Early career researchers and their publishing and authorship practices

This study presents findings from the first year of the Harbingers research project, a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. The study recruited 116 science and social science ECRs from seven countries who were subject to in‐depth interviews, and this paper reports on findings regarding publishing and authorship practices and attitudes. A major objective was to determine whether ECRs are taking the myriad opportunities proffered by new digital innovations, developing within the context of open science, open access, and social media, to publish their research. The main finding is that these opportunities are generally not taken because ECRs are constrained by convention and the precarious employment environment they inhabit and know what is best for them, which is to publish (in high impact factor journals) or perish.     

Outside the library: Early career researchers and use of alternative information sources in pandemic times

Presents findings from a study into the attitudes and practices of pandemic-era early career researchers (ECRs) in regard to obtaining access to the formally published scholarly literature, which focused on alternative providers, notably ResearchGate and Sci-Hub. The study is a part of the Harbingers project that has been exploring the work lives and scholarly communication practices of ECRs in pre-pandemic times and during the pandemic, and utilizes data from two rounds of interviews with around 170 ECRs from the sciences and social sciences in eight countries. Findings show that alternative providers, as represented by ResearchGate and Sci-Hub, have become established and appear to be gaining ground. However, there are considerable country- and discipline-associated differences. ECRs' country-specific level of usage of the alternative providers is partly traceable to the adequacy of library provisions, although there are other factors at play in shaping ECRs' attitudes and practices, most notably convenience and time saving, as well as the fact that these platforms have become embedded in the scholarly dashboard. There is a dearth of evidence of the impact of the pandemic on ECRs' ways of obtaining scholarly papers.     

Early career researchers and their authorship and peer review beliefs and practices: An international study

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.     

Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers

This paper presents selected findings from the first year of a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. Specifically, the aims of the paper are to show: (1) how much experience and knowledge ECRs had of peer review – both as authors and as reviewers; (2) what they felt the benefits were and what suggestions they had for improvement; (3) what they thought of open peer review (OPR); and (4) who they felt should organize peer review. Data were obtained from 116 science and social science ECRs, most of whom had published and were subject to in‐depth interviews conducted face‐to‐face, via Skype, or over the telephone. An extensive literature review was also conducted to provide a context and supplementary data for the findings. The main findings were that: (1) most ECRS are well informed about peer review and generally like the experience, largely because of the learning experiences obtained; (2) they like blind double‐peer review, but would like some improvements, especially with regards to reviewer quality; (3) most are uncomfortable with the idea of OPR; and (4) most would like publishers to continue organizing peer review because of their perceived independence.     

Where and how early career researchers find scholarly information

This article presents findings from the first year of the Harbingers research project started in 2015. The project is a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs) to ascertain their current and changing habits with regard to information searching, use, sharing, and publication. The study recruited 116 researchers from seven countries (UK, USA, China, France, Malaysia, Poland, and Spain) and performed in‐depth interviews by telephone, Skype, or face‐to‐face to discover behaviours and opinions. This paper reports on findings regarding discovery and access to scholarly information. Findings confirm the universal popularity of Google/Google Scholar. Library platforms and web‐scale discovery services are largely unmentioned and unnoticed by this user community, although many ECRs pass through them unknowingly on the way to authenticated use of their other preferred sources, such as Web of Science. ECRs are conscious of the benefits of open access in delivering free access to papers. Social media are widely used as a source of discovering scholarly information. ResearchGate is popular and on the rise in all countries surveyed. Smartphones have become a regularly used platform on which to perform quick and occasional searches for scholarly information but are only rarely used for reading full text.     

Chinese researchers,scholarly communication behaviour and trust

Over 660 Chinese researchers were questioned about their scholarly use, citing, and publishing and how trust is exercised in these key activities. Research showed few signs of new forms of scholarly usage behaviour taking hold, despite multiple opportunities afforded by Science 2.0 developments. Thus, for determining trustworthiness for usage purposes, the most important activity was reading the abstract. In terms of citations, citing the seminal source was the most common activity. In contrast, citing non‐peer reviewed sources, such as the social media, was not thought acceptable. For publishing, relevance to the field was the most important factor when choosing a place to publish. Comparisons were made with a study of 3650 international researchers, which employed the same methods and questions. The main differences between Chinese and international researchers were that the former (a) rated abstracts more highly, (b) took into account impact factors more when citing and publishing and (c) were much more likely to be influenced by institutional directives when placing their articles.     

