Article
| Title: | Otvorená veda a informačné správanie vedcov v SR |
| Variant title: | Open science and information behavior of researchers in Slovakia |
| Author: | |
| Source document: | ProInflow: časopis pro informační vědy. 2017, vol. 9, iss. 2, pp. 48-73 |
| Extent: | 48-73 |
| ISSN: | 1804-2406 |
| Type: | Article (Slovak) |
| Stable URL: | http://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/137221 |
| License: |
PDF
Abstract(s):
Charakterizuje sa otvorená veda ako prepojenie vedy s verejnosťou a presun vedy do digitálneho prostredia s využitím digitálnych knižníc a koncepcie open access. Analyzujú sa vybrané modely otvorenej vedy a digitálnej vedy, najmä prepojenie vedy s verejnosťou, digitálne služby, práca s dátami, altmetria. Faktory otvorenej vedy obsahujú transparentné metódy, manažment dát, elektronické publikovanie. Charakterizuje sa princíp otvoreného prístupu k publikáciám a dátam. Na základe vlastného kvalitatívneho výskumu – rozhovorov s 19 vybranými vedcami v SR – s využitím metodológie konceptuálneho modelovania sa identifikujú spoločné metodologické analytické procesy a odlišnosti v publikačných stratégiách v odboroch. Predstavujú sa výsledky analýz zameraných na vnímanie publikovania v digitálnom prostredí, open access a otvorenej vedy a prekážok vedeckej práce. Zistenia poukazujú na dva typy diskurzov o otvorenej vede a digitálnom publikovaní; podporný (zvyšovanie počtu citácií, rýchlosť publikovania) a kritický (komercionalizácia, problém financovania vedy). Potvrdili sa rezervy v podpore otvorenej vedy, najmä z aspektu otvoreného prístupu k publikáciám a dátam. Prekážky boli kategorizované na systémové, individuálne, technologické, administratívne, finančné. Predstavuje sa ekologický model informačných interakcií s prepojením faktorov doménovej expertízy, metodológie a otvorenej vedy. Určuje sa vedecká informačná gramotnosť ako skúsenosť pri hľadaní zmyslu pri skúmaní objektov a problémov v disciplínach. Navrhujú sa odporúčania pre akademické knižnice a informačných profesionálov pri podpore otvorenej vedy a informačných potrieb vedcov.
We determine open science as links between science and public and transfer of science into digital environment with the use of digital libraries and open access concept. We analyze selected models of open science and digital science, especially interactions of science and public, digital services, work with data, altmetrics. Factors of open science include transparent methods, data management, electronic publishing. We also determine characteristics of open access to publications and data. Based on our qualitative study with the use of semi-structured interviews with 19 selected researchers in Slovakia and the use of methodology of conceptual modeling we identified common methodological analytical processes and differences in publishing strategies in disciplines. We also present results of analyses focused on perceptions of publishing in digital environment, open access, open science and barriers in research work. Findings point to two types of discourses based on attitudes to open science and digital publishing, namely the supportive (high number of citations, speed of publishing) and the critical (commercial problems and research funding). We confirmed gaps in support of open science, especially in open access to publications and data. Barriers were divided into system, individual, technological, administrative, and financial. Ecological model of information interactions is described, which connects domain expertise, methodologies and factors of open science. Research information literacy is defined as experience in seeking meaning in study of objects and problems in disciplines. We propose recommendations for academic libraries and information professionals in support of open science and information needs of researchers.
We determine open science as links between science and public and transfer of science into digital environment with the use of digital libraries and open access concept. We analyze selected models of open science and digital science, especially interactions of science and public, digital services, work with data, altmetrics. Factors of open science include transparent methods, data management, electronic publishing. We also determine characteristics of open access to publications and data. Based on our qualitative study with the use of semi-structured interviews with 19 selected researchers in Slovakia and the use of methodology of conceptual modeling we identified common methodological analytical processes and differences in publishing strategies in disciplines. We also present results of analyses focused on perceptions of publishing in digital environment, open access, open science and barriers in research work. Findings point to two types of discourses based on attitudes to open science and digital publishing, namely the supportive (high number of citations, speed of publishing) and the critical (commercial problems and research funding). We confirmed gaps in support of open science, especially in open access to publications and data. Barriers were divided into system, individual, technological, administrative, and financial. Ecological model of information interactions is described, which connects domain expertise, methodologies and factors of open science. Research information literacy is defined as experience in seeking meaning in study of objects and problems in disciplines. We propose recommendations for academic libraries and information professionals in support of open science and information needs of researchers.
