Persuasion GO: An activity for increasing students’ awareness of approaches to social influence

Courses: Persuasion, Compliance Gaining

Objectives: In this single-class activity, based loosely on the video-game sensation Pokémon GO, students learn about, enact, and “capture” a variety of compliance-gaining tactics. Along the way, they gain awareness of various approaches to persuasion, the implications of using such approaches, habitual persuasion, and the goals-plans-action model.     

Are new approaches needed for developing long‐term strategies for STEM information?

Key points

• Trends point to increased democratization within STEM, driven by open access, Internet delivery, and digital natives.
• The current journal publishing system does not meet the needs of researchers who want timely access to the latest results.
• Demographic and sociological changes are likely to undermine the inherent conservatism of STEM.
• Traditional STEM systems ignore the latent market of knowledge workers, but new information services do not.
• Radical approaches to STEM are required if we are to respond to the ‘perfect storm’ of changing needs and expectations.

     

Theoretical approaches to defining the concept of the “perception of the meaning of information”

This paper sets the problem of development of information culture and advances the hypothesis about understanding of the meaning of information as its basis. Five ideas related to the problems of the paper are distinguished in the theory of understanding. The paper describes the concept of adequate and inadequate understanding the meaning of information and develops the criteria of understanding the meaning of information. The concept of the “understanding of the meaning of information” is defined.     

“We want to do more,but…”: New Jersey public library approaches to misinformation

External disciplinary fields and popular discourse have called upon libraries to explain and address the phenomena related to the prevalence of false and misleading information. The authors provide a critique of this call based in primary research on public libraries in the state of New Jersey during the COVID-19 pandemic. To compliment reviews of public library websites across the state of New Jersey for listed tactics to address misinformation, library staff were surveyed and interviewed on strategies they employ to stem the tide of misinformation and what they might need to work more effectively in the context. The findings reveal tactics employed by the libraries, ranging from active to passive interventions, and literacy-driven to topic-driven tactics, as well as what library staff articulated as impediments to their ability to address misinformation, including the lack of resources, the perception that the library should be a neutral arbiter in these discussions, and that they are “speaking to the choir” with their efforts. The findings can be useful in evaluating existing methods of addressing misinformation within public libraries and developing new tactics and partnerships that can be leveraged to achieve these goals.     

What is next for information world mapping? International and multidisciplinary approaches to understanding information behaviors/practices in context

As the use of arts-involved and data visualization methods increases in information science, it is essential to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of various methods. An international lineup of information researchers shares their experiences using the participatory, visual elicitation technique Information World Mapping (IWM) in their work. The authors begin with an overview of IWM, detailing its origins and emerging directions. They summarize their application of IWM to describe information behaviors/practices across various locations, cultures, disciplines, and technology access environments. The authors conclude by discussing key questions and areas of exploration for IWM in information research, including cultural influences, changes in media and methods for data collection, power dynamics, and researcher positionality and reflexivity. Insights offer new possibilities for the next phase of IWM in information research, including challenges and areas for innovation.     

Scores of a specific field-normalized indicator calculated with different approaches of field-categorization: Are the scores different or similar?

Usage of field-normalized citation scores is a bibliometric standard. Different methods for field-normalization are in use, but also the choice of field-classification system determines the resulting field-normalized citation scores. Using Web of Science data, we calculated field-normalized citation scores using the same formula but different field-classification systems to answer the question if the resulting scores are different or similar. Six field-classification systems were used: three based on citation relations, one on semantic similarity scores (i.e., a topical relatedness measure), one on journal sets, and one on intellectual classifications. Systems based on journal sets and intellectual classifications agree on at least the moderate level. Two out of the three sets based on citation relations also agree on at least the moderate level. Larger differences were observed for the third data set based on citation relations and semantic similarity scores. The main policy implication is that normalized citation impact scores or rankings based on them should not be compared without deeper knowledge of the classification systems that were used to derive these values or rankings.     

Understanding the context of records creation and use: ‘Hard’ versus ‘soft’ approaches to records management

Current records management methodologies and practices suffer from an inadequate understanding of the ‘human activity systems’ where records managers operate as ‘mediators’ between a number of complex and interacting factors. Although the records management and archival literature recognizes that managing the active life of the records is fundamental to their survival as meaningful evidence of activities, the context where the records are made, captured, used, and selectively retained is not explored in depth. In particular, the various standards, models, and functional requirement lists, which occupy a vast portion of that literature, especially in relation to electronic records, do not seem to be capable of framing records-related ‘problems’ in ways that account for their dynamic and multiform nature. This paper introduces the idea that alternative, ‘softer’ approaches to the analysis of organizational functions, structures, agents, and artifacts may usefully complement the ‘hard’, engineering-like approaches typically drawn on by information and records specialists. Three interrelated theoretical and methodological frameworks—namely, Soft Systems Methodology, Adaptive Structuration Theory, and Genre Theory—are discussed, with the purpose of highlighting their contributions to our understanding of the records context.     

Searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to inform systematic reviews: what are the optimal search approaches?

Background:

Since 2005, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) member journals have required that clinical trials be registered in publicly available trials registers before they are considered for publication.

Objectives:

The research explores whether it is adequate, when searching to inform systematic reviews, to search for relevant clinical trials using only public trials registers and to identify the optimal search approaches in trials registers.

Methods:

A search was conducted in ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for research studies that had been included in eight systematic reviews. Four search approaches (highly sensitive, sensitive, precise, and highly precise) were performed using the basic and advanced interfaces in both resources.

Results:

On average, 84% of studies were not listed in either resource. The largest number of included studies was retrieved in ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP when a sensitive search approach was used in the basic interface. The use of the advanced interface maintained or improved sensitivity in 16 of 19 strategies for Clinicaltrials.gov and 8 of 18 for ICTRP. No single search approach was sensitive enough to identify all studies included in the 6 reviews.

Conclusions:

Trials registers cannot yet be relied upon as the sole means to locate trials for systematic reviews. Trials registers lag behind the major bibliographic databases in terms of their search interfaces.

Implications:

For systematic reviews, trials registers and major bibliographic databases should be searched. Trials registers should be searched using sensitive approaches, and both the registers consulted in this study should be searched.Clinical trials registers such as ClinicalTrials.gov and portals to trials registers such as the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) are increasingly used to identify ongoing or completed clinical trials. These resources offer important information on the methods and progress of trials likely to be of interest to a range of users, including researchers, clinicians, and patients. The extent to which these resources can be relied upon as a sole source of trials for inclusion in systematic reviews, including Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs), is the subject of the research study reported here. This study also investigates the most efficient ways that librarians, information professionals, and other searchers can search these resources. Search efficiency was investigated by evaluating the overlap and unique yield of searches in the two resources and by testing four search approaches. The tested search approaches ranged from the very precise (single specific condition search term combined with a single specific intervention search term) to the very sensitive (at least two interventions terms).     

Which are the best performing regions in information science in terms of highly cited papers? Some improvements of our previous mapping approaches

Bornmann and Leydesdorff (2011) proposed methods based on Web of Science data to identify field-specific excellence in cities where highly cited papers were published more frequently than can be expected. Top performers in output are cities in which authors are located who publish a number of highly cited papers that is statistically significantly higher than can be expected for these cities. Using papers published between 1989 and 2009 in information science improvements to the methods of Bornmann and Leydesdorff (2011) are presented and an alternative mapping approach based on the Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) is introduced here. The I3 indicator was developed by Leydesdorff and Bornmann (2011b).     

Which percentile-based approach should be preferred for calculating normalized citation impact values? An empirical comparison of five approaches including a newly developed citation-rank approach (P100)

For comparisons of citation impacts across fields and over time, bibliometricians normalize the observed citation counts with reference to an expected citation value. Percentile-based approaches have been proposed as a non-parametric alternative to parametric central-tendency statistics. Percentiles are based on an ordered set of citation counts in a reference set, whereby the fraction of papers at or below the citation counts of a focal paper is used as an indicator for its relative citation impact in the set. In this study, we pursue two related objectives: (1) although different percentile-based approaches have been developed, an approach is hitherto missing that satisfies a number of criteria such as scaling of the percentile ranks from zero (all other papers perform better) to 100 (all other papers perform worse), and solving the problem with tied citation ranks unambiguously. We introduce a new citation-rank approach having these properties, namely P100; (2) we compare the reliability of P100 empirically with other percentile-based approaches, such as the approaches developed by the SCImago group, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), and Thomson Reuters (InCites), using all papers published in 1980 in Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WoS). How accurately can the different approaches predict the long-term citation impact in 2010 (in year 31) using citation impact measured in previous time windows (years 1–30)? The comparison of the approaches shows that the method used by InCites overestimates citation impact (because of using the highest percentile rank when papers are assigned to more than a single subject category) whereas the SCImago indicator shows higher power in predicting the long-term citation impact on the basis of citation rates in early years. Since the results show a disadvantage in this predictive ability for P100 against the other approaches, there is still room for further improvements.