Scholarly Communication 2.0: Exploring Researchers' Opinions on Web 2.0 for Scientific Knowledge Creation, Evaluation and Dissemination

Serials Review

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 149-156

  Ponte, Diego ^a   Simon, Judith ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

^b INSTITUT JEAN NICOD   (France)

Author keywords

Scholarly communication sector; Scientific knowledge; Web 2.0

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053099416     PISSN: 00987913     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.serrev.2011.06.002     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Bakkalbasi N., Bauer K., Glover J., Wang L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. BMC Biomedical Digital Libraries 2006, 3:7. Available at:. http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/3/1/7.
2. Bergman S.S. The scholarly communication movement: highlights and recent developments. Collection Building 2006, 24:108-128.
3. Björk B.C. A model of scientific communication as a global distributed information system. Information Research 2007, 12. Available at:. http://InformationR.net/ir/12-2/paper307.html.
4. Bukvova H. Studying research collaboration: a literature review. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems 2010, 10. Available at:. http://sprouts.aisnet.org/10-3.
5. Burgelman J.C., Osimo D., Bogdanowicz M. Science 2.0 (change will happen?.). First Monday 2010, 15. Available at:. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2961.
6. Camussone P.F., Cuel R., Ponte D. Internet and innovative knowledge evaluation processes: new directions for scientific creativity?. Information Technology and Innovation Trends in Organizations 2011, Physica Verlag, Heidelberg. A. D'Atri, M. Ferrara, J.F. George, P. Spagnoletti (Eds.).
7. Campbell G., Poppalardo P. Looking ahead to the next 75 years for The Journal of Pediatrics and Medical Publishing. The Journal of Pediatrics 2010, 155:6-7.
8. Casati R., Origgi G., Simon J. Microcredit and scientific publishing. Journal of Documentation 2011.
9. Chesbrough H. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology 2003, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
10. Delamothe T. "Author pays" may be the new science publishing model. British Medical Journal 2003, 326:182.
11. Dewatripont M., Ginsburgh V., Legros P., Walckiers A., Devroey J.-P., Dujardin M., Vandooren F., Dubois P., Foncel J., Ivaldi M., Heusse M.-D. Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets in Europe 2006, European Commission Directorate General for Research, Brussels, Available at:. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf.
12. Ebner M., Maurer H. Can weblogs and microblogs change traditional scientific writing?. Future Internet 2009, 1:47-58.
13. User-generated science. Web 2.0 tools are beginning to change the shape of scientific debate. The Economist 2008, 388(8598):85. Economist (The), Available at:. http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12253189&fsrc=rss.
14. Enserink M. European Union steps back from open-access leap. Science 2007, 315:1065.
15. Gibson I. Scientific publications: free for all?. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Tenth Report of Session 2003-04, 20 July 2004, Available at:. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399.pdf.
16. Giles J. Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head. Nature 2005, 438:900-901.
17. Guédon J.C. Oldenburg's Long Shadow: Librarians, Research Scientists, Publishers, and the Control of Scientific Publishing, Association of Research Libraries Membership Meeting "Creating the Digital Future" 2001, Available at:. http://www.arl.org/arl/proceedings/138/guedon.
18. Guédon J.C. The green and gold roads to Open Access: the case of mixing and matching. Serials Review 2004, 30:315-328.
19. Grosseck G. To use or not to use Web 2.0 in higher education?. Procedia 2009, 1:478-482.
20. Harley D., Krzys Acord S., Earl-Novell S., Lawrence S., Judson King C. Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines 2010, Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley.
21. Hendriks P. STM publishing in the changing world. SIIA Global Information Industry Summit 2007, Available at:. http://www.siia.net/giis/2007/ppt/hendricks.pdf.
22. Houghton J. Digital Broadband Content: Scientific Publishing. Directorate For Science, Technology and Industry, OECD Available at:. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/12/35393145.pdf.
23. Houghton J., Rasmussen B., Sheehan P., Oppenheim C., Morris A., Creaser C., Greenwood H., Summers M., Gourlay A. Economic implications of alternative scholarly publishing models: exploring the costs and benefits. A Report to the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) 2009, Available at:. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/rpteconomicoapublishing.pdf.
24. Huang S.T., Kamel Boulos M.N., Dellavalle R.P. Scientific discourse 2.0. Will your next poster session be in Second Life®?. MBO Reports 2008, 9:496-499. 10.1038/embor.2008.86.
25. Kalb H., Bukvova H., Schoop E. The digital researcher: exploring the use of social software in the research process. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems 2009, 9. Available at:. http://sprouts.aisnet.org/9-34.
