Challenges of capturing engagement on Facebook for Altmetrics

Previous research shows that, despite its popularity, Facebook is less frequently used to share academic content. In order to investigate this discrepancy we set out to explore engagement numbers through their Graph API by querying the Facebook API with multiple URLs for a random set of 103,539 articles from the Web of Science. We identified two major challenge areas: mapping articles to URLs and the mapping URLs to objects inside Facebook. We then explored three problem cases within our dataset: (1) identifying a landing page for any given URL, (2) instances where equivalent URLs are mapped to different Facebook objects, and (3) instances of different articles being mapped onto the same Facebook object. We found that the engagement numbers for 11.8% of all articles that have been shared on Facebook at least once are not reliable because of these problems. Moreover, we were unable to identify the URL for 11.6% of the articles in our data. Taken together, the three problem cases constitute 12.3% of the 103,539 tested articles for which engagement numbers cannot be relied upon. Given that we only tested a small number of problem cases and URL variants, our results point to large challenges facing those wishing to collect Facebook metrics programatically through the available API.Comment: To be presented at the 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2018

Open Knowledge Maps: Creating a Visual Interface to the World’s Scientific Knowledge Based on Natural Language Processing

The goal of Open Knowledge Maps is to create a visual interface to the world’s scientific knowledge. The base for this visual interface consists of so-called knowledge maps, which enable the exploration of existing knowledge and the discovery of new knowledge. Our open source knowledge mapping software applies a mixture of summarization techniques and similarity measures on article metadata, which are iteratively chained together. After processing, the representation is saved in a database for use in a web visualization. In the future, we want to create a space for collective knowledge mapping that brings together individuals and communities involved in exploration and discovery. We want to enable people to guide each other in their discovery by collaboratively annotating and modifying the automatically created maps.Das Ziel von Open Knowledge Map ist es, ein visuelles Interface zum wissenschaftlichen Wissen der Welt bereitzustellen. Die Basis für die dieses Interface sind sogenannte “knowledge maps”, zu deutsch Wissenslandkarten. Wissenslandkarten ermöglichen die Exploration bestehenden Wissens und die Entdeckung neuen Wissens. Unsere Open Source Software wendet für die Erstellung der Wissenslandkarten eine Reihe von Text Mining Verfahren iterativ auf die Metadaten wissenschaftlicher Artikel an. Die daraus resultierende Repräsentation wird in einer Datenbank für die Anzeige in einer Web-Visualisierung abgespeichert. In Zukunft wollen wir einen Raum für das kollektive Erstellen von Wissenslandkarten schaffen, der die Personen und Communities, welche sich mit der Exploration und Entdeckung wissenschaftlichen Wissens beschäftigen, zusammenbringt. Wir wollen es den NutzerInnen ermöglichen, einander in der Literatursuche durch kollaboratives Annotieren und Modifizieren von automatisch erstellten Wissenslandkarten zu unterstützen

Making Headlines: An Analysis of US Government-Funded Cancer Research Mentioned In Online Media