The information needs and behaviour of clinical researchers: a user-needs analysis

AIMS: As part of the strategy to set up a new information service, including a physical Resource Centre, the analysis of information needs of clinical research professionals involved with clinical research and development in the UK and Europe was required. It also aimed to identify differences in requirements between the various roles of professionals and establish what information resources are currently used. METHODS: A user-needs survey online of the members of The Institute. Group discussions with specialist subcommittees of members. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety members responded to the online survey of 20 questions. This makes it a response rate of 7.9%. Members expressed a lack of information in their particular professional area, and lack the skills to retrieve and appraise information. DISCUSSION: The results of the survey are discussed in more detail, giving indications of what the information service should collect, what types of materials should be provided to members and what services should be on offer. RECOMMENDATION: These were developed from the results of the needs analysis and submitted to management for approval. Issues of concern, such as financial constraint and staff constraints are also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: There is an opportunity to build a unique collection of clinical research material, which will promote The Institute not only to members, but also to the wider health sector. Members stated that the most physical medical libraries don't provide what they need, but the main finding through the survey and discussions is that it's pointless to set up 'yet another medical library'.     

An evaluation of information behaviour studies through the Scholarly Capital Model

Influence and capital are two concepts used to evaluate scholarly outputs, and these can be measured using the Scholarly Capital Model as a modelling tool. The tool looks at the concepts of connectedness, venue representation, and ideational influence using centrality measures within a social network. This research used co‐authorships and h‐indices to investigate authors who have published papers in the field of information behaviour between 1980 and 2015 as extracted from Web of Science. The findings show a relationship between the authors’ connectedness and the venue (journal) representation. It could be seen that the venue (journal) influences the chance of citation, and equally, the prestige (centrality) of authors probably raises the citations of the journals. The research also shows a significant positive relationship between the venue representation and ideational influence. This means that a research work that is published in a highly cited journal will find more visibility and will receive more citations.     

A global questionnaire survey of the scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers

This article describes an international study informed by a 3‐year‐long qualitative longitudinal project, which sought to discover the scholarly communication attitudes and behaviour of early career researchers (ECRs). Using a combination of small‐scale interviews and a larger‐scale survey, ECRs were questioned on their searching and reading behaviour, publishing practices, open data, and their use of social media. Questionnaire invitations were sent out via publisher lists, social media networks, university research networks, and specialist ECR membership organizations. One‐thousand and six‐hundred responses were received, with many coming from China, Russia, and Poland. Results showed that ECRs are adopting millennial‐facing tools/platforms, with Google, Google Scholar, social media, and smartphones becoming embedded in their scholarly activities. Open data sharing obtains widespread support but somewhat less practice. There are some differences in attitudes and behaviour according to age and subject specialism.     

Sharing research with academia and beyond: Insights from early career researchers in Australia and Japan

Quality scholarly research outputs, such as peer reviewed journal articles published in reputable journals, are essential for early career researchers' (ECRs) vocational success while also offering benefits for their institutions. Research outputs destined for audiences beyond academia are also increasingly valued by funders, end users, and tertiary institutions. While there is an expectation that ECRs may create diverse research outputs for an array of audiences, the kinds of research output texts produced by ECRs for varied audiences warrants further investigation. In addition, the routes of dissemination that ECRs use to share their academic research outputs to secure impact beyond academia are not well understood. Drawing on semi‐structured interviews of 30 respondents in Australia and Japan, we explore the research‐sharing practices of ECRs, finding that ECRs may potentially create a wide range of research‐informed texts for end users beyond academia, using an array of methods for dissemination. The examples of the output text types and dissemination routes we provide in this paper can be used to inspire ECRs and also more senior academics to share their research more broadly, and perhaps more effectively, and can be used by publishers to improve research impact and support ECRs' research translation.     

‘Cracks’ in the scholarly communications system: Insights from a longitudinal international study of early career researchers

• 170 early career researchers interviewed three times over 2 years, have uniquely contributed towards a stress test of scholarly communications and cracks have been identified.
• The perfect storm created by the convergence of millennial values and the pandemic appears to have fast-forwarded the cracking process, perhaps, for the good.
• The cracks in question are: (1) peer review; (2) reputational assessment; (3) unethical/questionable practices; (4) collaboration; (5) networking.

