these 16 aspects. It was found that some scholarly features work well for ECRs, and in this category can be included: discovery and access, authorship practices, sharing, collaboration, and publishers. Reputation, publishing strategies, and impact are more problematical, and they, in turn, cause tensions regarding some other factors – social media, open access, and open data. Of the rest, libraries are largely invisible, and ECRs have conflicting views concerning ethical behaviour. Few envisage that transformational change will take place in the next 5 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides the final results of a 3‐year study that sought to discover whether early career researchers (ECRs) were the harbingers of change with respect to scholarly communications. Over a hundred science and social science ECRs from seven countries, spanning three continents, were depth‐interviewed annually for 3 years (2016–2018) about their attitudes and behaviours with respect to 23 scholarly issues and activities (aspects). In order to provide an accessible overarching assessment of an extremely large and complex dataset, the interview data were categorized according to the strength and direction of change exhibited and the trends and points of interest raised. Results show that all ECRs have changed in one way or another, and a small minority has changed greatly in both attitude and practice and that collaboration and research impact are the scholarly aspects where most changes have occurred, and the greatest cause of change is not so much new technology as a change of jobs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Harbinger project was a 3‐year‐long international study of the changing attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers (ECRs). One of the aims of the project was to discover if ECRs were adopting disrupting platforms that, legitimately or illegitimately, promote openness and sharing. It has been alleged that such an adoption appeals to them as Millennials. More than 100 ECRs from seven countries were questioned annually, and questions about Sc‐Hub were raised as part of discussions about discovery and access. Interview data were supplemented by desk research and Google Trends statistics. It was found that Sci‐Hub use was increasing and that a quarter of the ECRs now use it, with French ECRs being the biggest users. However, Sci‐Hub is making little headway with ECRs from the UK, USA, Malaysia, and China, although in China's case, this can be explained by it being banned and the country having its own equivalent, www.91lib.com. Sci‐Hub is used as much for convenience as necessity; use is not connected to the strength of library provision and and it has been suggested that it represents a bigger threat to publishers than ResearchGate, whose star might be waning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points Early career researchers (ECRs) consider journals the central form of communication – but are concerned about pressure to publish. ECRs want to share but currently accept the closed publishing system because of the need to build a traditional reputation. ECRs know – and appear to care – little about publishers but trust them as publishing and reviewing facilitators. Editors are criticized for not managing peer review with better selection of reviewers. Megajournals are not seen as the future journal form and criticized for lack of selectivity. ECRs want open access/science in principle but are circumspect about their contribution to it. ResearchGate is a key force for change as ECRs consider it a mainstay communication and reputation platform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents selected findings from the first year of a 3-year longitudinal study of early career researchers ( ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. Specifically, the aims of the paper are to show: (1) how much experience and knowledge ECRs had of peer review - both as authors and as reviewers; (2) what they felt the benefits were and what suggestions they had for improvement; (3) what they thought of open peer review ( OPR); and (4) who they felt should organize peer review. Data were obtained from 116 science and social science ECRs, most of whom had published and were subject to in-depth interviews conducted face-to-face, via Skype, or over the telephone. An extensive literature review was also conducted to provide a context and supplementary data for the findings. The main findings were that: (1) most ECRS are well informed about peer review and generally like the experience, largely because of the learning experiences obtained; (2) they like blind double-peer review, but would like some improvements, especially with regards to reviewer quality; (3) most are uncomfortable with the idea of OPR; and (4) most would like publishers to continue organizing peer review because of their perceived independence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study presents findings from the first year of the Harbingers research project, a 3-year longitudinal study of early career researchers ( ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. The study recruited 116 science and social science ECRs from seven countries who were subject to in-depth interviews, and this paper reports on findings regarding publishing and authorship practices and attitudes. A major objective was to determine whether ECRs are taking the myriad opportunities proffered by new digital innovations, developing within the context of open science, open access, and social media, to publish their research. The main finding is that these opportunities are generally not taken because ECRs are constrained by convention and the precarious employment environment they inhabit and know what is best for them, which is to publish (in high impact factor journals) or perish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early career researchers ( ECRs) are of great interest because they are the new (and biggest) wave of researchers. They merit long and detailed investigation, and towards this end, this overarching paper provides a summary of the first-year findings of a 3-year, longitudinal study of 116 science and social science ECRs who have published nearly 1,200 papers and come from 7 countries and 81 universities. ECRs were interviewed in their own languages face-to-face, by Skype, or telephone. The study focused on the attitudes and behaviours of ECRs with respect to scholarly communications and the extent to which they are adopting new and disruptive technologies, such as social media, online communities, and Open Science. The main findings include: publishing in high-impact factor journals is the only reputational game in town; online scholarly communities, and ResearchGate in particular, are gaining ground; social media are beginning to have an impact, especially in the dissemination arena; outreach activities have become more important; libraries are becoming increasingly invisible to ECRs; Open Science is not gaining traction; and more transformational ideas are being expressed, especially in the US and UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents findings from the first year of the Harbingers research project started in 2015. The project is a 3-year longitudinal study of early career researchers ( ECRs) to ascertain their current and changing habits with regard to information searching, use, sharing, and publication. The study recruited 116 researchers from seven countries ( UK, USA, China, France, Malaysia, Poland, and Spain) and performed in-depth interviews by telephone, Skype, or face-to-face to discover behaviours and opinions. This paper reports on findings regarding discovery and access to scholarly information. Findings confirm the universal popularity of Google/Google Scholar. Library platforms and web-scale discovery services are largely unmentioned and unnoticed by this user community, although many ECRs pass through them unknowingly on the way to authenticated use of their other preferred sources, such as Web of Science. ECRs are conscious of the benefits of open access in delivering free access to papers. Social media are widely used as a source of discovering scholarly information. ResearchGate is popular and on the rise in all countries surveyed. Smartphones have become a regularly used platform on which to perform quick and occasional searches for scholarly information but are only rarely used for reading full text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]