Search

Despite the existence of studies addressing the historical development of digital platforms, none of them has yet drawn a coherent and comprehensive interpretation of the emergence of scientific digital platforms. The previous literature (i) focuses on specific scientific practices; (ii) does not reach far enough back into the past; (iii) does not cover all relevant groups of social actors; (iv) does not propose a taxonomy for scientific digital platforms; and (v) does not provide a definition for scientific digital platforms. We propose in this paper a long-term view (from 1990 onwards), allowing us to identify the participation of distinct groups of social actors—within State, Market and Science subsystems—in the process of science platformization. Dialoguing with the most up-to-date literature, we broaden our understanding of the ongoing process of platformization of the research life cycle, proposing a taxonomy and a definition for scientific digital platforms. The evidence provided throughout the paper unveils that (i) the changes (caused by platformization) in each of the phases of the research cycle are not at all linear and are not happening simultaneously; (ii) actors from different subsystem played important roles in the platformization of science; and, (iii) specific categories of platforms have consolidated themselves as infrastructures and certain scientific infrastructures have been platformed, although this varies by category. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2014, the European Commission initiated a process to strengthen science 2.0 as a core research policy concept. However, this turned into a substantial ideational shift. The concept of science 2.0 was dropped. Instead, open science became established as one of the three pillars of the €94 billion research framework programme Horizon Europe. This article scrutinises the official narrative regarding the shift of concepts, identifying transparency issues, specifically misrepresentation of concepts and data, and the redaction of key material. This can be characterised as problems of input legitimacy. A public consultation did take place, but numerous transparency issues can be found. From science 2.0 to open science, the ideational shift was portrayed as simply a matter of exchanging two synonymous concepts. However, science 2.0 is a descriptive concept referring to science being transformed by digitalisation. In contrast, open science involves normative assumptions about how science should work and be governed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: From 2005 to 2009, the Scientific and Technical Branch Program "Cuban Network of Science" was developed under the auspices of the Cuban Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, which obtained outstanding results and a national and international impact. Then more than 10 years after its design, it became necessary to develop a new version in correspondence with the current state of ICT and its services. With the purpose of modernizing and completing the Cuban Network of Science as a digital network of contents, products and services of Science, Technology and Environment, the project "Modernization of the Cuban Network of Science" was developed. Objective: to approach the main results of the project, their correspondence with the objectives that were set and ways to achieve them. Material and methods: the techniques and methods used, the historical - logical, the systemic approach, the focus group and force field techniques, the interviews, the scientific observation, the literature review, the expert opinion and the Iadov technique stand out. Results and discussion: the commissioning of a modernized technological infrastructure of the network with higher levels of access and connectivity, a general portal of the Cuban Network of Science 2.0 web version, a system of selection, acquisition, processing, organization and updating of the contents, as well as the creation of experimental facilities for cloud computing. Conclusions: the project contributed to improving integration with other networks and services with shared and personalized use in a more efficient way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open science represents a paradigm shift in the way science is conducted that involves performing all stages of scientific research (design, data collection, review, publication, etc.) with an "open" vision. Our aim is to analyze the evolution of the denomination and the concept of open science from its beginnings (e-science, interconnected science, science 2.0, open science). We also want to determine which are the fundamental elements that make up open science. This is a theoretical research based on the selection and analysis of the most important conceptual documents about open science, which have been found in the Scopus and GoogleScholar databases. As a result, it is shown that the denominations have undergone more variations than the concept itself. Regarding the components, open science started with four basic elements (open access, open data, open software, reproducibility) that have been extended to the eight that are considered in the model proposed by OSPP recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific social networks (SSN) have been an important advance in the dissemination of knowledge in the scientific community. There are more and more researchers who agree on the need to join some SSN on account of the many advantages of visibility and impact they offer. This research paper studies the knowledge and use of SSN in the three Galician universities in 2017. Surveys of 552 professor/researchers from A Coruña, Santiago de Compostela