Search

In order to take account of the impact of the pandemic on the already changing scholarly communications and work-life of early career researchers (ECRs), the 4-year long Harbingers study was extended for another two years. As a precursor to the study (featuring interviews and a questionnaire survey), currently underway, an analytic review of the pertinent literature was undertaken and its results are presented here. The review focuses on the challenges faced by ECRs and how these compare to the ones more senior researchers have to tackle. In the examination of the literature three general questions are posed: Q1) What are the identifiable and forthcoming impacts of the pandemic-induced financial pressures felt in the Higher Education sector on ECRs’ employment and career development prospects? Q2) What are the identifiable and forthcoming pandemic-associated disruptions in the pace/focus/direction of the research undertaking? Have any disruptions been predicted to exert an impact on ECRs’ research activities, and if so, with what scholarly consequences? Q3) How is the work-life of ECRs shaping up under the virus-dictated rules of the ‘new normal’ in the research undertaking? What challenges, if any, arise from the changes in practices identified, and what might their potential consequences be for ECRs? The broad conclusion of the study is that the literature leaves little room for doubt: junior researchers are already disproportionally affected by and bear the burden of the ongoing pandemic-incurred hardships and they are likely to remain similarly impacted when more trials, still unfolding, materialise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Academic librarians in the United States and Canada were surveyed to ascertain their capacity and readiness to offer a range of research data services and how their perceptions have changed since a 2011 survey of academic librarians. We address the following questions: RQ1: Do academic librarians feel they have the knowledge, background, and skills to provide library-based research data services (RDS)? RQ2: How do academic librarians rate the importance of RDS in the library? RQ3: What are the factors that contribute to or inhibit engagement of librarians in RDS? RQ4: Are there changes in the opinions of academic librarians on these issues since the 2011 study? Methods: Library directors who participated in a separate study of RDS practices in ACRL libraries were asked to distribute the current survey to their librarians. 168 librarians participated in this online survey yielding 146 valid responses for analysis in SPSS. Results: Academic librarians for whom RDS is an integral part of their job feel confident in the ability to provide such services. The group of librarians for whom RDS is occasional or not a part of their responsibilities are less confident, but also agree that RDS is important in academic libraries. Consultative-time RDS, which are consistent with traditional library reference services, are much more likely to be part of librarians’ job responsibilities. Conclusion: Many academic librarians believe that RDS are important services in academic libraries. Not all are confident in their abilities to offer all specific services, however, so there is a need for collaborative training in RDS, particularly for those librarians where RDS responsibilities are not a full-time part of their job responsibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sharing of scholarly articles is an intrinsic and often ignored facet of the value and mission of scholarship. It is so entwined in the daily work life of scholars that it has almost become second nature, an integral part of the research process itself. This article addresses this often overlooked area of research in usage studies. In an international survey of 1,000 published scholars, the Beyond Downloads project examined their sharing behaviours in order to gain a more contextualized and accurate picture of their usage beyond download patterns and citation counts. Scholars share published articles with others as a mode of content discovery and dissemination, particularly if they work in groups, and most expect to increase their sharing in the future. While their methods of sharing articles may change, and their reasons for sharing may vary from self-promotion to the more altruistic motives of scientific progress, they desire to share the final published versions of articles with their colleagues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This abstract describes a session that planned to feature participants of the International OAI (Open Archives Initiative) forums, discussing digital libraries and their role in knowledge dissemination and creation, global strategies for interoperability, author self-archiving issues, empowering users, and technology and user processes. (LRW)

An international survey of over 3,600 researchers examined how trustworthiness and quality are determined for making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing and how scholars perceive changes in trust with new forms of scholarly communication. Although differences in determining trustworthiness and authority of scholarly resources exist among age groups and fields of study, traditional methods and criteria remain important across the board. Peer review is considered the most important factor for determining the quality and trustworthiness of research. Researchers continue to read abstracts, check content for sound arguments and credible data, and rely on journal rankings when deciding whether to trust scholarly resources in reading, citing, or publishing. Social media outlets and open access publications are still often not trusted, although many researchers believe that open access has positive implications for research, especially if the open access journals are peer reviewed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]