Keywords:
otvorená veda; digitálna veda; open access; informačné správanie vedcov; vedecká informačná gramotnosť; open science; digital science; open access; information behavior of researchers; research information literacy
References:
[1] BATES, Marcia. 2005. An Introduction to Metatheories, Theories, and Models. Chapter 1. In Theories of Information Behavior. Ed. By K. Fisher ET AL, 1-24, Meford, NJ., Information Today.
[2] BJÖRK, B.Ch., 2005. A Life-Cycle Model of the Scientific Communication Process. In Learned Publishing. 2005, 18, 165–176.
[3] BJÖRK, B. C., & Solomon, D. 2012. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC medicine, 10(1), 73. | DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-10-73
[4] BORGMAN, Ch. L. 2015. Big Data, Little Data, No Data. Scholarship in the Networked World. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2015. 383 p.
[5] BORGMAN, Ch., 2007. Scholarship in the Digital Age. Information, Infrastructure and the Internet. Cambridge: MIT Press. 336 s.
[6] BORGMAN, Ch. (2012). The Conundrum of Sharing Research Data. In JASIST, 63 (2012), 6, 1059-1078. | DOI 10.1002/asi.22634
[7] BROWN, C. 2010. Communication in the Sciences. In Annual Review of Information Science and and Technology. Vol. 44. Ed. B. Cronin. Medford, Information Today, 2010, 287-316.
[8] BUDAPEST Open Access Initiative. 2012. [online][cit. 2017-07-27]. Dostupné na: http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai-10-recommendations
[9] BURDICK, Anne et al. 2012. Digital Humanities. [online].Cambridge. Ma., MIT Press 2012.153 s. [cit. 2017-07-30]. Dostupné z: https://mitpress.mit.edu/.../9780262018470_Open_Access_Edition.
[10] CASE, D.O. 2012. Looking for information: a survey of research on information seeking, needs and behavior. 3rd.ed., Bingley, Emerlad 2012. 491 p.
[11] CHOWDHURRY, Gobinda G. 2014. Sustainability of Scholarly Information. London: Facet Publ., 2014. 231 p.
[12] DAVID, Paul. 2014. The Republic of Open Science – the Institution's Historical Origins and Prospects for Continued Vitality. MERIT Working Papers 082, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT). Dostupné na: https://ideas.repec.org/p/sip/dpaper/13-037.html
[13] DAVID, Paul. 2003. The Economic Logic of "open science" and the Balance between Private Property Rights and the Public Domain in Scientific data and Information: A Primer. Stanford University, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy research. Discussion paper No. 02-30. Final Draft 2003. 17 s.
[14] ERDELEZ, S. & Means, T. 2005. Measuring changes in information sharing among life science researchers. In: Knowledge Management: Nurturing Culture, Innovation and Technology, 29-40.
[15] THE FOURTH PARADIGM. Data Intensive Scientific Discovery. 2009. Ed. By Toni Hey, Stewart Tansley, Kristin Tolle. Redmond, Washington: Microsoft Research 2009.
[16] FIDEL, R. 2012. Human Information Interaction: An Ecological Approach to Information Behavior. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press 2012. 348 s.
[17] FRY, J. 2013. Considerations in adopting a disciplinary analysis of scholarly communication and information behaviours. In: ASIST European Workshop. Abo, Abo Univ. 63-78.
[18] FRY, J. 2006. Studying the scholarly Web: how disciplinary culture shapes online representations. Cybermetrics, 10(1), paper 2. Dostupné na: http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1p2.html
[19] HAUSTEIN, Stefanie. 2016. Grand challenges in altmetrics: heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. In: Scientometrics [online]. Vol. 108, Iss.1, 413-423. [cit. 2017-07-30]. Dostupné na: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.04939, doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-1910-9 | DOI 10.1007/s11192-016-1910-9
[20] HEY, Tony, Tansley, Stewart, Tolle, Kirstin (eds.). 2009. The Fourth Paradigm. Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Redmond: Microsoft Research 2009. Dostupné na: http://research.microsofrt.com/en-us/collaboration/fourthparadigm
[21] HJØRLAND, B. 2010. The importance of theories of knowledge: indexing and information retrieval as an example. Journal of the ASIST. 2010, 62, (1), 72-77.