and Vigo universities show that the knowledge and use of SSN have a growing trend, and that its management and usefulness assessment is positive, although their access frequency is still low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Science journalists are mainly responsible for publicly communicating science, which, in turn, is a major indicator of the social development of democratic societies. The transmission of quality scientific information that is rigorously researched and understandable is therefore crucial, and demand for this kind of information from both governments and citizens is growing. We analyzed the academic profiles of a representative sample of practicing science journalists in Spain to clarify what training they had received and how they perceived the quality and scope of this training. Using an ethnographic methodology based on a survey, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with science journalists working for the main Spanish media (mainly printed press, audiovisual, Internet and news agencies), we analyze their academic backgrounds and collect information on their opinions and proposals. Our findings depict a complex and heterogeneous scenario and also reveal that most science journalists not only do not have any scientific training, but also do not even consider this to be necessary to exercise as science reporters. They also criticize the current system for training journalists and consider that the best way of learning the profession is by acquiring experience on the job. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper investigates the transparency and influenceability of the RG score. This altmetric specially developed by the best-known academic social network ResearchGate is intended to indicate a researcher's academic perception in one single figure. We conducted a self-experiment to demonstrate that the indications of the RG score are difficult for the user to understand and are not transparent. They therefore do not fulfil the requirements of the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. The results of our investigation show that activity in social networks appears to have a great impact on the RG score and can strategically and selectively influence this result. Furthermore, we succeeded in entering publications by other authors as our own, thus dramatically improving our RG score. On the whole, with a little effort and without any academic publications of our own we were able to achieve an RG score which was higher than almost half the scores of all ResearchGate users. This self-experiment should be interpreted as a pilot study and can be implemented in an expanded form in future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Science 2.0 aims at using the information sharing and collaborative features of the Internet to offer new features to the research community. Science 2.0 has been already applied to computer sciences, especially bioinformatics. For network information hiding, a field studying the possibility of concealing a communication in networks, the application of Science 2.0 is still a rather uncovered territory. To foster the discussion of potential benefits for network information hiding, we provide a disquisition for six different Science 2.0 aspects when applied to this domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The experience gained in a pilot test for the management and development of the scientific visibility and digital identity of the researchers of the Universidad de Guadalajara’s Research Center on Feeding Behavior and Nutrition is documented, systematized and assessed. The intentions, justification and reach of this experience are described in this paper, as well as its design, contents and development stages. The results obtained with the implementation of the pilot test are shown. A reflection on a possible future design of an institutional strategy for the promotion, communication and academic positioning in the 2.0 web of the community of research centers and institutes of the UdeG is made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose This paper aims to analyse a set of converging trends underpinning a larger phenomenon called science 2.0 and to assess what are the most important implications for scientific method and research institutions.Design/methodology/approach It is based on a triangulation of exploratory methods which include a wide-ranging literature review, Web-based mapping and in-depth interviews with stakeholders.Findings The main implications of science 2.0 are enhanced efficiency, transparency and reliability; raise of data-driven science; microcontributions on a macroscale; multidimensional, immediate and multiform evaluation of science; disaggregation of the value chain of service providers for scientists; influx of multiple actors and the democratisation of science.Originality/value The paper rejects the notion of science 2.0 as the mere adoption of Web 2.0 technologies in science and puts forward an original integrated definition covering three trends that have not yet been analysed together: open science, citizens science and data-intensive science. It argues that these trends are mutually reinforcing and puts forward their main implications. It concludes with the identification of three enablers of science 2.0 – policy measures, individual practice of scientists and new infrastructure and services and sees the main bottleneck in lack of incentives on the individual level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Many recent research areas such as human cognition and quantum physics call the observer-independence of traditional science into question. Also, there is a growing