Andrew Tsou

Big data, bigger dilemmas: A critical review

The recent interest in Big Data has generated a broad range of new academic, corporate, and policy practices along with an evolving debate among its proponents, detractors, and skeptics. While the practices draw on a common set of tools, techniques, and technologies, most contributions to the debate come either from a particular disciplinary perspective or with a focus on a domain‐specific issue. A close examination of these contributions reveals a set of common problematics that arise in various guises and in different places. It also demonstrates the need for a critical synthesis of the conceptual and practical dilemmas surrounding Big Data. The purpose of this article is to provide such a synthesis by drawing on relevant writings in the sciences, humanities, policy, and trade literature. In bringing these diverse literatures together, we aim to shed light on the common underlying issues that concern and affect all of these areas. By contextualizing the phenomenon of Big Data within larger socioeconomic developments, we also seek to provide a broader understanding of its drivers, barriers, and challenges. This approach allows us to identify attributes of Big Data that require more attention—autonomy, opacity, generativity, disparity, and futurity—leading to questions and ideas for moving beyond dilemmas.

Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated bot accounts on Twitter

This brief communication presents preliminary findings on automated Twitter accounts distributing links to scientific articles deposited on the preprint repository arXiv. It discusses the implication of the presence of such bots from the perspective of social media metrics (altmetrics), where mentions of scholarly documents on Twitter have been suggested as a means of measuring impact that is both broader and timelier than citations. Our results show that automated Twitter accounts create a considerable amount of tweets to scientific articles and that they behave differently than common social bots, which has critical implications for the use of raw tweet counts in research evaluation and assessment. We discuss some definitions of Twitter cyborgs and bots in scholarly communication and propose distinguishing between different levels of engagement—that is, differentiating between tweeting only bibliographic information to discussing or commenting on the content of a scientific work.

Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900

This article provides the first historical analysis of the relationship between collaboration and scientific impact using three indicators of collaboration (number of authors, number of addresses, and number of countries) derived from articles published between 1900 and 2011. The results demonstrate that an increase in the number of authors leads to an increase in impact, from the beginning of the last century onward, and that this is not due simply to self‐citations. A similar trend is also observed for the number of addresses and number of countries represented in the byline of an article. However, the constant inflation of collaboration since 1900 has resulted in diminishing citation returns: Larger and more diverse (in terms of institutional and country affiliation) teams are necessary to realize higher impact. The article concludes with a discussion of the potential causes of the impact gain in citations of collaborative papers.

Scientists popularizing science: Characteristics and impact of TED Talk presenters

The TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference and associated website of recorded conference presentations (TED Talks) is a highly successful disseminator of science-related videos, claiming over a billion online views. Although hundreds of scientists have presented at TED, little information is available regarding the presenters, their academic credentials, and the impact of TED Talks on the general population. This article uses bibliometric and webometric techniques to gather data on the characteristics of TED presenters and videos and analyze the relationship between these characteristics and the subsequent impact of the videos. The results show that the presenters were predominately male and non-academics. Male-authored videos were more popular and more liked when viewed on YouTube. Videos by academic presenters were more commented on than videos by others and were more liked on YouTube, although there was little difference in how frequently they were viewed. The majority of academic presenters were senior faculty, males, from United States-based institutions, were visible online, and were cited more frequently than average for their field. However, giving a TED presentation appeared to have no impact on the number of citations subsequently received by an academic, suggesting that although TED popularizes research, it may not promote the work of scientists within the academic community.

A community of curious souls: An analysis of commenting behavior on ted talks videos

The TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Talks website hosts video recordings of various experts, celebrities, academics, and others who discuss their topics of expertise. Funded by advertising and members but provided free online, TED Talks have been viewed over a billion times and are a science communication phenomenon. Although the organization has been derided for its populist slant and emphasis on entertainment value, no previous research has assessed audience reactions in order to determine the degree to which presenter characteristics and platform affect the reception of a video. This article addresses this issue via a content analysis of comments left on both the TED website and the YouTube platform (on which TED Talks videos are also posted). It was found that commenters were more likely to discuss the characteristics of a presenter on YouTube, whereas commenters tended to engage with the talk content on the TED website. In addition, people tended to be more emotional when the speaker was a woman (by leaving comments that were either positive or negative). The results can inform future efforts to popularize science amongst the public, as well as to provide insights for those looking to disseminate information via Internet videos.

