Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2016). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: a review of the literature. Retrieved from
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08112
One of the central issues associated with altmetrics (short for alternative metrics) is the identification of communities engaging with scholarly content on social media (Haustein, Bowman, & Costas, 2015; Neylon, 2014; Tsou, Bowman, Ghazinejad, & Sugimoto, 2015) . It is thus of central importance to understand the uses and users of social media in the context of scholarly communication.
most identify the following major categori es: social networking, social bookmarking, blogging, microblogging, wikis , and media and data sharing (Gu & Widén -Wulff, 2011; Rowlands, Nicholas, Russell, Canty, & Watkinson, 2011; Tenopir et al., 2013) . Some also conside r conferencing, collaborative authoring, scheduling and meeting tools (Rowlands et al., 2011) or RSS and online documents (Gu & Widén -Wulff, 2011; Tenopir et al., 2013) as social media. The landscape of social media, as well as that of altmetrics, is constantly changing and boundaries with othe r online platforms and traditional metrics are fuzzy. Many online platforms cannot be easily classified and more traditional metrics , such as downloads and mentions in policy documents , have been referred to as altmetrics due to data pr ovider policies.
the Use of social media platforms for by researchers is high — ranging from 75 to 80% in large -scale surveys (Rowlands et al., 2011; Tenopir et al., 2013; Van Eperen & Marincola, 2011) .
but
less than 10% of scholars reported using Twitter (Rowlands et al., 2011) , while 46% used ResearchGate (Van Noorden, 2014) , and more than 55% use d YouTube (Tenopir et al., 2013) —it is necessary to discuss the use of various types of social media separately . Furthermore, there i s a distinction among types of us e, with studies showing higher uses of social media for dissemination, consumption, communication , and promotion (e.g., Arcila -Calderón, Piñuel -Raigada, & Calderín -Cruz, 2013; Van Noorden, 2014) , and fewer instances of use for creation (i.e., using social media to construct scholarship) (British Library et al., 2012; Carpenter, Wetheridge, Tanner, & Smith, 2012; Procter et al., 2010b; Tenopir et al., 2013) .
Frequently mentioned social platforms in scholarly communication research include research -specific tools such as Mendeley, Zotero, CiteULike, BibSonomy, and Connotea (now defunct) as well as general tools such as Delicious and Digg (Hammond, Hannay, Lund, & Scott, 2005; Hull, Pettifer, & Kell, 2008; Priem & Hemminger, 2010; Reher & Haustein, 2010) .
Social data sharing platforms provide an infrastructure to share various types of scholarly objects —including datasets, software code, figures, presentation slides and videos —and for users to interact with these objects (e.g., comment on, favorite, like , and reuse ). Platforms such as Figshare and SlideShare disseminate scholars’ various types of research outputs such as datasets, figures, infographics, documents, videos, posters , or presentation slides (Enis, 2013) and displays views, likes, and shares by other users (Mas -Bleda et al., 2014) . GitHub provides for uploading and stor ing of software code, which allows users to modify and expand existing code (Dabbish, Stuart, Tsay, & Herbsleb, 2012) , which has been shown to lead to enhanced collaboratio n among developers (Thung, Bissyande, Lo, & Jiang, 2013) . As w ith other social data sharing platforms, usage statistics on the number of view and contributions to a project are provided (Kubilius, 2014) . The registry of research data repositories, re3data.org, ha s indexed more than 1,200 as of May 2015 2 . However, only a few of these repositories (i.e. , Figshare, SlideShare and Github) include social functionalities and have reached a certain level of participation from scholars (e.g., Begel, Bosch, & Storey, 2013; Kubilius, 2014) .
Video provide s yet another genre for social interaction and scholarly communication (Kousha, Thelwall, & Abdoli, 2012; Sugimoto & Thelwall, 2013) . Of the various video sharing platforms, YouTube, launched in 2005, is by far the most popular
A study of UK scholars reports that the majority o f respondents engaged with video for scholarly communication purposes (Tenopir et al., 2013) , yet only 20% have ever created in that genre. Among British PhD students, 17% had used videos and podcasts passively for research, while 8% had actively contributed (British Library et al., 2012) .
