scholarly journals Publishing and perishing? Publishing patterns of information science academics in Kenya

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Kwanya

This study investigated the publishing patterns of information science academics in Kenya. Using a bibliometric approach, the author conducted an analysis of the quantity, quality and visibility of the publications indexed by Google Scholar. Data for the analysis was collected using Harzing’s “Publish or Perish” software from Google Scholar and presented using VOSviewer software. The findings of the study revealed low quantity, quality and visibility of research publications by information science academics in Kenya. Twenty (22.4%) serving academics are yet to publish any scholarly work. Similarly, 185 (42%) of the published papers have not been cited. This low publishing performance can be attributed to lack of scholarly communication skills; inadequate research funding and facilitation; limited access to scholarly communication channels; and heavy teaching workloads, among other factors. The quantity, quality and visibility of publications by information science academics in Kenya can be enhanced by training the lecturers on scholarly communication; accrediting journals and publishers; increasing research funding; strengthening research collaboration; increasing scholarly forums and platforms; and balancing lecturers’ teaching and research workloads.

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (4/5) ◽  
pp. 392-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Yousuf Ali ◽  
Joanna Richardson

Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze the use of Google Scholar Citations’ profiling platform by library and information science (LIS) scholars in Pakistan. Design/methodology/approach Purposive sampling was used to collect Google Scholar Citations profiles between 15 November 2017 and 31 January 2018. Resultant data were analyzed in SPSS Version 21. Findings In terms of demographical data, the study results were consistent with previous studies of Pakistani LIS scholars. There were strong correlations between Google Scholar Citations metrics (publications, citations, h-index and i10-index). The results indicate that, compared with a 2011 survey of LIS academics in Pakistan, the overall uptake for this cohort remains relatively low. This cohort is not maximizing the opportunity provided by this specific online profiling system to increase research visibility. Research limitations/implications As the study was limited to those Pakistani LIS scholars who already had a profile on ResearchGate, it would be useful to broaden the research to encompass all Pakistani LIS scholars. Practical implications The role of the librarian as an adviser in scholarly communication and impact can be extended to support scholars in the adoption of new online platforms for scholarly communication and visibility. Originality/value There have been no published research studies on Google Scholar Citations metrics in the context of Pakistani LIS scholars as a whole.


Mousaion ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 36-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan R. Maluleka ◽  
Omwoyo B. Onyancha

This study sought to assess the extent of research collaboration in Library and Information Science (LIS) schools in South Africa between 1991 and 2012. Informetric research techniques were used to obtain relevant data for the study. The data was extracted from two EBSCO-hosted databases, namely, Library and Information Science Source (LISS) and Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts (LISTA). The search was limited to scholarly peer reviewed articles published between 1991 and 2012. The data was analysed using Microsoft Excel ©2010 and UCINET for Windows ©2002 software packages. The findings revealed that research collaboration in LIS schools in South Africa has increased over the past two decades and mainly occurred between colleagues from the same department and institution; there were also collaborative activities at other levels, such as inter-institutional and inter-country, although to a limited extent; differences were noticeable when ranking authors according to different computations of their collaborative contributions; and educator-practitioner collaboration was rare. Several conclusions and recommendations based on the findings are offered in the article.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur Lackner ◽  
Said Fathalla ◽  
Mojtaba Nayyeri ◽  
Andreas Behrend ◽  
Rainer Manthey ◽  
...  

AbstractThe publish or perish culture of scholarly communication results in quality and relevance to be are subordinate to quantity. Scientific events such as conferences play an important role in scholarly communication and knowledge exchange. Researchers in many fields, such as computer science, often need to search for events to publish their research results, establish connections for collaborations with other researchers and stay up to date with recent works. Researchers need to have a meta-research understanding of the quality of scientific events to publish in high-quality venues. However, there are many diverse and complex criteria to be explored for the evaluation of events. Thus, finding events with quality-related criteria becomes a time-consuming task for researchers and often results in an experience-based subjective evaluation. OpenResearch.org is a crowd-sourcing platform that provides features to explore previous and upcoming events of computer science, based on a knowledge graph. In this paper, we devise an ontology representing scientific events metadata. Furthermore, we introduce an analytical study of the evolution of Computer Science events leveraging the OpenResearch.org knowledge graph. We identify common characteristics of these events, formalize them, and combine them as a group of metrics. These metrics can be used by potential authors to identify high-quality events. On top of the improved ontology, we analyzed the metadata of renowned conferences in various computer science communities, such as VLDB, ISWC, ESWC, WIMS, and SEMANTiCS, in order to inspect their potential as event metrics.


2021 ◽  
Vol 03 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danny Kingsley

The nature of the research endeavour is changing rapidly and requires a wide set of skills beyond the research focus. The delivery of aspects of researcher training ‘beyond the bench’ is met by different sections of an institution, including the research office, the media office and the library. In Australia researcher training in open access, research data management and other aspects of open science is primarily offered by librarians. But what training do librarians receive in scholarly communication within their librarianship degrees? For a degree to be offered in librarianship and information science, it must be accredited by the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), with a curriculum that is based on ALIA’s lists of skills and attributes. However, these lists do not contain any reference to key open research terms and are almost mutually exclusive with core competencies in scholarly communication as identified by the North American Serials Interest Group and an international Joint Task Force. Over the past decade teaching by academics in universities has been professionalised with courses and qualifications. Those responsible for researcher training within universities and the material that is being offered should also meet an agreed accreditation. This paper is arguing that there is a clear need to develop parallel standards around ‘research practice’ training for PhD students and Early Career Researchers, and those delivering this training should be able to demonstrate their skills against these standards. Models to begin developing accreditation standards are starting to emerge, with the recent launch of the Centre for Academic Research Quality and Improvement in the UK. There are multiple organisations, both grassroots and long-established that would be able to contribute to this project.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 338
Author(s):  
Rexwhite T. Enakrire ◽  
Collence T. Chisita ◽  
Tella Adeyinka

Partnership is not a new phenomenon in the university environment. It embraces strategies used by people with common interest to harvest knowledge in terms of sharing or collaboration. However, the case differs with collaborations in Library and Information Science (LIS) research in Africa, especially LIS scholars in African universities in Nigeria and Zimbabwe. Paucity of empirical literature is available on research collaboration among LIS scholars in Nigerian and Zimbabwean universities. The purpose of the study was to examine partnership among librarians, with reflection on observation and interview research reports in three universities in Nigeria and Zimbabwe. The study adopted a qualitative approach using interview to gather data from librarians drawn from three Nigerian and Zimbabwean universities. The qualitative research approach grounded on content analysis of documents/literature, observation and interview method was use for the study. The observation focus on the authors’ exposition in the sampled universities environment, while the interview were key informants from each of the three countries universities sampled. The study consider the collaborative theory through grounded method. The findings of the study revealed lack of trust in the individual or groups collaborator; team members have the feeling that the project they are collaborating on is of little benefit, due to poor relationship. Team members see themselves as contender or challenger; which has affected leadership issue and involvement of long meetings and inability to address the truth. In terms of the influence of collaboration on professional growth of librarians, result demonstrated enhancement of teaching aspect of librarianship, learning and research quality; promote cooperation, coordination, which in turn increased level of intensity, tenacity and interaction among members. Linkage among LIS professional ranges from networking, cooperation, alliances, coordination and partnership, coalition and eventually collaboration. Challenges reported include catastrophic consequent on negative effect of work, culture and stylistic parameters including concept, attitude and professional hindrances. dominance impact of policies and procedures of collaboration, exploitation of the weak members, lack of clarity and rationale behind the collaboration, unwillingness to change by members in collaboration, lack of socialisation, largeness of the group, wrong membership and jettisoning of members ideas which eventually make some members take the decision of quitting the team. The study recommends inter-disciplinary, intra-institutional and inter-institutional collaboration among various stakeholders in LIS education and training.