[22] HURD, J. 2000. The Transformation of Scientific Communication: A Model for 2020. In: JASIST. Vol. 51. No.14, (2000), pp. 1279-1283.
[23] KARVALICS, L.Z. 2013. From Scientific Literacy to Lifelong Research: A Social Innovation Approach. In: Worldwide Commonalities and Challenges in Information Literacy Research and Practice. ECIL 2013. Rev. Sel. Papers. Ed. S. Kurbanoglu et al. Springer, Cham: 126-133.
[24] KINCHIN, I.M., Streatfield, D., Hay, D.B. 2010. Using Concept Mapping to Enhance the Research Interview. In: International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2010, 9, (1), 52-89.
[25] KIRCHNER, J,. Diaz, J., Henry, G., Fliss, S., Culshaw, J., Gendron, H., Cawthorne, J. 2015. The Centre of Excellence Model for Information Services. [online]. [cit. 2015-05-10]. Washington: Council on Library and Information Resources. 2015. 25s. Dostupné na: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub163
[26] KMEŤOVÁ, M. 2016. Otvorená veda, digitálna veda a informačná veda – vzťahy a súvislosti. In: Knižničná a informačná veda 27. Bratislava: UK, 2016, 69-80.
[27] KOLTAY, T., Špiranec, S., Karvalics, L.Z. 2016. Research 2.0 and the Future of Information Literacy. Amsterdam: Chandos.
[28] LEYDESDORFF, Loet. 2010. The Knowledge-Based Economy and the Triple Helix Model. Chapter 9. In ARIST. Vol. 44. Ed. B. Cronin. Medford: Information Today 2010, 367-417.
[29] LYNCH, Clifford, Dirks, Lee. 2011. New Initiatives in Open Research. In: Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference. http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284314874 | DOI 10.5703/1288284314874
[30] MC GUINESS, C. 2006. What Faculty Think-Exploring the Barriers to Information Literacy Development in Undergraduate Education. In: Journal of Academic Librarianship. Vol. 32, No. 6, 573-582, Nov. 2006. | DOI 10.1016/j.acalib.2006.06.002
[31] ONDRIŠOVÁ, Miriam. 2016. Alternatívne hodnotenia vplyvu vedeckých výstupov vo webovom prostredí. In: Knižničná a informačná veda 26. Bratislava, UK 2016, 28-44.
[32] OPEN Science and Research, 2014. The Open Science and Research Handbook [online]. December 2014 [cit. 2017-03-23]. The Open Science and Research Initiative. 16 p. Dostup. na: http://openscience.fi
[33] PALMER, C.I., Cragin, M.H. 2008. Scholarship and disciplinary practices. In Annual Review od Information Science and Technology. Vol. 43 (2), 163-212. Dostupné na: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aris.2008.1440420112 | DOI 10.1002/aris.2008.1440420112
[34] PRIEM, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., Neylon, C. 2010. Altmetrics: A manifesto. [online] 26 October 2010. [cit. 2017-04-27]. Dostupné na: http:// altmetrics.org/manifesto/
[35] RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT Framework. 2010. [online]. Vitae, CRAC (Careers Research and Advisory Centre), Research Council UK. Dostupné z: http://www.researchconcordat.ac.uk/documents/concordat.pdf
[36] SCHNEIDER, R. 2013. Research Data Literacy. In: Worldwide Commonalities and Challenges in Information Literacy Research and Practice. ECIL 2013. Rev. Sel. Papers. Ed. S. Kurbanoglu et al. Springer, Cham, 134-140.
[37] STEINEROVÁ, J. 2013. Methodological Literacy of Doctoral Students – an Emerging Model. In: Worldwide Commonalities and Challenges in Information Literacy Research and Practice. ECIL 2013. Conf. Proc. Ed. S. Kurbanoglu et al. Cham: Springer, 148-154.
[38] STEINEROVÁ, J. 2015. Looking for Creative Information Strategies and Ecological Literacy. In: ECIL 2015. Ed. S Kubanoglu et al. Cham: Springer, 2015, 3-12. CCIA 552.
[39] STEINEROVÁ, Jela. 2015. Otvorená veda a digitálna veda z pohľadu informačnej vedy. In: Bioetické výzvy a súčasnosť. Bratislava: Stimul 2015, 273-284.
[40] STEINEROVÁ, J. 2014. Ecological Information Interactions for Digital Scholarship. In: Cognitive Traveling in Digital Space of the Web and Digital Libraries Yield of the Interdisciplinary Multi-Partner Project TraDiCe. Ed. P. Návrat et al. Bratislava: STU 158-169.
[41] STEINEROVÁ, Jela. 2014a. Digitálna veda- východiská, princípy, problémy. In: ITLib. 2014, roč. 18 č. 1, 5-13.
[42] STEINEROVÁ, J. 2016. Information Challenges of Digital Science: Conceptual Frameworks. In: Journal of Library and Information Science, Vol.42, No.1, April 2016, 33-40.
[43] STEINEROVÁ, Jela, Ondrišová, Miriam, Buzová, Katarína. 2015. Otvorená veda a funkcie informačnej vedy. In ITLib špeciál. Roč. 19. 2015, s.16-26.
[44] STEINEROVÁ, Jela, HRČKOVÁ, A. 2014. Information support of research information interactions of PhD. students in Slovakia. In: An International Journal on Grey Literature. Summer 2014. TGJ Vol. 10, no. 2., 79-85.
[45] TALJA, S. 2005. The Domain-Analytic Approach to Scholars' Information Practices. In: Theories of Information Behavior. Medford: ASIST-Information Today, 123-127.
[46] TALJA, S,.& Hartel, J. 2007. Revisiting the user-centred turn in information science research: an intellectual history perspective. Information Research, 12(4) paper colis04. Dostupné na: http://InformationR.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis04.html
[47] THEORIES of Information Behavior. 2005. Eds. Fisher, K.E., Erdelez, S., McKechnie, L. Medford: Inform. Today. 431 p.
[48] THELWALL, M. 2010. Webometrics: emergent or doomed? Information Research, 15(4) colis713. Dostupné na: http://InformationR.net/ir/15-4/colis713.html
[49] THELWALL, M. 2009. Bibliometrics to webometrics. In Information science in transition. Ed. A. Gilchrist. London: Facet 2009, 347-376.
[50] VAN DE SOMPEL, H., Nelson, M., Lagoze, C. and Warner, S. 2004. Resource Harvesting within the OAI-PMH Framework. D-Lib Magazine, 10 (12), 2004.
[51] VERBAAN, E., & Cox, A. M. 2014. Collaboration or Competition? Responses to Research Data Management in UK Higher Education by Librarians, IT Professionals, and Research Administrators. In iConference 2014 Proceedings, 281–292. doi:10.9776/14084 | DOI 10.9776/14084
[52] VILAR, Polona. 2015. Information behaviour of scholars, In Libellarium: journal for the research of writing, books, and cultural heritage institutions [online]. VII, 1, 17 - 39. [cit. 2016-05-30]. Dostupné z:
[53] VRANA, R. 2013. Promotion of Scientific Literacy and Popularization of Science with Support of Libraries and Internet Services. In: Worldwide Commonalities and Challenges in Information Literacy Research and Practice. ECIL 2013. Springer, Cham, 324-330.
[54] WATSON, M.M. 2015. When will "open science" become simply "science"? In: Genome biology [online], 16, 1[cit. 2017-07-27], Dostupné na: https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0669-2
[55] WHITWORTH, B. & Friedman, R. 2009. Reinventing academic publishing online Part II: A Sociotechnical vision, First Monday. [online ]. Vol. 14, N. 9, [cit. 2014-02-23]. Dostupné na: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2642
[56] WHITWORTH, A., Torras i Calvo, M-C., Moss. B., Kufle, N.A., Blasternes, T. 2015. Mapping Collective Information Practices in the Workplace. In: Information Literacy: Moving Toward Sustainability. ECIL 2015. Cham: Springer 2015, 49-58. CCIS 552.
[57] ZUCCALA, A. 2009. The Layperson and Open Access. In: ARIST. Vol. 43. Ed. B. Cronin. Medford: Information Today, 359-396.