Objective To characterise how online media coverage of journal articles on cancer funded by the US government varies by cancer type and stage of the cancer control continuum and to compare the disease prevalence rates with the amount of funded research published for each cancer type and with the amount of media attention each receives. Design A cross-sectional study. Setting The United States. Participants The subject of analysis was 11 436 journal articles on cancer funded by the US government published in 2016. These articles were identified via PubMed and characterised as receiving online media attention based on data provided by Altmetric. Results 16.8% (n=1925) of articles published on US government-funded research were covered in the media. Published journal articles addressed all common cancers. Frequency of journal articles differed substantially across the common cancers, with breast cancer (n=1284), lung cancer (n=630) and prostate cancer (n=586) being the subject of the most journal articles. Roughly one-fifth to one-fourth of journal articles within each cancer category received online media attention. Media mentions were disproportionate to actual burden of each cancer type (ie, incidence and mortality), with breast cancer articles receiving the most media mentions. Scientific articles also covered the stages of the cancer continuum to varying degrees. Across the 13 most common cancer types, 4.4% (n=206) of articles focused on prevention and control, 11.7% (n=550) on diagnosis and 10.7% (n=502) on therapy. Conclusions Findings revealed a mismatch between prevalent cancers and cancers highlighted in online media. Further, journal articles on cancer control and prevention received less media attention than other cancer continuum stages. Media mentions were not proportional to actual public cancer burden nor volume of scientific publications in each cancer category. Results highlight a need for continued research on the role of media, especially online media, in research dissemination. Objective To characterise how online media coverage of journal articles on cancer funded by the US government varies by cancer type and stage of the cancer control continuum and to compare the disease prevalence rates with the amount of funded research published for each cancer type and with the amount of media attention each receives. Design A cross-sectional study. Setting The United States. Participants The subject of analysis was 11 436 journal articles on cancer funded by the US government published in 2016. These articles were identified via PubMed and characterised as receiving online media attention based on data provided by Altmetric. Results 16.8% (n=1925) of articles published on US government-funded research were covered in the media. Published journal articles addressed all common cancers. Frequency of journal articles differed substantially across the common cancers, with breast cancer (n=1284), lung cancer (n=630) and prostate cancer (n=586) being the subject of the most journal articles. Roughly one-fifth to one-fourth of journal articles within each cancer category received online media attention. Media mentions were disproportionate to actual burden of each cancer type (ie, incidence and mortality), with breast cancer articles receiving the most media mentions. Scientific articles also covered the stages of the cancer continuum to varying degrees. Across the 13 most common cancer types, 4.4% (n=206) of articles focused on prevention and control, 11.7% (n=550) on diagnosis and 10.7% (n=502) on therapy. Conclusions Findings revealed a mismatch between prevalent cancers and cancers highlighted in online media. Further, journal articles on cancer control and prevention received less media attention than other cancer continuum stages. Media mentions were not proportional to actual public cancer burden nor volume of scientific publications in each cancer category. Results highlight a need for continued research on the role of media, especially online media, in research dissemination. &nbsp

Ten Myths around Open Scholarly Publishing

The changing world of scholarly communication and the emergence of ‘Open Science’ or ‘Open Research’ has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly-debated topics. Yet, evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. The aim of this article is to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices and policies. We address preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, and the legitimacy of ‘global’ databases. The presented facts and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and may be used to inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system

Konzept OER-Zertifizierung an österreichischen Hochschulen

Das Ergebnis der Arbeitsgruppe „Open Educational Resources“ ist ein Konzept zur OER-Zertifizierung an österreichischen Hochschulen. Dazu wird unterschieden in eine zweistufige Zertifizierung für Hochschullehrende und eine dreistufige Zertifizierung für Hochschulen. Der Umsetzungsvorschlag sieht dafür digitale Open Badges vor, die von einer zentralen Stelle bereits in der nächsten Leistungsvereinbarungsperiode (2019–2021) vergeben werden sollen

The Vienna Principles: A Vision for Scholarly Communication in the 21st Century

Zur Zeit gibt es starke Bemühungen, die offensichtlichen Defizite des wissenschaftlichen Kommunikationssystems zu beheben. Open Science hat das Potenzial, die Produktion und Verbreitung von wissenschaftlichem Wissen positiv zu verändern; es existiert aber keine gemeinsam geteilte Vision, die das System wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation beschreibt, welches wir erschaffen wollen. Zwischen April 2015 und Juni 2016 trafen sich in Wien die Mitglieder der Open Access Network Austria (OANA) Arbeitsgruppe "Open Access and Scholarly Communication", um diese Angelegenheit zu diskutieren. Das Hauptergebnis unserer Überlegungen sind zwölf Prinzipien, die die Eckpfeiler eines künftigen wissenschaftlichen Kommunikationssystems darstellen. Diese Prinzipien sollen einen kohärenten Bezugsrahmen für die Debatte zur Verbesserung des derzeitigen Systems liefern. Mit diesem Dokument hoffen wir, eine breite Diskussion über eine gemeinsame Vision für die wissenschaftliche Kommunikation im 21. Jahrhundert anzustoßen

Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing

The changing world of scholarly communication and the emergence of a new wave of 'Open Science' or 'Open Research' has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly-debated topics. Yet, evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. The aim of this article is to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices and policies. We address issues around preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, predatory publishers, and the legitimacy of 'global' databases. The presented facts, arguments and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and may be used to inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system