Publish or Practice? An Examination of Librarians' Contributions to Research

This article examines authorship of LIS literature in the context of practitioner and non-practitioner production of published research. For this study, 4,827 peer-reviewed articles from twenty LIS journals published between 1956 and 2011 were examined to determine the percentage of articles written by practitioners. The study identified a decrease in the proportion of articles authored by practitioners between 2006 and 2011. Topic analysis of articles revealed subtle yet distinct differences in research subject matter between practitioner-authored and non-practitioner-authored articles. If present trends continue, the character of LIS literature may shift away from many issues relating to practical librarianship.

Faculty and student interactions via Facebook: Policies, preferences, and practices

Abstract Students and faculty members have always interacted informally. However, Facebook and other social networking sites (SNSs) present interaction spaces that blur the boundaries between professional, academic and personal lives. The impetus for this study is to understand the extent of SNS-mediated informal interactions between faculty members and students and the policies, preferences, and practices that inform these interactions. Adopting a multiple-case approach, interviews with faculty members and graduate students at three North American library and information science schools were completed to examine behaviors when interacting through Facebook. Additionally, syllabi at two of the case settings were analyzed to see if they contain any polices, guidelines, or other expectations for faculty and student interactions via SNSs. Interview findings show that a majority of faculty members and students prefer not to interact via Facebook, with several having developed ad hoc, informal personal guidelines informing their decision-making. No faculty or students reported explicit SNS policies or guidelines at their respective institutions addressing faculty-student interactions. The lack of explicit directives was apparent in the syllabi analysis as well. The implications for higher education and development of policies are discussed.

Scholarly Communication as a Core Competency: Prevalence, Activities, and Concepts of Scholarly Communication Librarianship as Shown Through Job Advertisements

INTRODUCTION The dynamic nature of the scholarly communication landscape has produced a need for the creation of positions specifically focused on these issues. Yet, no clear title or job description for scholarly communication librarianship has emerged. The lack of standardization in this area is problematic for educators, professionals, and prospective professionals. METHODS Analyzing 13,869 job advertisements published between 2006 and 2014, this study attempts to examine the prevalence of scholarly communication terms and activities and the types of positions in which these terms and activities appear. RESULTS This study finds an increase in the use of the term “scholarly communication” in the title or text of job advertisements over the last nine years, with more than 7% of positions in the most recent year containing the term. CONCLUSIONS An analysis of the levels of engagement with scholarly communication demonstrates that jobs with substantial levels of engagement are increasing; whereas those requiring passive knowledge or awareness of scholarly communication issues are decreasing. Jobs with scholarly communication as a primary job responsibility are differentiated by a focus on repositories, open access, copyright, authors’ rights, and intellectual property differentiate core scholarly communication positions.

Post-interdisciplinary frames of reference: exploring permeability and perceptions of disciplinarity in the social sciences

The ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database contains records for approximately 2.3 million dissertations conferred at 1,490 research institutions across 66 countries. Despite the scope of the Dissertations and Theses database, no study has explicitly sought to validate the accuracy of the ProQuest SCs. This research examines the degree to which ProQuest SCs serve as proxies for disciplinarity, the relevance of doctoral work to doctoral graduates’ current work, and the permeability of disciplines from the perspective of the mismatch between SCs and disciplinarity. To examine these issues we conducted a survey of 2009–2010 doctoral graduates, cluster-sampled from Economics, Political Science, and Sociology ProQuest SCs. The results from the survey question the utility of traditional disciplinary labels and suggest that scholars may occupy a post-interdisciplinary space in which they move freely across disciplinary boundaries and identify with topics instead of disciplines.

Authorship, patents, citations, acknowledgments, tweets, reader counts and the multifaceted reward system of science

Building upon well‐established paradigms brought forth by such theorists as Robert K. Merton, Pierre Bourdieu, and Blaise Cronin, the panel will span the full cycle of academic production to show, through various bibliometric measures and other quantitative and qualitative analyses, how the reward system of science is evolving. While there is strong evidence to suggest that such forms of dissemination as social media output and blogging are being incorporated into scientific practices, scientific impact still remains principally assessed using measures such as authorship and citations, whilst other elements, such as acknowledgements, have received varying levels of regard at various times. Disciplinary considerations also arise. Using a wide range of approaches, measures, and datasets, the panelists will establish links between their individual research to create an empirically driven picture of the reward system of science and its indicators. Through the use of the Polldaddy application, audience members will answer questions and create an overview of their perception of the reward system of science.