     

我国青年学者学术阅读与出版行为研究

旨在从学术阅读和学术出版两个方面梳理我国青年学者学术交流行为的基本特征,以13位青年学者为研究样本,采用半结构化深度访谈方式获取信息,通过定性和定量相结合的方法处理访谈数据.研究表明,我国青年学者学术阅读与出版行为基本延续传统的学术交流方式,但也显现出一定特殊性,如重视移动设备的学术阅读、倾向于在传播速率较快的信息源上发布学术信息、高度关注国际合作出版等.     

浅析网络学术期刊对学术交流的影响

简述网络学术期刊的概念;通过对图书情报学、经济学、生物学、计算机科学与网络四种学科的72种中英文网络学术期刊进行分析,探究网络学术期刊提供的信息级别、网络学术期刊的学科属性和语种对学术交流的影响,发现网络学术期刊提供的信息级别越高,它对学术交流的影响就越大;由于各学科人士对互联网的认可度、技术掌握程度等因素的不同,致使不同学科的网络学术期刊对学术交流的影响亦有不同;目前,英文网络学术期刊对学术交流的影响要大于中文网络学术期刊。     

Beginning the Conversation: Discussing Scholarly Communication

Since the earliest scholarly journals began, journal literature answered a need to communicate scholarly and scientific findings and preserve a validated scholarly record of accomplishments and areas for further research. Scholars are profoundly interested in the transformation of scholarship and the implications for their disciplines. Librarian expertise within the digital serials realm and partnering with faculty to prioritize learning in the library will imaginatively create opportunities for learning with library resources. Discussing scholarly communication changes and traditions provides excellent common ground for serials librarians to begin conversations with disciplinary faculty.     

Scholarly journals at the periphery: the case of Croatia

This paper analyses 231 Croatian journals available on the national online platform, the Hr?ak portal. To qualify for analysis journals had to be peer reviewed and to have published at least one issue in 2012. Some differences from the results of previous studies were noted. More journals are internationally oriented and the number of times they are accessed apparently depends on their scientific field. Publishers are still mostly not‐for‐profit but are more likely now to apply article processing/publication charges. This is new for Croatia and raises questions about the potential influence of this trend on the availability and visibility of scientific results. The results are relevant not only to Croatia but may also be representative of other countries at the ‘periphery‘.     

Early career experiences of navigating journal article publication: Lessons learned using an autoethnographic approach

The successful publication of peer reviewed academic journal articles is an essential achievement for early career researchers (ECRs) seeking to establish themselves in their profession. However, this journey can pose several significant challenges for ECRs. We use an autoethnographic approach that draws deeply on our lived experience as ECRs to capture our recent and current experiences of negotiating the academic journal article publication journey to explore the tensions, contradictions, and benefits encountered in the journey. We critically examine challenges we experienced in choosing a target journal and negotiating the follow‐up process; undertaking revisions; and our experiences of limitations and possibilities in peer review and editorial support. While the peer review journal writing process has played a significant role in supporting us to become more effective ECRs, we also highlight challenges we faced negotiating ethical quandaries in this space, as well as illustrate how our preconceptions of a simple publication journey were confounded by subsequent experience of the complex realities of the space. We also suggest that educational interventions are indicated to provide ECRs support in foundational knowledge about what constitutes valuable revisions, an effective paper, and the scope of issues that can be addressed to make a paper more effective, with reference to the possibility of academic mentoring to support this need. Finally, we explore our findings in light of the tensions imposed by the relative inexperience and lack of power yielded by ECRs.     

Scholarly book publishing practice: the ALPSP survey findings

In summer 2009 ALPSP undertook the first industry‐wide survey into scholarly book publishing practice. This article covers the key findings and attempts to describe the current scholarly book and e‐book publishing landscape. Publishers' development of e‐books varies considerably from early experimentation to being a standard component of their publishing programme. However, publishers of all shapes and sizes have developed some common policies and practices despite the rapid evolution of an emerging element of scholarly publishing. E‐books currently make up a small, if growing, proportion of total book sales, although they are currently one of the most talked about developments in the entire publishing industry.