衡量PID素养的概念:用户对PID的感知和理解,以支持开放的学术基础设施

Q2 Social Sciences
G. Macgregor, Bárbara S. Lancho-Barrantes, D. Pennington
{"title":"衡量PID素养的概念:用户对PID的感知和理解,以支持开放的学术基础设施","authors":"G. Macgregor, Bárbara S. Lancho-Barrantes, D. Pennington","doi":"10.1515/opis-2022-0142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The increasing centrality of persistent identifiers (PIDs) to scholarly ecosystems and the contribution they can make to the burgeoning “PID graph” has the potential to transform scholarship. Despite their importance as originators of PID data, little is known about researchers’ awareness and understanding of PIDs, or their efficacy in using them. In this article, we report on the results of an online interactive test designed to elicit exploratory data about researcher awareness and understanding of PIDs. This instrument was designed to explore recognition of PIDs (e.g. Digital Object Identifiers [DOIs], Open Researcher and Contributor IDs [ORCIDs], etc.) and the extent to which researchers correctly apply PIDs within digital scholarly ecosystems, as well as measure researchers’ perceptions of PIDs. Our results reveal irregular patterns of PID understanding and certainty across all participants, though statistically significant disciplinary and academic job role differences were observed in some instances. Uncertainty and confusion were found to exist in relation to dominant schemes such as ORCID and DOIs, even when contextualized within real-world examples. We also show researchers’ perceptions of PIDs to be generally positive but that disciplinary differences can be noted, as well as higher levels of aversion to PIDs in specific use cases and negative perceptions where PIDs are measured on an “activity” semantic dimension. This work therefore contributes to our understanding of scholars’ “PID literacy” and should inform those designing PID-centric scholarly infrastructures that a significant need for training and outreach to active researchers remains necessary.","PeriodicalId":32626,"journal":{"name":"Open Information Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring the Concept of PID Literacy: User Perceptions and Understanding of PIDs in Support of Open Scholarly Infrastructure\",\"authors\":\"G. Macgregor, Bárbara S. Lancho-Barrantes, D. Pennington\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/opis-2022-0142\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The increasing centrality of persistent identifiers (PIDs) to scholarly ecosystems and the contribution they can make to the burgeoning “PID graph” has the potential to transform scholarship. Despite their importance as originators of PID data, little is known about researchers’ awareness and understanding of PIDs, or their efficacy in using them. In this article, we report on the results of an online interactive test designed to elicit exploratory data about researcher awareness and understanding of PIDs. This instrument was designed to explore recognition of PIDs (e.g. Digital Object Identifiers [DOIs], Open Researcher and Contributor IDs [ORCIDs], etc.) and the extent to which researchers correctly apply PIDs within digital scholarly ecosystems, as well as measure researchers’ perceptions of PIDs. Our results reveal irregular patterns of PID understanding and certainty across all participants, though statistically significant disciplinary and academic job role differences were observed in some instances. Uncertainty and confusion were found to exist in relation to dominant schemes such as ORCID and DOIs, even when contextualized within real-world examples. We also show researchers’ perceptions of PIDs to be generally positive but that disciplinary differences can be noted, as well as higher levels of aversion to PIDs in specific use cases and negative perceptions where PIDs are measured on an “activity” semantic dimension. This work therefore contributes to our understanding of scholars’ “PID literacy” and should inform those designing PID-centric scholarly infrastructures that a significant need for training and outreach to active researchers remains necessary.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32626,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Information Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Information Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2022-0142\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Information Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2022-0142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要持久标识符(PID)在学术生态系统中的中心地位不断提高,以及它们对新兴的“PID图”的贡献,有可能改变学术。尽管它们作为PID数据的发起者很重要,但研究人员对PID的认识和理解,或其使用效果知之甚少。在这篇文章中,我们报告了一项在线互动测试的结果,该测试旨在引出有关研究人员对PID的认识和理解的探索性数据。该工具旨在探索PID的识别(例如,数字对象标识符[DOIs]、开放研究人员和参与者ID[ORCIDs]等),以及研究人员在数字学术生态系统中正确应用PID的程度,并测量研究人员对PID的感知。我们的研究结果揭示了所有参与者PID理解和确定性的不规则模式,尽管在某些情况下观察到了统计学上显著的学科和学术工作角色差异。研究发现,在ORCID和DOI等主流方案中存在不确定性和混乱,即使在现实世界的例子中也是如此。我们还表明,研究人员对PID的感知通常是积极的,但可以注意到学科差异,以及在特定用例中对PID的厌恶程度更高,以及对PID基于“活动”语义维度测量的负面感知。因此,这项工作有助于我们理解学者的“PID素养”,并应告知那些设计以PID为中心的学术基础设施的人,仍然需要对活跃的研究人员进行培训和推广。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Measuring the Concept of PID Literacy: User Perceptions and Understanding of PIDs in Support of Open Scholarly Infrastructure
Abstract The increasing centrality of persistent identifiers (PIDs) to scholarly ecosystems and the contribution they can make to the burgeoning “PID graph” has the potential to transform scholarship. Despite their importance as originators of PID data, little is known about researchers’ awareness and understanding of PIDs, or their efficacy in using them. In this article, we report on the results of an online interactive test designed to elicit exploratory data about researcher awareness and understanding of PIDs. This instrument was designed to explore recognition of PIDs (e.g. Digital Object Identifiers [DOIs], Open Researcher and Contributor IDs [ORCIDs], etc.) and the extent to which researchers correctly apply PIDs within digital scholarly ecosystems, as well as measure researchers’ perceptions of PIDs. Our results reveal irregular patterns of PID understanding and certainty across all participants, though statistically significant disciplinary and academic job role differences were observed in some instances. Uncertainty and confusion were found to exist in relation to dominant schemes such as ORCID and DOIs, even when contextualized within real-world examples. We also show researchers’ perceptions of PIDs to be generally positive but that disciplinary differences can be noted, as well as higher levels of aversion to PIDs in specific use cases and negative perceptions where PIDs are measured on an “activity” semantic dimension. This work therefore contributes to our understanding of scholars’ “PID literacy” and should inform those designing PID-centric scholarly infrastructures that a significant need for training and outreach to active researchers remains necessary.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Open Information Science
Open Information Science Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信