Blogs began in the mid -1990s and were considered ubiquitous by the mid- 200 0s (Gillmor, 2006; Hank, 2011; Lenhart & Fox, 2006; Rainie, 2005) . Scholarly blogs emerged during this time with their own neologisms (e.g., blogademia , blawgosphere , bloggership) and body of research (Hank, 2011) and were considered to change the exclusive structure of scholarly communication
Technorati, considered t o be on e of the largest ind ex of blogs, deleted their entire blog directory in 2014 3 . Individual blogs are also subject to abrupt cancellations and deletions, making questionable the degree to which blogging meets the permanence criteria of scholarly commu nication (Hank, 2011) .
ResearchBlogging.org (RB) — “an aggregator of blog posts referencing peer -reviewed research in a structured manner” (Shema, Bar -Ilan, & Thelwall, 2015, p. 3) — was launched in 2007 and has been a fairly stable structure in the scholarly blogging environment. RB both aggregates and —through the use of the RB icon — credentials scholarly blogs (Shema et al., 2015) . The informality of the genre (Mewburn & Thomson, 2013) and the ability to circumve nt traditional publishing barr iers has led advocates to claim that blogging can invert traditional academic power hierarchies (Walker, 2006) , allow ing people to construct scholarly identities outside of formal institutionalization (Ewins, 2005; Luzón, 2011; Potter, 2012) and democratize the scientific system (Gijón, 2013) . Another positive characteristic of blogs is their “inherently social” nature (Walker, 2006, p. 132) (see also Kjellberg, 2010; Luzón, 2011 ). Scholars have noted the potential for “communal scholarship” (Hendrick, 2012) made by linking and commenting, calling the platform “a new ‘third place’ for academic discourse” (Halavais, 2006, p. 117) . Commenting functionalities were seen as making possible the “shift from public understanding to public engagement with science” (Kouper, 2010, p. 1) .
Studies have also provided evidence of high rate s of blogging among certain subpopulations: for example, approximately one -third of German university staff (Pscheida et al., 2013) and one fifth of UK doctoral students use blogs (Carpenter et al., 2012) .
Academics are not only producers, but also consumers of blogs: a 2007 survey of medical bloggers foundthat the large majority (86%) read blogs to find medical news (Kovic et al., 2008)
Mahrt and Puschmann (2014) , who defined science blogging as “the use of blogs for science communication” (p. 1). It has been similarly likened to a sp ace for public intellectualism (Kirkup, 2010; Walker, 2006) and as a form of activism to combat perceived biased or pseudoscience (Riesch & Mendel, 2014. Yet, there remains a tension between science bloggers and science journalists, with many science journals dismissing the value of science blogs (Colson, 2011)
.
while there has been anecdotal evidence of the use of blogs in promotion and tenure (e.g., (Podgor, 2006) the consensus seem s to suggest that most institutions do not value blogging as highly as publishing in traditional outlets, or consider blogging as a measure of service rather than research activity (Hendricks, 2010, para. 30) .
Microblogging developed out of a particular blogging practice, wherein bloggers would post small messages or single files on a blog post. Blogs that focused on such “microposts” were then termed “tumblelogs” and were described as “a quick and dirty stream of consciousness” kind of blogging (Kottke, 2005, para. 2)
most popular microblogs are Twitter (launched in 2006), tumblr (launched in 2007), FriendFeed (launched in 2007 and available in several languages), Plurk (launched in 2008 and popular in Taiwan), and Sina Weibo (launched in 2009 and popular in China).
users to follow other users, search tweets by keywords or hashtags, and link to other media or other tweets
.
Conference chatter (backchanneling) is another widely studied area in the realm of scholarly microblogging. Twitter use at conferences is generally carried out by a minority of participants
Wikis are collaborative content management platforms enabled by web browsers and embedded markup languages.
Wikipedia has been advocated as a replacement for traditional publishing and peer review models (Xia o & Askin, 2012) and pleas have been made to encourage experts to contribute (Rush & Tracy, 2010) . Despite this, contribution rates remain low — likely hindered by the lack of explicit authorship in Wikipedia, a cornerstone of the traditional academic reward system (Black, 2008; Butler, 2008; Callaway, 2010; Whitworth & Friedman, 2009) . Citations to scholarly documents —another critical component in the reward system —are increasingly being found i n Wikiped ia entries (Bould et al., 2014; Park, 2011; Rousidis et al., 2013) , but are no t yet seen as valid impact indicators (Haustein, Peters, Bar -Ilan, et al., 2014) .
The altmetrics manifesto (Priem et al., 2010, para. 1) , altmetrics can serve as filters , which “reflect the broad, rapid impact of scholarship in this burgeoning ecosystem”.
There are also a host of platforms which are being used informally to discuss and rate scholarly material. Reddit, for example, is a general topic platform where users can submit, discuss and rate online content. Historically, mentions of scientific journals on Reddit have been rare (Thelwall, Haustein, et al., 2013) . However, several new subreddits —e.g., science subreddit 4 , Ask Me Anything sessions 5 –have recently been launched, focusing on the discussion of scientific information. Sites like Amazon (Kousha & Thelwall, 2015) and Goodreads (Zuccala, Verleysen, Cornacchia, & Engels, 2015) , which allow users to comment on and rate books, has also been mined as potential source for the compilation of impact indicators
libraries provide services to support researchers’ use of social media tools and metrics (Lapinski, Piwowar, & Priem, 2013; Rodgers & Barbrow, 2013; Roemer & Borchardt, 2013). One example is
Mendeley Institutional Edition,
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/mendeley/Mendeley-Institutional-Edition, which mines Mendeley documents, annotations, and behavior and provides these data to libraries (Galligan & Dyas -Correia, 2013) . Libraries can use them for collection management, in a manner similar to other usage data, such as COUNTER statistics (Galligan & Dyas -Correia, 2013) .
Factors affecting social media use; age, academic rank and status, gender, discipline, country and language,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
h-index
+++++++++++++
more on altmetrics in this IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=altmetrics
What Does Recent Pedagogical Research Tell Us About eLearning Good Practice?
Many instructors indicate that they want their elearning teaching approaches to be evidence-based. Indeed, there are rich and varied sources of research being conducted on elearning good practices available in scholarly journals and government reports. However, few of us have time to keep up with these publications. In this session Christina Petersen will do some of that work for you. She summarize findings from recent government and university reports which review over 1,000 online learning studies. Additionally, she will summarize the findings from newly published articles from pedagogical journals with important information about good practices in online education. These practices address evidence-based methods for promoting student engagement in online courses, good practices for video production, and other topics related to online teaching. We will discuss the importance of all of these findings for your teaching.
Christina Petersen is an Education Program Specialist in the Center for Educational Innovation at the University of Minnesota where she partners with faculty and departments to help create and redesign courses and curriculum to promote maximal student learning. She facilitates a monthly Pedagogical Innovations Journal Club at the CEI. She has a PhD in Pharmacology and her teaching experience includes undergraduate courses in Pharmacology, and graduate courses in Higher Education pedagogy. Her teaching interests include integrating active learning into science courses, teaching in active learning classrooms, and evidence-based teaching practice. She is co-author of a soon-to-be-released book from Stylus, “A Guide to Teaching in Active Learning Classrooms”
View the eLearning Summit presentation
WebEx link for the webinar
Date: Thursday, December 1, 2016
Time: 2:00 p.m., Central Daylight Time (Chicago, GMT-05:00)
Session number: 805 333 130
Session Password: MNLC@2016
Teleconference information
To receive a call back, provide your phone number when you join the training session. Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers and enter the access code:
Call-in toll-free number: 888-742-5095
(US) Call-in number: 619-377-3319
(US) Conference Code: 297 345 8873
++++++++++++++++++
more on elearning in this IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=elearning
Digitorium 2017
The conference welcomes proposals for papers and interactive presentations about research or teaching approaches using digital methods. For the first time in 2017, Digitorium also seeks to provide training opportunities for scholars of all levels keen to learn new digital techniques to advance their work, whether by learning a new digital mapping tool, discovering simple ways of visualizing research findings, using computers to conduct large-scale qualitative research, or experimenting with big data approaches at your desktop. There will be a stream of hands-on workshops running throughout the conference enabling participants both to share their own work, and also to expand their portfolio.