need for self-reflexivity in science, i.e., a science that reflects on its own outcomes and products. Problem We introduce the concept of second-order science that is based on the operation of re-entry. Our goal is to provide an overview of this largely unexplored science domain and of potential approaches in second-order fields. Method We provide the necessary conceptual groundwork for explorations in second-order science, in which we discuss the differences between first- and second-order science and where we present a roadmap for second-order science. The article operates mainly with conceptual differentiations such as the separation between three seemingly identical concepts such as Science II, Science 2.0 and second-order science. Results Compared with first-order science, the potential of second-order science lies in 1. higher levels of novelty and innovations, 2. higher levels of robustness and 3. wider integration as well as higher generality. As first-order science advances, second-order science, with re-entry as its basic operation, provides three vital functions for first-order science, namely a rich source of novelty and innovation, the necessary quality control and greater integration and generality. Implications Second-order science should be viewed as a major expansion of traditional scientific fields and as a scientific breakthrough towards a new wave of innovative research. Constructivist content Second-order science has strong ties with radical constructivism, which can be qualified as the most important root/origin of second-order science. Moreover, it will be argued that a new form of cybernetics is needed to cope with the new problems and challenges of second-order science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digital technologies change how scientists access and process information and consequently impact publication forms in science. Even though the core of scientific publications has remained the same, established publication formats, such as the scientific paper or book, are succumbing to the transitions caused by digital technologies. At the same time, new online tools enable new publication forms, such as blogs, microblogs or wikis, to emerge. This article explores the changing and emerging publications forms in science and also reflects upon the changing role of libraries. The transformations of publishingforms are discussed in the context of open science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

e-Research is changing practices and dynamics in social research by the incorporation of advanced e-tools to process data and increase scientific collaboration. Previous research shows a positive attitude of investigators through e-Research and shows a fast incorporation of e-Tools, in despite of many cultural resistances to the change. This paper examines the current state (attitudes, tools and practices) of e-Research in the field of Media and Communication Studies in Latin America, Spain and Portugal. A total of 316 researchers of the region answered an online survey during the last 2 months of 2011. Findings confirm an optimistic attitude through e-Research and an often use of e-Tools to do research. Even though, most of them informed to use basic e-Tools (e.g. e-mail, commercial videoconference, office software and social networks) instead of advanced technologies to process huge amount of data (e.g. Grid, simulation software and Internet2) or the incorporation to Virtual Research Communities. Some of the researchers said that they had an «intensive» (31%) and «often» (53%) use of e-Tools, but only 22% stated that their computer capacity was not enough to manage and process data. The paper evidences the gap between e-Research in Communications and e-Research in other disciplines; and makes recommendations for its implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

e-Research is changing practices and dynamics in social research by the incorporation of advanced e-tools to process data and increase scientific collaboration. Previous research shows a positive attitude of investigators through e-Research and shows a fast incorporation of e-Tools, in despite of many cultural resistances to the change. This paper examines the current state (attitudes, tools and practices) of e-Research in the field of Media and Communication Studies in Latin America, Spain and Portugal. A total of 316 researchers of the region answered an online survey during the last 2 months of 2011. Findings confirm an optimistic attitude through e-Research and an often use of e-Tools to do research. Even though, most of them informed to use basic e-Tools (e.g. e-mail, commercial videoconference, office software and social networks) instead of advanced technologies to process huge amount of data (e.g. Grid, simulation software and Internet2) or the incorporation to Virtual Research Communities. Some of the researchers said that they had an «intensive» (31%) and «often» (53%) use of e-Tools, but only 22% stated that their computer capacity was not enough to manage and process data. The paper evidences the gap between e-Research in Communications and e-Research in other disciplines; and makes recommendations for its implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2012 there were many proposals for new indicators associated with social web tools. These indicators have been termed as altmetrics (or alternative metrics) and are presented as an alternative to the evaluation of scientific activity. In this paper some possible limitations of the new indicators are presented. More specifically these shortcomings are: 1) a large number of information sources and indicators that make it difficult to establish