1. 0 is the magic number: Why small numbers matter just as much as large ones when we talk about altmetrics.
The problem many detractors have with altmetrics as a concept is that it seems heavily focused on numbers that may or may not be meaningful. In his post in The Impact Blog, Andy Tattersall sees this as a legitimate concern but argues researchers should consider further what can be gained from these scores, or indeed, the lack of one.
The blog post says (quote): Whilst critics may be wary of gaming altmetrics scores, and rightly so, the number 0 tells us something potentially important. That either no one knows your research exists and are yet to discover it or that sadly no one is interested in it. Obviously we cannot say this for sure, as we are just talking about active participants on the web, whether that be a discussion forum, blog, news or social media. There are many academics not engaged on the social web who one day with the aid of a literature search or conference presentation will discover your work. At least with the altmetric score of 0 you can only go up, no one can get a negative altmetric score. So this means investigating who and where to share your research. The problem detractors have with altmetrics is that they are concerned we are focusing just on the numbers…………… (unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Bitcoin: A Solution to Publisher Authentication and Usage Accounting
The technology developed to create a crypto-currency may be used to solve two intractable problems in scholarly publishing: authenticating users and counting usage. In his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Phil Davis explores how the technology behind Bitcoin can be used to solve the intractable problems of authentication and usage accounting.
The blog post says (quote): One of the first principles of Bitcoin is that each and every transaction is a public and transparent transition. When Joe sends Alice some bitcoins, this transaction is broadcasted publicly and recorded in a public ledger. The ledger does not record the names “Joe” and “Alice” but includes each of their digital signatures, which are private, unique, and anonymous. Once recorded, this transaction is verified and validated by other public ledgers. The accuracy of these public transaction ledgers is maintained by other computers (called “miners”) that work out a computationally difficult problem in order to validate whether the transaction was real. In the Bitcoin system, miners are rewarded with new Bitcoins, so there is a financial incentive to devote computational bandwidth to maintaining the integrity of the accounting system…………… (unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Watching and Documenting An Evolving Scholarly Record
The publishing community itself is currently focused on building platforms, creating knowledge graphs from their assemblages of linked data and building a variety of software workflow options in support of the research process. At library conferences, one hears of collaborative processes between researchers and librarians as they build new tools or databases for purposes of investigation and inquiry. But we don’t hear as much discussion of what the scholarly record itself is becoming, notes Jill O'Neill, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The scholarly outputs represented in the image above are not new; they have always been part of scholarly practice, in one form or another. Until recently, many of them were for all intents and purposes inaccessible, if they were kept at all, forming a “shadow” scholarly record existing in personal file cabinets, desk drawers, (and more recently) laptops, flash drives, and private servers. But today, many of these same materials are now entering the “permanent” scholarly record, through systematic efforts to gather and curate them, as well as make them persistently reference-able, discoverable, and accessible. The result is a scholarly record that is a much deeper documentation of scholarly inquiry than anything we have seen in the past…………… (unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Physical books engage students more than e-books
As an English major, every start to a new semester entails a thorough analysis of the course syllabus. And so the conversation begins, “Professor, is it possible to purchase and use an e-book version of the text?” Over time, it has come to notice that most professors prefer for students to use printed versions of books because the “intellectual engagement is not the same” with an electronic version of a text, notes Gabrielle Garcia, in her post in the FIUSM Blog.
The blog post says (quote): As reported by the Huffington Post, several studies have shown that readers who engage with printed texts have a more extended attention span, are less likely to multitask while reading, have a better time falling asleep, and are more emotionally connected to what they read. Because e-books are accessible through electronic devices, multitasking is a much more prevalent temptation which significantly affects one’s engagement with a text. In regards to sleep deprivation, studies have shown how reading on electronic devices impacts the way people sleep due to light emitting from electronic devices and products…………… (unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply