Overhyped Fad or Missed Opportunity? A History of Academic Libraries and the Social Web

The emergence of social media has radically transformed the way we create and consume information. These changes have in turn given rise to new models of librarianship centered on principles of participation, interaction, and collaboration. Over the last decade, academic libraries have eagerly adopted social media as a means of enhancing services and connecting with a new generation of users. But how exactly has this technology changed libraries? In what ways has the social web transformed library services or our relationships with users? This article attempts to assess the impact of social media on academic libraries in the United States through a review of the literature published since 2005. In particular, it looks at how academic libraries have used social media to improve or develop new services. By comparing published case studies with the theoretical literature, this article seeks to separate theory from practice and determine the extent to which the social web has transformed library practice. The author concludes that, despite several noteworthy examples, the majority of social library applications ultimately fail to live up to the transformative potential promised within the literature and that this failure may have more to do with philosophical rather than technical limitations.     

Analysis of single comments left for bioRxiv preprints till September 2019

IntroductionWhile early commenting on studies is seen as one of the advantages of preprints, the type of such comments, and the people who post them, have not been systematically explored.Materials and methodsWe analysed comments posted between 21 May 2015 and 9 September 2019 for 1983 bioRxiv preprints that received only one comment on the bioRxiv website. The comment types were classified by three coders independently, with all differences resolved by consensus.ResultsOur analysis showed that 69% of comments were posted by non-authors (N = 1366), and 31% by the preprints’ authors themselves (N = 617). Twelve percent of non-author comments (N = 168) were full review reports traditionally found during journal review, while the rest most commonly contained praises (N = 577, 42%), suggestions (N = 399, 29%), or criticisms (N = 226, 17%). Authors’ comments most commonly contained publication status updates (N = 354, 57%), additional study information (N = 158, 26%), or solicited feedback for the preprints (N = 65, 11%).ConclusionsOur results indicate that comments posted for bioRxiv preprints may have potential benefits for both the public and the scholarly community. Further research is needed to measure the direct impact of these comments on comments made by journal peer reviewers, subsequent preprint versions or journal publications.