their classification and relevance; 2) some indicators that have no statistical validity because they generate poor results; 3) the difficulty of determining the meaning of the new metrics -what are we assessing, scientific or social impact?; and 4) the evanescent and ephemeral nature of these new sources and indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will identify the fundamental principles that might inform a theoretical approach to Information Literacy (IL) at the postgraduate level. These are based on the following premisses: · the aims of postgraduate/doctoral studies are different in comparison to earlier educational levels and involve specific challenges due to the heterogeneity of student population · IL frameworks have to acknowledge and address these challenges by adjusting to specific needs of postgraduate students operating in new information environments · profound changes in information environments and patterns of generation and use of scientific information necessitate new modes of assessment Postgraduate education predominantly focuses on methods and standards of scientific research work. An important precondition for efficient research is the successful application of proper methodology in finding, managing and generating information. Therefore, information literacy as the ability of finding, using and evaluating information can be perceived as central to learning and research. The focus of IL at postgraduate levels is primarily on the universe of scientific information, which has gone through tremendous changes over the last decade, particularly as a result of the appearance of Web 2.0 (e.g. Science 2.0, Research 2.0). It has created opportunities for new and alternative forms of research and scholarship that are different from traditional ways of using academic publication or disseminating research results. Such changes necessitate the reshaping of the basic concepts and focal points of IL at the postgraduate level which will take into account the new and experimental forms of scholarly communication and the dynamic nature of current information environments. First we will discuss the changes in information landscapes brought about by Web 2.0 and then look into the ways in which the premisses of scientific work have been affected by these new developments. Finally, we will demonstrate the need for the re---conceptualization of IL at the postgraduate level and propose new IL principles of assessment that will account for this transformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The new publishing and scientific communication environments have led to the emergence of new Web indicators. Along with usage metrics such as downloads there are many measures that are generated from Science 2.0. Journals published by the Public Library of Science systematically collect many of these new metrics. The objective of this paper is to present some of these new indicators and analyze them quantitatively through the case study of 8945 papers published in the journal PLoS One. The selected indicators were; comments, ratings, number of bookmarks, links from scientific weblogs, downloads views and citations. Basic descriptive statistics indicators and correlations have been calculated for all of them. The results show the low participation of scientists in Web 2.0 and how most of these indicators, except for downloads and visits, are poorly consolidated metrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study attempts to trace the evolution of scholarly communication from the days of publication of Journal-des-Scavans to the era of web 2.0, explaining the Open Access (OA) movement in brief. The views of Harnad on OA are highlighted. The emergence of Open Access 2.0 is put in context. This study also explains science 2.0 as the emerging practice in scientific knowledge sharing and scholarly communication. The positives and drawbacks of science 2.0 are discussed. Some of the science 2.0 concepts like OpenWetware, PLoS and other science 2.0 systems used in scientific research for communication as put forth by Hooker and Surridge are cited to indicate that science 2.0 is the future for scholarly communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of Science 2.0 is introduced and analysed based on its principal characteristics: user participation and collaboration, as well as free information exchange by means of web applications. A categorisation of tools for main web 2.0 functionalities for scientists is detailed: blog networks, journals with 2.0 tools, online reference managers and social tagging, open data and information reutilisation, social networks, and audio and video-science. Main factors influencing the use of these tools are presented. Finally, the consequences for scientific activity of general adoption of these services and applications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ZB MED and its partners within the Leibniz Research Alliance Science 2.0 participated in a nationwide study involving academics and researchers from universities and Leibniz Association research institutions. The purpose was to examine the use of social media tools. One of the key goals was to learn more about the usage patterns and behaviours of target groups, and the study has provided some important pointers to assist in this task. The preliminary part of the study identified four types of social media user who display significantly different patterns of behaviour in their use of and attitudes toward social web applications. The poster shows the figures for researchers working in the fields of medicine and life sciences - the main user group of ZB MED. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]