Author(s):  
Cristina Restrepo-Arango

Analizar la visibilidad de los investigadores del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (SNI) en Web of Science (WoS), Scopus y Publish or Perish, mediante la búsqueda del índice h de 240 investigadores nacionales del área V de las ciencias sociales en México en Publish or Perish, Google Scholar Metrics, Web of Science y Scopus. Se encontró que los resultados muestran una gran polarización entre las 4 fuentes consultadas para obtener el índice h. La primera, Publish or Perish es la más incluyente en términos de citación, ya que se basa en las publicaciones que aparecen en el Google Académico y esto favorece enormemente los valores que obtuvieron los investigadores de las ciencias sociales mexicanas en el índice h. La segunda y tercera que son WoS y Scopus se caracterizan por una ausencia generalizada en la indización de revistas mexicanas de las ciencias sociales utilizadas por los investigadores para diseminar sus publicaciones. La cuarta, Google Scholar Metrics es una herramienta abierta y gratuita que al parecer no es usada por los investigadores de las ciencias sociales mexicanas.


2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 577-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare V. Thornley ◽  
Shane J. McLoughlin ◽  
Andrea C. Johnson ◽  
Alan F. Smeaton

This paper provides a discussion and analysis of methodological issues encountered during a scholarly impact and bibliometric study within the field of Computer Science (TRECVid Text Retrieval and Evaluation Conference, Video Retrieval Evaluation). The purpose of this paper is to provide a reflection and analysis of the methods used to provide useful information and guidance for those who may wish to undertake similar studies, and is of particular relevance for the academic disciplines which have publication and citation norms that may not perform well using traditional tools. Scopus and Google Scholar are discussed and a detailed comparison of the effects of different search methods and cleaning methods within and between these tools for subject and author analysis is provided. The additional database capabilities and usefulness of ‘Scopus More’ in addition to ‘Scopus General’ are discussed and evaluated. Scopus paper coverage is found to favourably compare with Google Scholar but Scholar consistently has superior performance at finding citations to those papers. These additional citations significantly increase the citation totals and also change the relative ranking of papers. Publish or Perish, a software wrapper for Google Scholar, is also examined and its limitations and some possible solutions are described. Data cleaning methods, including duplicate checks, expert domain checking of bibliographic data, and content checking of retrieved papers, are compared and their relative effects on paper and citation count discussed. Google Scholar and Scopus are also compared as tools for collecting bibliographic data for visualizations of developing trends and, owing to the comparative ease of collecting abstracts, Scopus is found far more effective.


Publications ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Emilija Stojmenova Duh ◽  
Andrej Duh ◽  
Uroš Droftina ◽  
Tim Kos ◽  
Urban Duh ◽  
...  

Scholarly communication is today immersed in publish-or-perish culture that propels non-cooperative behavior in the sense of strategic games played by researchers. Here we introduce and describe a blockchain based platform for decentralized scholarly communication. The design of the platform rests on community driven publishing reviewing processes and implements cryptoeconomic incentives that promote cooperative user behavior. The key to achieve cooperation in blockchain based scholarly communication is to transform today’s static research paper into a modifiable research paper under continuous peer review process. We introduce and discuss the implementation of a modifiable research paper as a smart contract on the blockchain.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1349-1363
Author(s):  
David Osimo ◽  
Laia Pujol Priego ◽  
Riina Vuorikari

Funding affects how science is carried out. Over the last 50 years, the core of science funding has become competitive, project based and increasingly oriented towards societal challenges. Recently, alternative, more open and flexible funding mechanisms have emerged, such as crowdfunding, philanthropy and bottom-up mechanisms. This chapter analyses the development and implications of alternative funding mechanisms for science, through an umbrella literature review complemented by case studies. It concludes that alternative funding are an important component of research funding, which provides new opportunities especially for niche and unrecognized research, and require stronger communication skills by researchers. However, they can't and should not substitute traditional mechanisms. Researchers, institutions and funding agencies should redesign their activity accounting for a plurality of funding instruments, and facilitate collaboration between them.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document