Digitorium 2017 will take place from Thursday 2nd to Saturday 4th March, and again, our primary focus is on digital methods, as this has provided fertile ground for interdisciplinary conversations to grow. There will be “tracks” through the conference based on: methods; early modern studies; American studies; and digital pedagogy. We welcome presentations on any topics engaging digital methods for scholarly purposes, whether for research, teaching, or community projects.
In 2017, the conference is expanding once more to offer not only multiple plenary sessions, panels, papers, and roundtables, but also a concerted series of workshops offering training for delegates in a variety of Digital Humanities techniques for research and teaching, from mapping to text encoding, digital data analysis, and more, to support enhanced professional development opportunities at the conference for faculty, staff, and graduate students.
This year, we are proud to present two plenary sessions and our first-ever plenary hackathon! Professor Scott Gwara (Univ. of South Carolina) will be presenting on MS-Link, a database that he created reunifying scattered manuscripts into full digital codices. Additionally, joint principal investigators of the Isabella D’Este Archive (IDEA) Project, Professor Anne MacNeil (Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) and Professor Deanna Shemek (Univ. of California Santa Cruz) will be presenting their work on a digital archive uniting music, letters, and ceramics, and will lead our first live hackathon, engaging participants in the new virtual reality component of their project.
There will once again be a discounted “group rate” for registration to enable participants to bring their team with them, as collaboration is such a hallmark in digital scholarship, and it would be great to be able to hear about projects from multiple different perspectives from the people working together on them. There are also discounted rates available for graduate student presenters, and UA faculty. I do not mean to impose, but if this is an event which would be of interest to colleagues and collaborators, I would be enormously grateful if you might be able to circulate our CFP or a link to our website with them, we really want to let as many people as possible know about the conference to ensure it will be a real success.
Here is a link to the website which includes the full-length CFP:
https://apps.lib.ua.edu/blogs/digitorium/
Methods provide the focus for our conference, both in a pragmatic sense in terms of the use of different techniques to achieve particular DH projects, but also the ways in which sharing digital methods can create new links between disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. The idea powering Digitorium is to build on the community which has emerged in the course of the previous two years’ events in order to create a space for conversations to take place between scholars, graduate students, and practitioners from many different disciplines about their shared methods and techniques which unite them in their digital work.
++++++++++++++++++
more on digital humanities in this IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+humanities
Photo-sharing Site as Library Tool : A Web-based Survey
peer-reviewed article for Digital Library Perspectives: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/dlp
opportunity to user to develop a sense of ownership over the library resources.
Photo-sharing sites already have taken sharp inroads into the field of teaching-learnin encouraging a shift from teacher-led approach to user centred engagement (Kawka, et al,2012).
Introducing photo-sharing sites and integrating with other social networking sites, libraries are now making their web presence outside the “traditional web platform”. With facility of online managing and sharing of digital images, photo-sharing sites enable users to get remotely connected with others and interact with comment links. Photo-sharing sites that are commonly being used by libraries are Flickr (www.flickr.com), Instagram (instagram.com), Pinterest (in.pinterest.com), Photobucket (photobucket.com), Picasa (picasa.google.com), SmugMug (www.smugmug.com), etc (Bradley, 2007; Kroski, 2008; Salomon, 2013).
The results showed that blog and RSS are among the mostly used applications and web 0 applications are associated with overall website quality, particularly to the service quality.
Stvilia and Jörgensen (2010) suggests that controlled vocabulary terms may be
37 complemented with those user generated tags which users feel more comfortable with for information The study also reflects a growing interest among the user community to be involved in “social content creation and sharing communities in creating and enhancing the metadata of their photo collections to make the collections more accessible and visible”.
page 7-8.
2.1 Steps to increase accessibility to photo-sharing sites
a) Improve visibility: To make photo-sharing sites of the library easily visible, a direct link to library homepage is essential
p. 9
2.2 Purposes of using photo-sharing sites
a) Organising library tour
b) Community building
c) Tool for digitisation
d) Grabbing the users at their own place
e) Integrating Feeds with other application
f) Displaying new arrivals : Newly added books
g) Sharing news & events and publicize library activities
h) Archives of exhibits
i) Portal for academic and research activity: Photo-sharing sites may serve as platform tofoster teaching learning activity, particularly for those who may use these image resource sites for academic purpose
j) Experimentation : Being a relatively new approach to users service, these tools may be introduced on experimental basis to examine their proper utilisation before final implementation
k) Miscellaneous : Public library can reach out to the community physically, offer service to the traditionally underserved, homebound or people with disability, implement programmes to include marginalised section of the community and showcase its mobile outreach efforts in photo-sharing sites.
page 12-13
Before going to integrate photo-sharing site, a library should set the strategic objectives i.e., what purposes are to be served. “Purpose can provide clarity of vision when creating policies or guidelines” (Garofalo, 2013, p.28). The above discussedrange of purposes may help librarians to develop better understanding to makeinformed selection of photo-sharing utility and the nature of images to be posted through it. Goal setting should precede consideration of views of a sizeable section of all library stakeholders to know beforehand what they expect from the library.
• Once the purposes are outlined, a library should formulate policy/ guideline for photo-sharing practices, based on user requirement, staff resource, available time component and technological support base. Policy offers a clear guideline for the users and staff to decide the kind of images to be posted. A guideline is indeed essential for the optimum use of photo-sharing site. It also delineates the roles and responsibilities of the staff concerned and ensures regular monitoring of the posts. Policy may highlight fair use guidelines and allow re-use of images within the scope of copy-right.
• A best way to start is integrating an app, involving simple design with fewer images and let users be familiarized with the system. During the course of development more and more apps may be added, with more images to be posted to serve variety of purposes, depending on the institutional resource and user demand.
• Accessibility to photo-sharing site largely depends on its visibility to the audience. Icon of photo-sharing utility prominently located on website will increase the presentation of its visual identity. Library may set links to photo-sharing sites at home page or at drilled-down page.
• Being an emerging technology, photo-sharing site needs adequate exposure for optimum usage. Annotations associated to photo-sharing site will give an idea about the online tool and will guide users to better harness the application.
• Photo-sharing sites allow images to be organised in a variety of way. Categorising image resources under various topical headings at one location will improve resource identification and frees one from extensive searching.
• Regular posting of engaging images to photo-sharing site from the library and follow- up will attract users to tag and share images and strengthen community involvement with active user participation.
• “Social and informal photographs” of library staff will make them more approachable and strengthen patron-staff relationship.
• Library should seek user comments and suggestions to improve current photo-sharing application and to incorporate fresh element to library service provision. User feedback may be considered as a tool to evaluate the effectiveness of existing photo- sharing practices.
• To popularise the effort, usual promotional media like physical and online signs/ displays apart, library may use social media marketing platforms like blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc., and increase awareness of photo-sharing tools.
• Imparting technology training may develop necessary knowledge; improve skill, and change the attitude and mindset of library professionals to handle issues related to using this web-based powered-tools and repurpose existing accessibility settings.
• To provide quick link to photo-sharing site from anywhere in the web, a library may use add-ons / plug-ins to embed image sharing tools.
• Photo-sharing site may be implemented to satisfy multiple approach options of users. A section of users use photo-sharing site to have a glimpse of the newly arrived documents, highlights of catalogue, rare books, etc. Some others may use it to find images of historical importance with context. New users may find it attractive to pay
