In the last 10 years, we have spent a lot of time thinking about the impact of research, both from a research and science management perspective. A few years ago, we also started giving trainings for other researchers on how to approach the blackbox “societal impact”. Our experience is that few researchers really know whether and how their research can have a societal impact.
The Web was created as a coordination and cooperation tool for scientists. Subsequently, it had a revolutionary impact on almost all aspects of our life. The rise of a “network society” did in the end, however, only had a minor effect on the forms of organising among the scientific community. Its paradigm of scientific communication and cooperation between a scholar and a publisher dates back to the early 17th century.
Social media is increasingly seen as a valuable source of data for research – one which is highly current and immediately accessible. However recent news has focused on the ethics of using information posted for one reason for another purpose entirely. If you were to ask ten researchers if it is ok for them to use social media posts in their research you might well receive ten different answers.
The role of libraries in the 21st century is changing. One indication is the emergence of new services and job profiles: libraries offer services to support researchers throughout the creation, publication, dissemination and discovery of their research.
Let’s get some things out of the way first: Yes, Twitter has fundamentally changed the way journalists work — they use the service to create and manage their brand, to get news, to find sources for stories; it has become an integral part of a journalist’s daily routine. Similarly, academics use Twitter to connect with colleagues, follow news, promote their work, participate in public discussion, and conduct research.
It’s no secret that we have an inequality problem within the hallowed walls of the academy. Much focus has been dedicated to problems of inequality—of status, of wage, of job security, of resulting social mobility, and beyond—mainly between tenured faculty and the growing precariat of contract teaching labour.
Sharing data publicly adds value to research. The same data can potentially be used for new questions in different contexts. Furthermore, by making data publicly available, results become more transparent.
Description The number of authors per article in the subject area Multidisciplinary is 3.3 on average with a maximum of 58 authors. The mean number of coauthors is decreasing by 0.1 per year in the respective time period (Figure 1). The articles in this analysis ( n = 1111) were cited 14.5 times on average with a maximum of 348 citations.
Description The number of authors per article in the subject area Mathematics is 2.9 on average with a maximum of 9 authors. The mean number of coauthors is increasing by 0.1 per year in the respective time period (Figure 1). The articles in this analysis ( n = 3657) were cited 8.2 times on average with a maximum of 357 citations.
Description The number of authors per article in the subject area Chemical Engineering is 2.6 on average with a maximum of 15 authors. The mean number of coauthors is increasing by 0.3 per year in the respective time period (Figure 1). The articles in this analysis ( n = 1303) were cited 5.9 times on average with a maximum of 112 citations.