Rachel Volentine

Peer review: still king in the digital age

The article presents one of the main findings of an international study of 4,000 academic researchers that examined how trustworthiness is determined in the digital environment when it comes to scholarly reading, citing, and publishing. The study shows that peer review is still the most trustworthy characteristic of all. There is, though, a common perception that open access journals are not peer reviewed or do not have proper peer‐review systems. Researchers appear to have moved inexorably from a print‐based system to a digital system, but it has not significantly changed the way they decide what to trust. They do not trust social media. Only a minority – although significantly mostly young and early career researchers – thought that social media are anything other than more appropriate to personal interactions and peripheral to their professional/academic lives. There are other significant differences, according to the age of the researcher. Thus, in regard to choosing an outlet for publication of their work, young researchers are much less concerned with the fact that it is peer reviewed.

Trust and Authority in Scholarly Communications in the Light of the Digital Transition: setting the scene for a major study

The paper provides the results of the first phase of the research project Trust and Authority in Scholarly Communications in the Light of the Digital Transition. It provides for an examination of the behaviours and attitudes of academic researchers as producers and consumers of scholarly information resources in the digital era in respect to how they determine authority and trustworthiness in the sources they use, cite, and publish in. The first phase of the study utilized focus groups to formulate research questions for the project as a whole. It provided the direction for the literature review, interviews, and questionnaires studies that would follow. Fourteen focus groups were held in the UK and US in order to obtain this information. A total of 66 science and social science researchers participated. The main findings were: (a) researchers play down difficulties of establishing trustworthiness, not because there are none, but because they have well‐developed methods of establishing trust; (b) citation‐derived metrics are becoming more important in regard to where researchers publish; (c) social media are ancillary to research, but are used for promotion of research and idea generation; (d) researchers are suspicious and confused about open access, but less so if produced by a traditional publisher; (e) there was a uniformity of perceptions/behaviour of researchers irrespective of differences in subject, country, and age; (f) although some early career researchers behave the same as their more senior colleagues this is because of a fear of the system: they actually think differently.

Social media and scholarly reading

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine how often university academic staff members use and create various forms of social media for their work and how that use influences their use of traditional scholarly information sources.Design/methodology/approach – This article is based on a 2011 academic reading study conducted at six higher learning institutions in the United Kingdom. Approximately 2,000 respondents completed the web‐based survey. The study used the critical incident of last reading by academics to gather information on the purpose, outcomes, and values of scholarly readings and access to library collections. In addition, academics were asked about their use and creation of social media as part of their work activities. The authors looked at six categories of social media – blogs, videos/YouTube, RSS feeds, Twitter feeds, user comments in articles, podcasts, and other. This article focuses on the influence of social media on scholarly reading patterns.Findings – Most UK academics use o...

Trustworthiness and authority of scholarly information in a digital age: Results of an international questionnaire

An international survey of over 3,600 researchers examined how trustworthiness and quality are determined for making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing and how scholars perceive changes in trust with new forms of scholarly communication. Although differences in determining trustworthiness and authority of scholarly resources exist among age groups and fields of study, traditional methods and criteria remain important across the board. Peer review is considered the most important factor for determining the quality and trustworthiness of research. Researchers continue to read abstracts, check content for sound arguments and credible data, and rely on journal rankings when deciding whether to trust scholarly resources in reading, citing, or publishing. Social media outlets and open access publications are still often not trusted, although many researchers believe that open access has positive implications for research, especially if the open access journals are peer reviewed.

Changes in the digital scholarly environment and issues of trust

Digital transition had resulted in changes in researcher behaviour.It is now easier for scientists to discover and disseminate research.The way scientists exercise trust has not changed.Metrics are less important than experience and personal recommendation. The paper reports on some of the results of a research project into how changes in digital behaviour and services impacts on concepts of trust and authority held by researchers in the sciences and social sciences in the UK and the USA. Interviews were used in conjunction with a group of focus groups to establish the form and topic of questions put to a larger international sample in an online questionnaire. The results of these 87 interviews were analysed to determine whether or not attitudes have indeed changed in terms of sources of information used, citation behaviour in choosing references, and in dissemination practices. It was found that there was marked continuity in attitudes though an increased emphasis on personal judgement over established and new metrics. Journals (or books in some disciplines) were more highly respected than other sources and still the vehicle for formal scholarly communication. The interviews confirmed that though an open access model did not in most cases lead to mistrust of a journal, a substantial number of researchers were worried about the approaches from what are called predatory OA journals. Established researchers did not on the whole use social media in their professional lives but a question about outreach revealed that it was recognised as effective in reaching a wider audience. There was a remarkable similarity in practice across research attitudes in all the disciplines covered and in both the countries where interviews were held.

