1. Writing Support Across Global Research Communities: A Case Study for Public Health
AuthorAID, a project of INSAP, through its platform services and community, is offering researchers a means of making global connections. These opportunities to identify and support collaborations, potential funding sources, and grant writing and publishing, can bolster the production and circulation of research findings from low and middle income regions, notes Karin Wulf, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The PREPSS project thus recognises that, while there are many resource challenges facing Health researchers, a key one is writing support. Currently, PREPSS has basic information for authors on its website, including, for example, general advice from resources such as AuthorAID, guidance on choosing an appropriate journal (and avoiding predatory publishers) and using thinkchecksubmit, and how to understand and avoid plagiarism. More than 50 Peer Reviewers and English language copyeditors have been enlisted, and more of the former, from among Michigan's doctoral students in Health-related fields, are being trained to provide constructive, targeted feedback.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. New scales can be used to measure the short-term impact of public engagement on scientists
Most evaluations of public engagement work focus on the impacts on the public participants. But what about the benefits of public outreach on the scientists themselves? Karen Peterman, Elana Kimbrell, Emily Cloyd, Jane Roberston Evia and John Besley, in their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, have created new scales to document the mutual exchange of ideas that is central to the public engagement approach, and the influence of this approach on scientists.
The blog post says (quote): The scales were developed with the hope they will be used in evaluations and research that will contribute to the growing understanding of public engagement with science. The self-efficacy scale, for example, can be used as either a reflection tool or as a tool to collect data across time to document changes in scientists' self-efficacy that would be expected to result from science communication training programmes. Though the published validation work did not include use of the scale before and after a science communication intervention, additional pilot work has indicated that the scale is sensitive enough to detect change in self-efficacy over a year-long training intervention. The outcome expectations scale might be used to understand the factors that contribute to scientists’ continued participation in public engagement activities..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. 4 Keys to Modern Knowledge Engineering
The goal of knowledge engineering is to be able to take data that has been integrated and evaluated, and ultimately turn the insights from this mass of information into knowledge. But where do we begin, and what tools do we need to start? Robin Bramley, in his post in the CCC Blog, discusses four keys to modern knowledge engineering.
The blog post says (quote): Machine learning processes can be effectively integrated into knowledge engineering pipelines using commonly available software frameworks that incorporate the mathematics and algorithms needed to perform deeper analysis than was possible before. Machine learning approaches fall into two broad classes: supervised learning and unsupervised learning. The supervised algorithms are given labelled training data, whereas unsupervised learning algorithms find structure within the input data. The construction of a knowledge engineering pipeline will typically need to leverage algorithms from both classes........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Universities must present a united front against rising journal costs, say research librarians
For years, academic libraries have struggled to keep up with the rising costs of journal subscriptions set by a few large, international publishers. Anqi Shen, in her post in the University Affairs Blog, discusses a proposal from the Canadian Association of Research Libraries suggesting that institutions renegotiate unsustainable deals with journal publishers and transition toward open access.
The blog post says (quote): Another component of rising journal costs can be traced to the 1990s, when journal publishers began bundling individual journal subscriptions into so-called "big deal" subscription packages that offer unlimited access to many journals at an all-in price. However, these deals have created problems for academic libraries because they increase in size and cost with every new negotiation period, and divert funds from other resources. Libraries become locked-in because publishers will offer them a much smaller number of titles for only slightly less than the entire package, making it very difficult for them to reduce their spending.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply