Referring academic library chat reference patrons: how subject librarians decide

Purpose The purpose of this study is to learn what factors liaison librarians in academic research libraries consider in determining whether to refer chat reference patrons to subject specialists. Design/methodology/approach Subject specialists were asked what policies guided their decisions to refer to a specialist and then assessed unreferred chat session transcripts both within and outside their specializations to determine need for a referral. Findings Few respondents were guided by formal policies. Contrary to an initial hypothesis, subject area was not a key factor in referring chat. A broader set of criteria included reference interviewing, provision of relevant resources and information literacy instruction. Respondents valued both the depth that subject specialists can provide to reference interactions and the ability of a skilled generalist to support information literacy. Research limitations/implications Findings are most applicable to large, public doctoral universities with liaison librarian programs. Assignment of respondents to subject specialist categories was complicated by their broad range of background and expertise. Practical implications The study contributes new understanding of referrals to subject specialists who have potential to guide development of formal referral policies in academic library virtual reference services. Originality/value The study is the first empirical examination of chat reference referral decisions.

Authorship Policies at U.S. Doctoral Universities: A Review and Recommendations for Future Policies

Intellectual contribution in the form of authorship is a fundamental component of the academic career. While research has addressed questionable and harmful authorship practices, there has largely been no discussion of how U.S. academic institutions interpret and potentially mitigate such practices through the use of institution-level authorship policies. To gain a better understanding of the role of U.S. academic institutions in authorship practices, we conducted a systematic review of publicly available authorship policies for U.S. doctoral institutions (using the 266 2018 Carnegie-classified R1 and R2 Universities), focusing on components such as specification of authorship criteria, recommendations for discussing authorship, dispute resolution processes, and guidance for faculty-student collaborations. We found that only 24% of the 266 Carnegie R1 and R2 Universities had publicly available authorship policies. Within these policies, the majority (93%) specified criteria for authorship, but provided less guidance about actual processes for applying such criteria (62%), handling authorship disputes (62%), and managing faculty-student author teams (49%). Further, we found that any discussion of dispute resolution practices typically lacked specificity. Recommendations grounded in these findings are offered for institutions to leverage their ability to guide the authorship process by adopting an authorship policy that acknowledges disciplinary diversity while still offering substantive guidance.

Where do Latinas and Latinos earn social science doctorates?

It is a national imperative to increase the percentage of Latinas and Latinos who earn doctorate degrees in the social sciences and who enter into faculty positions. For the purposes of this study, I focus on whether Latinas and Latinos earned their doctorates at the nation’s most research-intensive universities because those schools are uniquely equipped to prepare doctoral students for careers in academia. I find that more than 40% of Latinas and Latinos who earned social science doctorates did so at universities with lower research profiles. I also test whether there are relationships between Latinas’ and Latino’s undergraduate institutions (e.g., community colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions) and doctoral universities (classified by research-intensity). I did not find a relationship between attending community college and the type of university where a Latina or Latino social scientist earned the PhD. However, I found that Latinas and Latinos who earned baccalaureate degrees from Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) had higher relative risk of earning doctorates from less research-intensive universities. This institutional pathway may be beneficial for increasing the number of Latinas and Latinos who earn social science doctorate degrees; however, it may be problematic for preparing future faculty members. I discuss implications for supporting the Latina-Latino pathway to the PhD.

Education Needs in Research Data Management for Science-Based Disciplines

Research data management is a prominent and evolving consideration for the academic community, especially in scientific disciplines. This research study surveyed 131 graduate students and 79 faculty members in the sciences at two public doctoral universities to determine the importance, knowledge, and interest levels around research data management training and education. The authors adapted 12 competencies for measurement in the study. Graduate students and faculty ranked the following areas most important among the 12 competencies: ethics and attribution, data visualization, and quality assurance. Graduate students indicated they were least knowledgeable and skilled in data curation and re-use, metadata and data description, data conversion and interoperability, and data preservation. Their responses generally matched the perceptions of faculty. The study also examined how graduate students learn research data management, and how faculty perceive that their students learn research data management. Results showed that graduate students utilize self-learning most often and that faculty may be less influential in research data management education than they perceive. Responses for graduate students between the two institutions were not statistically different, except in the area of perceived deficiencies in data visualization competency.

Researchers May Need Additional Data Curation Support

A Review of: Johnston, L. R., Carlson, J., Hudson-Vitale, C., Imker, H., Kozlowski, W., Olendorf, R., & Stewart, C. (2018). How important are data curation activities to researchers? Gaps and opportunities for academic libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 6(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2198 Abstract Objective – To identify the data curation activities most valued by researchers at universities. Design – Focus group and survey instrument. Setting – Six R1: Doctoral Universities in the United States of America that are part of a Data Curation Network (DCN) project to design a shared data curation service. Subjects – 91 researchers, librarians, and support staff. Methods – The authors used focus group methodology to collect data about valued data curation activities, current practices, and satisfaction with existing services or activities. Six focus groups were conducted at participants’ places of employment. Participants reviewed a list of 35 possible data curation activities, including documentation, data visualization, and rights management. A card-swapping exercise enabled subjects to rank the most important issues on a scale of 1-5, with “most important” activities becoming the subject of a facilitated discussion. In a short paper-based survey, participants also noted whether a data curation practice is in place at their institution, and their satisfaction with the practice. Main Results – Twelve data curation activities were identified as “highly rated” services that academic institutions could focus on providing to researchers. Documentation, Secure Storage, Quality Assurance, and Persistent Identifier were the data curation activities that the majority of participants rated as “most important.” Participants identified the data curation practices in place at their institutions, including documentation (80%), secure storage (75%), chain of custody (64%), metadata (63%), file inventory or manifest (58%), data visualization (58%), versioning (56%), file format transformations (55%), and quality assurance (52%). Participants reported low levels of satisfaction with their institutions’ data curation activities. Conclusion – Academic libraries have an opportunity to develop or improve existing data curation services by focusing on the twelve data curation activities that researchers, staff, and librarians value but that could be implemented in a more satisfactory way. The authors conclude that their organization, the Data Curation Network, has an opportunity to improve data curation services or to offer new or expanded services.

Measuring, Manipulating, and Predicting Student Success: A 10-Year Assessment of Carnegie R1 Doctoral Universities Between 2004 and 2013

Student success measurements for 4-year institutions of higher education are a topic of importance for numerous stakeholders including prospective and current students, parents, staff, faculty, administrators, governing boards, policymakers, and citizens. Common measures of student success are retention rates and 4- and 6-year graduation rates. However, the standardization, accuracy, and reporting of these rates are less than scientific due in part to the operational definition provided by the federal government for reporting graduation rates. The current system for reporting retention and graduation rates are flawed. As accountability continues to increase for institutions of higher education, this analysis provides comparative, qualitative, and quantitative research with the goal of informing and assisting universities, as they strive to increase the rates at which their students succeed. A particular emphasis will be placed on an empirical analysis over a 10-year period of time for retention and graduation rates of 115 Carnegie R1 doctoral universities.

Prospects in the Academic Labor Market for Economists

This paper discussed what the academic labor market for economists is likely to look like in the years ahead. After tracing out trends in PhD production of new economists, including the increasing share of new PhDs who are foreign residents, it presents new evidence on the growing use of part-time and full-time non tenure-track faculty in U.S. economics departments, the growing salary differentials between economists employed at private and public doctoral universities, and how economists' salaries have changed relative to those of faculty in other disciplines.