Astrophysicists and physicists as creators of ArXiv-based commenting resources for their research communities. An initial survey

Information Services and Use

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 371-387

  Marra, Monica ^a  

^a INAF OSSERVATORIO ASTRONOMICO DI BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

2.0 interaction; ArXiv; astrophysics; peer review; physics; scholarly commenting; Scholarly communication

Indexed keywords

ASTROPHYSICS; PHYSICS;

2.0 INTERACTION; ARXIV; PEER REVIEW; SCHOLARLY COMMENTING; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

EID: 85040377989     PISSN: 01675265     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3233/ISU-170856     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. V. Aman, The potential of preprints to accelerate scholarly communication. A bibliometric analysis based on selected journals [Internet], Humboldt University of Berlin, 2013, available from: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.4856.pdf.
2. M. Baez, A. Birukou, R. Chenu, M. Medo, N. Osman, D. Ponte et al., State of the Art in Scientific Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, Evaluation and Maintenance [Internet], University of Trento, Trento, 2009,. available from: http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/1773/.
3. A. Birukou, J. Rushton Wakeling, C. Bartolini, F. Casati, M. Marchese, K. Mirylenka et al., Alternatives to peer review: Novel approaches for research evaluation., Front Comput Neurosci. 5 (56) (2011), 1-12.
4. F. Bocchino, J. Lopez-Santiago, F. Albacete-Colombo and N. Bucciantini, YouASTRO: A web-based bibliography management system with distributed comments and rating features for astrophysical ADS papers, in: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXI, 2012, pp. 889-892.
5. A. Boldt, Extending ArXiv.org in order to achieve open peer review and publishing., J Sch Publ. 42 (2) (2011), 238-242. doi: 10.3138/jsp.42.2.238.
6. J. Brown, An introduction to overlay journals [Internet], 2010, available from: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/19081/1/19081.pdf.
7. J. Cartwright, Fledgling site challenges arXiv server, PhysicsWorld 22 (7) (2009), available from: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/jul/15/fledgling-site-challenges-arxiv-server.
8. M. Cassella and L. Calvi, New journal models and publishing perspectives in the evolving digital environment., IFLA J. 36 (1) (2010), 1-12. doi: 10.1177/0340035209359559.
9. CIBER University College London, Social Media and Research Workflow, Emerald Group Publishing, London, 2010,. available from: http://ciber-research.eu/download/20101111-social-media-report.pdf.
10. P. Coles, A modest proposal-The open journal of astrophysics [blogpost on the Internet], 2012 [updated 2012 Jul 17; cited 2017 Nov 9], available from: http://telescoper.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/a-modest-proposal-the-open-journal-of-astrophysics/.
11. P. Coles, The Open Journal is Open for Submissions [blogpost on the Internet], 2015 [updated 2015 Dec 22; cited 2017 Nov 9], available from: https://telescoper.wordpress.com/2015/12/22/the-open-journal-is-open-for-submissions/.
12. P. Dall'Aglio, Peer-review and journal models [Internet], 2006, available from: arXiv:physics/0608307v1.
13. A. Delfanti, Beams of particles and papers: How digital preprint archives shape authorship and credit., Soc Stud Sci. 46 (4) (2016), 629-645. doi: 10.1177/0306312716659373.
14. A. Fresco-Santalla and T. Hernández-Pérez, Current and evolving models of peer review., Ser Libr. 67 (4) (2014), 373-398. doi: 10.1080/0361526X.2014.985415.
15. J. Fry, Scholarly research and information practices: A domain analytic approach., Inf Process Manag 42 (1) (2006), 299-316. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2004.09.004.
16. J. Fry and S. Talja, The intellectual and social organization of academic fields and the shaping of digital resources., J Inf Sci. 33 (2) (2007), 115-133. doi: 10.1177/0165551506068153.