Scholarly article seeking, reading, and use: a continuing evolution from print to electronic in the sciences and social sciences

Electronic journals are now the norm for accessing and reading scholarly articles. This article examines scholarly article reading patterns by faculty in five US universities in 2012. Selected findings are also compared to some general trends from studies conducted periodically since 1977. In the 2012 survey, over three‐quarters (76%) of the scholarly readings were obtained through electronic means and just over half (51%) of readings were read on a screen rather than from a print source or being printed out. Readings from library sources are overwhelmingly from e‐sources. The average number of articles read per month was 20.66, with most articles read by the medical and other sciences, and on average each article was read for 32 minutes.

Value of academic reading and value of the library in academics' own words

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to ask: What is the value and outcome of scholarly reading for academic staff? How do academic library collections support research and teaching activities of academic staff? How do reading patterns of articles, books, and other materials differ? What is the role of the academic library collections in teaching and learning?Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides insight into the values and outcomes of scholarly reading, identifies overall reading patterns, and illuminates issues academics address. Approximately 2,000 academic staff members from six UK universities completed a web‐based survey. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected through the survey. The survey used the critical incident of last reading by academics to gather information on the purpose, outcomes, and values of scholarly readings and access to library collections. The survey concluded with open‐ended comments, which is the focus of this article.Findings – The open‐ended commen...

Scholarly Reading and the Value of Academic Library Collections: results of a study in six UK universities

Measuring the use, outcomes and value of the library’s role in scholarly reading helps demonstrate the value library collections bring to scholarship. The Scholarly Reading and the Value of Library Resources project, funded by JISC Collections, measured the value and outcomes to academic staff members from access to scholarly publications. Six higher education institutions in the UK participated in the 2011 survey of scholarly reading. Over 2,000 academic staff members responded to the survey, which asked questions about reading of scholarly articles, books and other materials. Respondents read from a variety of materials, an average of 22 articles, seven books and ten other publications monthly, for an average of 39 scholarly readings per month. Readings from the library are more likely to be for research or teaching and the libraries’ e-journal collections are the main source for article readings. Additional reading patterns and outcomes are discussed.

Article and book reading patterns of scholars: findings for publishers

Surveys of academic staff in six universities in the UK provide insights for publishers into scholarly article and book reading patterns of academics and differences based on personal characteristics of readers. These surveys were part of the 2011 UK Scholarly Reading and the Value of the Library Study funded by JISC Collections and based on studies conducted by Tenopir and King since 1977. Scholarly articles, especially those obtained from the librarys e‐journal collections, are a vital part of academic work. Reading patterns of books are quite different than articles; books most often come from personal print collections. Book readings are still important for research and teaching, however, especially for humanists. Academics come into contact with multiple sources of information every day and therefore, convenience and easy access are important factors. Knowing more about academic reading patterns helps publishers and librarians design more effective journal systems and services now and into the future.

Do Younger Researchers Assess Trustworthiness Differently when Deciding what to Read and Cite and where to Publish

An international survey of over 3600 academic researchers examined how trustworthiness is determined when making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing in the digital age and whether social media and open access publications are having an impact on judgements. In general, the study found that traditional scholarly methods and criteria remain important across the board. However, there are significant differences between younger (age 30 & under) and older researchers (over 30). Thus younger researchers: a) expend less effort to obtain information and more likely to compromise on quality in their selections; b) view open access publishing much more positively as it offers them more choices and helps to establish their reputation more quickly; c) compensate for their lack of experience by relying more heavily on trust markers and proxies, such as impact factors; d) use all the outlets available in order to improve the chances of getting their work published and, in this respect, make the most use of the social media with which they are more familiar.