26. Kennan M.A. The economic implications of alternative publishing models: views from a non-economist. Prometheus 2010, 28:85-89.
27. Kingsley D. The journal is dead, long live the journal. On the Horizon 2007, 15:211-221. October.
28. Jankowski N.W. Exploring e-Science: an introduction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2007, 12:549-562. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00337.x.
29. Lawrence P.A. The politics of publication. Nature 2003, 422:259-261.
30. Lyon L. Open Science at Web-scale: optimising participation and predictive potential consultative report. DCC Report commissioned by JISC 2009, Available at:. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/research/2009/open-sciencereport-6nov09-final-sentojisc.pdf.
31. Madras G. Scientific publishing: rising cost of monopolies. Current Science 2008, 95:163-164.
32. Mahapatra A. Researchers in a brave new Web 2.0 world. ACS Chemical Biology 2010, 5:799-800.
33. McAfee A. Enterprise 2.0: the dawn of emergent collaboration. MIT Sloan Management Review 2006, 47:21-28.
34. Milmo D. Publishers watch in fear as a new world comes into view. The Guardian 2006, (April 19). Available at:. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/apr/19/news.science1.
35. Nature Peer review and fraud. Nature 2006, 444:971-972. (21 December). 10.1038/444971b.
36. Neylon C., Wu S. Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biology 2009, 7:e1000242. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000242.
37. O'Reilly T. What Is Web 2.0 Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software? Available at:. http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.
38. Pinfield S., Hubbard B. Evidence on Scientific Publications for the Science and Technology 2004, Committee of the UK Parliament from the SHERPA Project.
39. Priem J., Hemminger B.H. Scientometrics 2.0: new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday 2010, 15:7.
40. Procter R., Williams R., Stewart J., Poschen M., Snee H., Voss A., Asgari-Targhi M. Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 2010, 368:4039-4056. 10.1098/rsta.2010.0155.
41. Regazzi J.J., Aytac S. Author perceptions of journal quality. Learned Publishing 2008, 21:225-235.
42. RIN, UK Research Information Network Activities, Costs and Funding Flows in the Scholarly Communication System in the UK 2008, May.
43. RIN If You Build It, Will They Come? How Researchers Perceive and Use Web 2.0 2010, Research Information Network, London, Available at:. http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/use-and-relevance-web-20-researchers.
44. Roosendaal H.E., Huibers T.W.C., Geurts P.A.M., van der Vet P.E. Changes in the value chain of scientific information: economic consequences for academic institutions. Online Information Review 2003, 27:120-128.
45. Rowlands I., Nicholas D., Huntington P. Scholarly Communication in the Digital Environment: What Do Authors Want? Findings of an International Survey of Author Opinion 2004, City University, Department of Information Science, Centre for Information Behaviour, London.
46. Smith V.S., Duin D., Self D., Brake I., Roberts D. Motivating online publication of scholarly research through social networking tools. Workshop Proceedings of 9th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems - COOP 2010, Aix-en-Provence, France 2010, (May 2010).
47. Söldner J.H., Haller J., Bullinger A.C., Möslein K.M. Supporting research collaboration - on the needs of virtual research teams. Internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik 2009, 1. H.R. Hansen, D. Karagiannis, H.G. Fill (Eds.).
48. Stein L. Towards a cyberinfrastructure for the biological sciences: progress, visions and challenges. Nature Reviews Genetics 2008, 9:678. 10.1038/nrg2414.
49. STM An overview of scientific, technical and medical publishing and the value it adds to research outputs. Position Paper on Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishing 2008, International Association of STM Publishers, (April 2008). Available at:. http://www.stm-assoc.org/documents-statements-public-co/2008-04%20Overview%20of%20STM%20Publishing%20%20Value%20to%20Research.pdf.
50. VV.AA Academic Publishing in Europe, Quality and Publishing, Information Services and Use 2008, 1875-8789. IOS Press, 28.
51. Ware M., Mabe M. The STM Report: An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Journals Publishing 2009, International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, Oxford, UK, Available at: URL:. http://www.stm-assoc.org/2009_10_13_MWC_STM_Report.pdf.
52. Wakeling J.R., Medo M., Turrini M., Birukou A., Law J., Marchese M., Zhang Y.C. Analysis of reviews and modelling of reviewer behaviour and peer review. LiquidPub D1.1 State of the Art 2009, Available at:. https://dev.liquidpub.org/svn/liquidpub/papers/deliverables/LP_D1.1.pdf.
53. Whitworth B., Friedman R. Reinventing academic publishing online. Part I: rigor, relevance and practice. First Monday 2009, 14.
54. Whitworth B., Friedman R. Reinventing academic publishing online. Part II: a socio-technical vision. First Monday 2009, 14.