1. How Wrong Is Greta Van Susteren about Libraries?
Is Greta Van Susteren right in taking universities to task for building "huge libraries" and in characterizing them as "vanity projects" that have been obviated by the growing online availability of books and other scholarly resources? Obviously not - that's the position of an ignorant philistine, says Rick Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): So is Van Susteren right after all? Has the online revolution of the past two decades turned large new library buildings into nothing more than campus trophies designed to invoke awe and respect in the minds of parents and donors while quietly fleecing students with new campus fees? And do the goals of the OA movement in particular, should they be realized, promise to obviate the library building to a substantial degree? The author thinks Van Susteren's fundamental mistake - the one that most clearly exposes her lack of understanding about what's currently happening in higher education - lies in her apparent assumption that these "huge buildings" are being built with the expectation that they'll house large collections of commodity books. In fact, academic libraries are giving decreasing amounts of space to collections, and increasing amounts of it over to work and social spaces..……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. By engaging with the media academics can enjoy benefits to their research
Amidst near-constant research and publication pressures, academics can sometimes shy away from public engagement activities. However, those who do so may be overlooking the potential benefits of such outreach. In his post in The Impact Blog, Iain Begg explains how media work in particular can help infuse research with relevance, offer a fresh perspective and reach new audiences.
The blog post says (quote): Funding bodies have become increasingly insistent on closer engagement between academics and potential users of the research they produce, yet many researchers regard these demands as, at best, a distraction. They may dutifully complete the boxes on application forms about impact or dissemination plans, but secretly hope that they will be able to avoid them, leaving more time to do the research and publish in good journals. But does this stance overlook potential benefits and, if so, how can the effort needed to reach out to the media, in particular, be used to advantage?.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Is Publication Success a Matter of Dumb Luck?
Researchers may publish their best work at any point in their careers, a new study reports. This is not the same as success being the result of random forces or just plain "dumb luck," explains Phil Davis, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): In many quantitative fields, random can describe a relationship that has no predictive power, in this case, being unable to predict when a researcher publishes her most cited paper. It can also be used to describe the residual error that cannot be explained by a statistical model. Here, randomness simply means that a researcher is not capturing the variables that are known to predict a certain outcome. It does not mean that the process behind the observations is random. In the process of writing a manuscript, an author does not spin a wheel, roll dice, or flip a coin to select references. While there are many reasons why an author may cite one paper over another (paper A is already highly cited, written by a well-respected scientists, or published in a prestigious journal), randomness is not one of them. The inability to predict which papers will become highly cited is not part of the structure of science but a failure of the predictive model. Success is not up to dumb luck.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Do scientists and members of the public engage with research differently on social media?
It can feel like the divide between scientists and the public is becoming increasingly partisan, with the media portraying scientists as out of touch and the public as reluctant to engage with research. In her post in the Altmetric Blog, Cat Williams looks at how scientists and members of the public interact with research on social media. Do the public tweet about science? Do the public and scientists tweet about different articles? And if so, which topics do each find more important?
The blog post says (quote): Professionals tweet more about a variety of things, with the main focus being genetics, as well as diet and health, and topics related to science and aimed at scientists. Meanwhile, the public have a clear favourite topic. Ten of the top twenty articles most tweeted about by members of the public compared to professionals are about radiation and the dangers of nuclear power, and other topics of interest include mental health and wellbeing. Some of the focus on the Fukushima disaster comes from Japanese people who may be directly or indirectly affected, but those accounts don't create this effect alone; the interest in radiation is global, and this isn't balanced out by people tweeting about research relating to other disasters.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply