Academic Social Networks and Open Access: French Researchers at the Crossroads

Christine Okret-Manville
{"title":"Academic Social Networks and Open Access: French Researchers at the Crossroads","authors":"Christine Okret-Manville","doi":"10.18352/LQ.10131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Researchers benefit from an increasing array of tools to enhance direct communication and the dissemination of their research findings. These include Open Access repositories, Open Access journals, or hybrid publishing. For some years, researchers have been using new ways to communicate and share their work by using academic social networks. \n \nIn an attempt to foster the development of Open Access in France, the French consortium COUPERIN (Unified Consortium of Higher Education and Research Organizations for Access to Numerical Publications) proposed that academic social networks could be used to convince researchers of becoming more involved in Open Access. To test this hypothesis, a nationwide survey was launched in 2014 to explore whether and how these academic social networks are used to share content, but also how they compare to other Open Access classic tools. Within a month (20 May to 20 June), 1,898 researchers answered this 28-question survey. It was fully completed by 1,698 of them. This provides COUPERIN with considerable data for analysis. The respondents roughly reflect the composition of the French academic community in terms of gender and research fields, with a slight overrepresentation of young researchers/ PhD candidates. \n \nThis survey does not, however, cover the in-depth opinions of researchers on Open Access and academic social networks. It therefore only presents general tendencies. Nonetheless, the survey gives many indications as to how researchers apply Open Access. In addition, it shows how they feel about the usefulness of these networks compared to repositories when efficiently disseminating their work. This survey also takes the differences between disciplines into account and characterizes behaviour and opinions according to the different disciplinary communities and their research practices. \n \nFinally, this survey allows us to define the main characteristics of a tool which could meet French researchers’ needs for scientific communication. The components of such an ideal tool dedicated to Open Science could include efficient repositories to easily disseminate work and improve visibility, a sharing network and the scientific stamp of peer-review.","PeriodicalId":357594,"journal":{"name":"The Liber Quarterly","volume":"86 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Liber Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18352/LQ.10131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Researchers benefit from an increasing array of tools to enhance direct communication and the dissemination of their research findings. These include Open Access repositories, Open Access journals, or hybrid publishing. For some years, researchers have been using new ways to communicate and share their work by using academic social networks. In an attempt to foster the development of Open Access in France, the French consortium COUPERIN (Unified Consortium of Higher Education and Research Organizations for Access to Numerical Publications) proposed that academic social networks could be used to convince researchers of becoming more involved in Open Access. To test this hypothesis, a nationwide survey was launched in 2014 to explore whether and how these academic social networks are used to share content, but also how they compare to other Open Access classic tools. Within a month (20 May to 20 June), 1,898 researchers answered this 28-question survey. It was fully completed by 1,698 of them. This provides COUPERIN with considerable data for analysis. The respondents roughly reflect the composition of the French academic community in terms of gender and research fields, with a slight overrepresentation of young researchers/ PhD candidates. This survey does not, however, cover the in-depth opinions of researchers on Open Access and academic social networks. It therefore only presents general tendencies. Nonetheless, the survey gives many indications as to how researchers apply Open Access. In addition, it shows how they feel about the usefulness of these networks compared to repositories when efficiently disseminating their work. This survey also takes the differences between disciplines into account and characterizes behaviour and opinions according to the different disciplinary communities and their research practices. Finally, this survey allows us to define the main characteristics of a tool which could meet French researchers’ needs for scientific communication. The components of such an ideal tool dedicated to Open Science could include efficient repositories to easily disseminate work and improve visibility, a sharing network and the scientific stamp of peer-review.
学术社交网络和开放获取:十字路口的法国研究人员
研究人员受益于越来越多的工具来加强直接沟通和传播他们的研究成果。这些包括开放存取存储库、开放存取期刊或混合出版。多年来,研究人员一直在使用新的方式通过学术社交网络进行交流和分享他们的工作。为了在法国促进开放获取的发展,法国联盟COUPERIN(高等教育和研究机构获取数字出版物的统一联盟)提出,学术社交网络可以用来说服研究人员更多地参与开放获取。为了验证这一假设,2014年发起了一项全国性的调查,以探索这些学术社交网络是否以及如何被用来分享内容,以及它们与其他开放获取经典工具的比较。在一个月内(5月20日至6月20日),1,898名研究人员回答了这项包含28个问题的调查。其中1698人全部完成。这为COUPERIN提供了大量可供分析的数据。受访者大致反映了法国学术界在性别和研究领域方面的构成,年轻研究人员/博士候选人的比例略高。然而,这项调查并没有涵盖研究人员对开放获取和学术社交网络的深入意见。因此,它只表示一般的趋势。尽管如此,该调查给出了许多关于研究人员如何应用开放获取的迹象。此外,它还显示了在有效地传播他们的工作时,与存储库相比,他们对这些网络的有用性的看法。这项调查还考虑到学科之间的差异,并根据不同的学科社区和他们的研究实践来描述行为和观点。最后,这项调查使我们能够定义一个工具的主要特征,它可以满足法国研究人员对科学交流的需求。这样一个致力于开放科学的理想工具的组成部分可能包括有效的知识库,可以轻松地传播工作并提高可见性,共享网络和同行评审的科学印记。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信