17. S. Gass, Transforming scientific communication for the 21st century., Sci Technol Libr. 19 (3-4) (2001), 3-18. doi: 10.1300/J122v19n03-02.
18. A. Gentil-Beccot, S. Mele, A. Holtkamp, H.B. O'Connell and T.C. Brooks, Information resources in high-energy physics. Surveying the present landscape and charting the future course., J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 60 (1) (2009), 150-160. doi: 10.1002/asi.20944.
19. P.E. Gibbs, A good year for ViXra., Prespacetime Journal. 4 (1) (2013), 87-90.
20. E. Gibney, Open journals that piggyback on arXiv gather momentum., Nature 530 (7588) (2016), 117-118. doi: 10.1038/nature.2015.19102.
21. P. Ginsparg, After dinner remarks, 14 October'94, APS Meeting at LANL [Internet], 1994, available from: http://journals.aps.org/EPRINT.
22. P. Ginsparg, First steps towards electronic research communication., Computers in Physics 8 (4) (1994), 390-396. doi: 10.1063/1.4823313.
23. P. Ginsparg, Can peer review be better focused?, Sci Technol Libr. 22 (3-4) (2002), 5-17,. available from: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/∼ginsparg/physics/blurb/pg02pr.html. doi: 10.1300/J122v22n03-02.
24. P. Ginsparg, ArXiv at 20., Nature 476 (7359) (2011), 145-147. doi: 10.1038/476145a.
25. D. Harley, S.K. Acord, S. Earl-Novell, S. Lawrence and C.J. King, Chapter 3: Astrophysics case study, in: Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines, D. Harley, S.K. Acord, S. Earl-Novell, S. Lawrence and C.J. King, eds, UC Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education, Berkeley, 2010, pp. 138-206.
26. S. Haustein, T.D. Bowman, K. Holmberg, I. Peters and V. Larivière, Astrophysicists on Twitter: An in-depth analysis of tweeting and scientific publication behavior., Aslib J Inf Manag. 66 (3) (2014), 279-296. doi: 10.1108/AJIM-09-2013-0081.
27. S. Haustein, T.D. Bowman, B. Macaluso, C. Sugimoto and V. Larivière, Measuring Twitter activity of arXiv e-prints and published papers, in: Altmetrics14 an ACM Web Science Conference 2014 Workshop, Bloomington, Indiana, 2014, pp. 1-3. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1041514.
28. S.M. Hitchcock, Perspectives in electronic publishing: Experiments with a new electronic journal model [Internet], PhD thesis, University of Southampton, Electronics and Computer Science, 2002, available from: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/258233/2/prelims.pdf.
29. K. Holmberg, T.D. Bowman, S. Haustein and I. Peters, Astrophysicists' conversational connections on Twitter., PLOS One 9 (8) (2014), 1-13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106086.
30. R.J. Knegjens, Paperscape [Internet], 2014 [updated 2017 May 4; cited 2017 Nov 9], available from: http://robjk.net/paperscape.
31. B. Kramer and J. Bosman, 400+ Tools and innovations in scholarly communication [Internet], 2015, available from: http://bit.ly/innoscholcomm-list.
32. C. Lee, Open peer review by a selected-papers network., Front Comput Neurosci. 6 (1) (2012), 1-15.
33. M. Marra, Professional social networks among Italian astrophysicists. Prospective changes in validation and dissemination practices?, Inf Serv Use 35 (4) (2015), 243-249.
34. M. Marra, ArXiv-based commenting resources by and from astrophysicists and physicists: An initial survey, in: Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices (ElPub 2017), L. Chan and F. Loizides, eds, IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2017, pp. 100-117.
35. M. Moyle and A. Lewis, RIOJA (Repository Interface to Journal Archives), Final report [Internet], 2008, available from: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/12562/1/12562.pdf.
36. M. Nentwich and R. Koenig, Cyberscience 2.0. Research in the Age of Digital Social Networks, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt-am-Mein, 2012.
37. C. Neylon and S. Wu, Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact., PLoS Biol. 7 (11) (2009), Article ID e1000242. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000242.
38. M. Nielsen, Doing science in the open., Phys World. 22 (5) (2009), 30-35. doi: 10.1088/2058-7058/22/05/38.
39. M. Nielsen, The future of science [blogpost on the Internet], 2008 [updated 2008 Jul 17; cited 2017 Nov 9], available from: http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/the-future-of-science-2/.
40. T. O'Reilly, What is web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software [Internet], 2005, available from: http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.
41. P. Polydoratou and M. Moyle, Exploring overlay journals: The RIOJA project, in: OAI5 CERN Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication [Internet], Geneva, 2007,. available from: https://indico.cern.ch/event/5710/contributions/1212287/attachments/988173/1405151/Presentation-OAI5-Polydoratou.pdf.
42. P. Polydoratou and M. Moyle, Exploring aspects of scientific publishing in astrophysics and cosmology: The views of scientists, in: Metadata and Semantics Post-Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Metadata and Semantics Research, MTSR 2007, Corfu Island in Greece, 1-2 October 2007, M.-A. Sicilia and M.D. Lytras, eds, Springer, New York, 2008, pp. 179-190.
43. P. Polydoratou and M. Moyle, Scientific journals, overlays and repositories: A case study of costs and sustainability issues, in: Digital Libraries: Universal and Ubiquitous Access to Information, 11th International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries, ICADL 2008, G. Buchanan, M. Masoodian and S.J. Cunningham, eds, Springer, Berlin, 2008, pp. 154-163.
44. J. Priem and B.H. Hemminger, Decoupling the scholarly journal., Front Comput Neurosci. 6 (2012), 19. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00019.
45. R. Procter, R. Williams, J. Stuart, M. Poschen, A. Voss et al., If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0 [Internet], London, 2010, available from: http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/web-2.0-screen.pdf.
46. RIN (Research Information Network), Institute of Physics, Royal Astronomical Society, Collaborative yet independent: Information practices in the physical sciences [Internet], 2011, available from: http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing-information-resources/physical-sciences-case-studies-use-and-discovery.
47. O.Y. Rieger, J. Entwood, C. McLaren, S. Payette and G. Steinhart, arXiv Update-January 2017 [Internet], 2017, available from: https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/arxivpub/arXiv+Update+-+January+2017.
48. O.Y. Rieger, G. Steinhart and D. Cooper, ArXiv@25: Key findings of a user survey [Internet], 2016, available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.08212.
49. S. Ritson, Crackpots and active researchers: The controversy over links between arXiv and the scientific blogosphere., Soc Stud Sci. 46 (4) (2016), 607-628. doi: 10.1177/0306312716647508.
50. M.A. Rodriguez, J. Bollen and H. Van de Sompel, The convergence of digital-libraries and the peer-review process., J Inf Sci. 32 (2) (2006), 149-159. doi: 10.1177/0165551506062327.
51. I. Rowlands, D. Nicholas, B. Russell, N. Canty and A. Watkinson, Social media use in the research workflow., Learn Publ. 24 (3) (2011), 183-195. doi: 10.1087/20110306.
52. J.W.T. Smith, The deconstructed journal: A new model for academic publishing., Learn Publ. 12 (2) (1999), 79-91. doi: 10.1087/09531519950145896.
53. C. Sugimoto, S. Work, V. Larivière and S. Haustein, Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature., J Assoc Inform Sci Technol. 68 (9) (2017), 2037-2062. doi: 10.1002/asi.23833.
54. D. Taraborelli, Soft peer review: Social software and distributed scientific evaluation, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP'08), Carry-Le-Rouet, May 20-23, 2008, P. Hassanaly, A. Ramrajsingh, D. Randall, P. Salembier and M. Tixier, eds, Institut d'Etudes Politiques D'Aix-en-Provence, Aix-en-Provence, 2008, pp. 99-110.
55. J.P. Tennant, J.M. Dugan, D. Graziotin, D.C. Jacques, F. Waldner, D. Mietchen et al., A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review., F1000Research 6 (2017), Article ID 1151. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3.