Stringing beads: from tool combinations to workflows(Dec 2016)-With the data from our global survey of scholarly communication tool usage, we want to work towards identifying and characterizing full research workflows. Two ways of using co-occurence data for this are by looking at clusters and cliques.
Academic social networks – the Swiss Army Knives of scholarly communication(Dec 2016)-For a presentation at the STM Innovations Seminar on academic social networks, we looked at the functionalities and usage of three of the major networks (ResearchGate, Mendeley and Academia.edu) and also offer some thoughts on the values and choices at play both in offering and using such platforms.
Tools that love to be together(Nov 2016)-We want to explore which tool combinations occur together in research workflows more often than would be expected by chance.
GitHub and more: sharing data & code(Oct 2016)-A recent Nature News article 'Democratic databases: Science on GitHub' discussed GitHub and other programs used for sharing code and data. Our survey results can provide another measurement of use of these online platforms for sharing data and code.
The number games(Jul 2016)-Focusing on the number of people that answered specific questions in our survey, and on the number of tools people indicate they use (regardless of which tools that are) already reveals a lot about research practices in different subsets of our (largely self-selected) sample population.
Data are out. Start analyzing. But beware.(Apr 2016)-Now that we have our data set on research tool usage out and shared the graphical dashboard, let the analysis start! We hope people around the world will find the data interesting and useful. When looking at the charts and when carrying out your analyses, please note two things.
Support for Open Science in EU member states(Apr 2016)-In preparation for the EU Open Science Conference on April 4-5 in Amsterdam, we looked at what our survey data reveal about declared support for Open Access and Open Science among researchers in the EU.
Rising stars: fastest growing tools on Twitter(Jan 2016)-To gain some insight in the popularity of online tools for scholarly communication, we have been tracking the number of Twitter followers monthly for each of the 600 tools in our growing database. Looking over time, the rate of growth in Twitter followers can give an indication of tools that are most rapidly gaining interest.
Timeline of tools(Dec 2015)-The number and variety of online tools and platforms for all phases of the research cycle has grown tremendously over the years. We have been charting this ‘supply side’ of the scholarly communication landscape, first in our figure of 101 innovative tools in six different phases of the research cycle, and subsequently in our growing database of tools for 30 distinct research activities within these phases.
101 days to go for 101 innovations survey(Nov 2015)-With 101 days to go before the 101 Innovations in Scholarly Communication survey closes it seems a good moment to let you know how far we have come and what's still ahead.
Tools and sites used for impact measurement (some preliminary results)(Oct 2015)-For the 2:AM Altmetrics conference on Oct 7-8, 2015 in Amsterdam, we looked at some of our preliminary survey results on tools and sites used for impact measurement. For this, we did a brief non-statistical analysis of responses up until October 1 from researchers (PhD-students, postdocs and faculty) and librarians.
4000 survey responses – geographical distribution and the need for translation(Aug 2015)-Last week we silently passed the 4,000 responses mark on our survey. The survey has been running for 15 weeks, with another 23 weeks to go. We're glad to have 4,000 responses, but they are not nearly enough to allow for detailed analyses. To increase levels outside Europe and Anglo-Saxon countries, we want to translate the survey into six world languages.
First 1000 responses – tool combinations(Jul 2015)-Apart from looking at the most popular tools for single research activities, we can also look at which tools are used together. We visualized this for the first 1000 responses to our survey on scholarly communication, looking at the four most popular tools listed for each research activity.
First 1000 responses – demographics(Jun 2015)-Within the first month, we received over 1000 responses to our survey.
In this and the next few posts, we’ll present some preliminary results based on these first 1000 responses.