Group items tagged

another example from Columbia (Brown has several positions)

by Anna Gold

a variety of digital scholarship issues addressed, including reproducibility of escience (data + methods)

Implications of new federal directives for data sharing, privacy, compliance, access and good practices for libraries collaborating with researchers

Report on a survey of "38 individuals at four prominent U.S. research universities," reflecting how researchers choose "adequate" rather than "optimal" information solutions and "use online tools and commercial services related to their discipline rather than tools provided by their university." Concerns about long term data durability abound.

Excerpt: similarities and emerging differences between Generation Y and older students in six broad areas: * constraints on research; * ways of searching for research information; * research resources used; * using library collections and services; * using technology in research; * training and support to research. ...

JISC report explores assumptions about "Generation Y' and information-seeking behavior and facility with technology

A collection of accepted papers, some contributed slidedecks, and supplementary documents presented at IATUL 2010 are available at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul2010/.

PLoS initiated a program to provide a series of metrics on the individual articles published in all the PLoS Journals.

Abstract: The deluge of scientific research data has excited the general public, as well as the scientific community, with the possibilities for better understanding of scientific problems, from climate to culture. For data to be available, researchers must be willing and able to share them. The policies of governments, funding agencies, journals, and university tenure and promotion committees also influence how, when, and whether research data are shared. Data are complex objects. Their purposes and the methods by which they are produced vary widely across scientific fields, as do the criteria for sharing them. To address these challenges, it is necessary to examine the arguments for sharing data and how those arguments match the motivations and interests of the scientific community and the public. Four arguments are examined: to make the results of publicly funded data available to the public, to enable others to ask new questions of extant data, to advance the state of science, and to reproduce research. Libraries need to consider their role in the face of each of these arguments, and what expertise and systems they require for data curation.

from the eco4r project, features a review of "enhanced publications" in repositories, data standards for supporting the use of these publications, best practices and examples from Bielefeld University Library repositories

Formerly, the impact of authors and their scientific production was measured by the average citation frequencies of journals publishing their research: the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), calculated by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in the United States and published annually in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR)-the most frequently used quantitative indicator to measure the quality/value/impact of research works published in the core international journals. It has been suggested that, by calculating the number of webpages pointing to a given site, analogously, a Web Impact Factor can be calculated as a way of comparing the attractiveness of sites or domains on the World Wide Web.

"releasing some or all of a library's catalogue records for open use and re-use by others. " 17 cases shown

"Future Professional Communication in Astronomy II"