Search

The study investigates the attitudes and practices of early career researchers (ECRs) in regard to citation-based metrics and altmetrics, providing the findings in the light of what might be expected of the millennial generation and in the context of what we already know about researchers in today's 'culture of counting' governed scholarly world. The data were gathered by means of an international survey, informed by a preceding, 3-year qualitative study of 120 ECRs from 7 countries, which obtained 1,600 responses. The main conclusions are: (1) citation indicators play a central and multi-purpose role in scholarly communications; (2) altmetrics are not so popular or widely used, but ECRs are waking up to some of their merits, most notably, discovering the extent to which their papers obtain traction and monitoring impact; (3) there is a strong likelihood that ECRs are going to have to grapple with both citation-based metrics and altmetrics, mainly in order to demonstrate research impact; and (4) the Chinese are the most metric using nation, largely because of governmental regulations.

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]

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]

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]

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 article investigates the use of electronic journals in 68 French universities, all members of the Couperin consortium1.The study is based on statistical data on usage, libraries and journal packages collected by the EPEF project (Evaluation des Périodiques Electroniques dans le R—seau Universitaire Français) from different sources (publishers, Ministry, survey results), from 2001 to 2005.It provides information about local metrics for eight packages (serials), e.g. usage trends; requests per package and user; costs per request and user; as related to the scientific specialty of the university (STM, SS&H, multidisciplinary, etc.). Whenever possible and reasonable, the data is compared with results from UK and US research. The paradoxical situation of SS&H is discussed. This is the first study on usage statistics in French universities and probably one of the first based on a nationwide survey. Methodological problems are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]