Foundations for Open Scholarship Strategy Development, Version 2.1 [Pre-print]

This document aims to agree on a broad, international strategy for the implementation of open scholarship that meets the needs of different national and regional communities but works globally. Scholarly research can be idealised as an inspirational process for advancing our collective knowledge to the benefit of all humankind. However, current research practices often struggle with a range of tensions, in part due to the fact that this collective (or “commons”) ideal conflicts with the competitive system in which most scholars work, and in part because much of the infrastructure of the scholarly world is becoming largely digital. What is broadly termed as Open Scholarship is an attempt to realign modern research practices with this ideal. We do not propose a definition of Open Scholarship, but recognise that it is a holistic term that encompasses many disciplines, practices, and principles, sometimes also referred to as Open Science or Open Research. We choose the term Open Scholarship to be more inclusive of these other terms. When we refer to science in this document, we do so historically and use it as shorthand for more general scholarship. The purpose of this document is to provide a concise analysis of where the global Open Scholarship movement currently stands: what the common threads and strengths are, where the greatest opportunities and challenges lie, and how we can more effectively work together as a global community to recognise and address the top strategic priorities. This document was inspired by the Foundations for OER Strategy Development and work in the FORCE11 Scholarly Commons Working Group, and developed by an open contribution working group. Our hope is that this document will serve as a foundational resource for continuing discussions and initiatives about implementing effective strategies to help streamline the integration of Open Scholarship practices into a modern, digital research culture. Through this, we hope to extend the reach and impact of Open Scholarship into a global context, making sure that it is truly open for all. We also hope that this document will evolve as the conversations around Open Scholarship progress, and help to provide useful insight for both global co-ordination and local action. We believe this is a step forward in making Open Scholarship the norm. Ultimately, we expect the impact of widespread adoption of Open Scholarship to be diverse. We expect novel research practices to accelerate the pace of innovation, and therefore stimulate critical industries around the world. We could also expect to see an increase in public trust of science and scholarship, as transparency becomes more normative. As such, we expect interest in Open Scholarship to increase at multiple levels, due to its inherent influence on society and global economics

Foundations for Open Scholarship Strategy Development

This document aims to agree on a broad, international strategy for the implementation of open scholarship that meets the needs of different national and regional communities but works globally.Scholarly research can be idealised as an inspirational process for advancing our collective knowledge to the benefit of all humankind. However, current research practices often struggle with a range of tensions, in part due to the fact that this collective (or “commons”) ideal conflicts with the competitive system in which most scholars work, and in part because much of the infrastructure of the scholarly world is becoming largely digital. What is broadly termed as Open Scholarship is an attempt to realign modern research practices with this ideal. We do not propose a definition of Open Scholarship, but recognise that it is a holistic term that encompasses many disciplines, practices, and principles, sometimes also referred to as Open Science or Open Research. We choose the term Open Scholarship to be more inclusive of these other terms. When we refer to science in this document, we do so historically and use it as shorthand for more general scholarship.The purpose of this document is to provide a concise analysis of where the global Open Scholarship movement currently stands: what the common threads and strengths are, where the greatest opportunities and challenges lie, and how we can more effectively work together as a global community to recognise and address the top strategic priorities. This document was inspired by the Foundations for OER Strategy Development and work in the FORCE11 Scholarly Commons Working Group, and developed by an open contribution working group.Our hope is that this document will serve as a foundational resource for continuing discussions and initiatives about implementing effective strategies to help streamline the integration of Open Scholarship practices into a modern, digital research culture. Through this, we hope to extend the reach and impact of Open Scholarship into a global context, making sure that it is truly open for all. We also hope that this document will evolve as the conversations around Open Scholarship progress, and help to provide useful insight for both global co-ordination and local action. We believe this is a step forward in making Open Scholarship the norm.Ultimately, we expect the impact of widespread adoption of Open Scholarship to be diverse. We expect novel research practices to accelerate the pace of innovation, and therefore stimulate critical industries around the world. We could also expect to see an increase in public trust of science and scholarship, as transparency becomes more normative. As such, we expect interest in Open Scholarship to increase at multiple levels, due to its inherent influence on society and global economics