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]

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 reports on the findings of an international online survey of early career researchers (ECRs) with regard to their authorship and peer review, attitudes, and practices, which sought to discover how the new wave of researchers were utilizing these key aspects of the scholarly communications system. A questionnaire was developed on the back of a 3‐year longitudinal, qualitative study and was distributed through publisher lists, social media networks, university networks, and specialist ECR membership organizations. Identical English, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Spanish, and French versions of the questionnaire were used. Results from 1,600 respondents demonstrated that 82.7% had co‐authored a paper, and most had performed a variety of authorship tasks. Almost half the respondents reported being subject to various authorship policies, although a quarter said they were not aware of any such policies. Almost all Chinese ECRs reported being subject to authorship policies, but only a third of UK ECRs reported the same. Three‐quarters of ECRs had experience in responding to peer review, and half had been peer reviewers. Half the respondents had a good experience of review and viewed it as a valuable way to improve their authorship skills. However, there was some criticism of some shortcoming such as lengthy peer review and superficial or uninformed comments by reviewers. Double‐blind review was the preferred methodology, and there were few suggestions for how to improve the review process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports on the findings on the open science attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers (ECRs) from the Harbingers research project, which sought to determine whether they are the agents of change when it comes to scholarly communications. Nearly 120 science and social science researchers from 7 countries were questioned, longitudinally over a period of three years. The ECR findings are run against the received wisdom on open science emanating from relevant European Union institutions and funders and it was found that some confusion reigns and that there is a significant disconnect between what the institutions promulgate and what ECRs say and do, and, this, is largely because of reputational concerns. [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]

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]

Structural changes to the scholarly environment are taking place as a result of the introduction of Web 2.0 technologies, which have given rise to Open Science 2.0 initiatives, such as open access publishing, open data, citizen science, and open peer evaluation systems. In turn, this is leading to new ways of building, showcasing, andmeasuring scholarly reputation through emerging platforms, such as ResearchGate. The article reports the findings of a survey of the opinions and practices of 251 European scholars about this emerging scholarly market. Findings showed that traditional research-related activities, including conducting and collaborating in research, taking part in multidisciplinary projects, and publishing in journals contribute most to scholarly reputation. The greatest weaknesses of reputational platforms were a lack of trustworthiness and being open to gaming. The large majority of researchers, despite some reservations, thought that reputational systems were here to stay and will become increasingly important in the future, and especially for younger researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction. This paper reports on an interview-based citation behaviour study, part of a wider study of trust in information resources, investigating why researchers chose to cite particular references in one of their publications. Their motivations are explored, with an emphasis on whether they regarded the reference as an authoritative and trustworthy source, and, if so, to what extent and why. Method. Semi-structured critical incident interviews were carried out with eighty-seven researchers from the UK and the USA. Analysis. The answers were analysed using qualitative techniques and then grouped under descriptive headings of the types of reasons for citation provided. These were then used to create a table of these types of reason and the frequency of their use. Results. The motivations for citing were found to be complex and multi-faceted but, in nearly all cases, researchers do regard the authority and trustworthiness of the cited source as an important factor in choosing to cite it. This suggests that citation is at least partly an acknowledgement of the intellectual influence of the content of the cited source. It was also found, however, that researchers have strong social networks of trust and collaboration. They make considerable use of these in receiving and gathering information for research and thus context is also important in their eventual citation decisions. Conclusions. Citing behaviour does include an acknowledgement of useful intellectual content, but this process cannot be separated from the researcher's position in networks of trusted social and research influence. The digital transition has provided tools to help maintain and develop these social networks and it has also made it easier for researchers to investigate the credentials of the sources of documents. This suggests that the current distinction in the literature between normative and constructionist theories of citation behaviour may not capture the nuanced and complex relationship between these two factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports on the findings on the open science attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers (ECRs) from the Harbingers research project, which sought to determine whether they are the agents of change when it comes to scholarly communications. Nearly 120 science and social science researchers from 7 countries were questioned, longitudinally over a period of three years. The ECR findings are run against the received wisdom on open science emanating from relevant European Union institutions and funders and it was found that some confusion reigns and that there is a significant disconnect between what the institutions promulgate and what ECRs say and do, and, this, is largely because of reputational concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]