The Study Approaches for Dissemination of Research Results in the Information Society

  • Dmitry Prokudin
  • Irina Mbogo
  • Lyudmila Murgulets
  • Marina Kudryavtseva
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 674)

Abstract

This paper presents the results of the study of current trends in the quick dissemination of scientific research results based on the application of information society technologies. The paper demonstrates approaches enabling automatic integration of scientific metadata into different information systems. It also demonstrates an optimal solution for the dissemination of interdisciplinary research results published as proceedings of an annual scientific conference. Specific features of metadata dissemination in diverse information systems have been studied. An approach is presented for the optimization and automation of metadata preparation and for their presentation into diverse information systems that do not support automatic metadata exchange.

Keywords

Dissemination of scientific knowledge Open access Repositories Metadata Heterogeneous information systems 

References

  1. 1.
    Aguillo, I.F.: Open Science, Metrics 2.0 and their impact at individual level (2015). http://hdl.handle.net/10261/131489
  2. 2.
    Dhiman, A.K., Sharma, H.: Accessing scholarly information in networked environment through institutional repositories. Pak. J. Inf. Manage. Libr. 9, 97–111 (2008). http://journals.pu.edu.pk/journals/index.php/pjiml/article/viewFile/814/449 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ashraf, K., Haneefa, M.: Scholarly use of social media. Ann. Libr. Inf. Stud. 63(27), 132–139 (2016). http://op.niscair.res.in/index.php/ALIS/article/view/12451 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bankier, J.G., Gleason, K.: Institutional Repository Software Comparison (2014). http://works.bepress.com/jean_gabriel_bankier/22/
  5. 5.
    Björk, B.C.: Open access subject repositories: an overview. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65, 698–706 (2014). doi:10.1002/asi.23021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burgelman, J.C., Luber, S., von Schomberg, R., Lusoli, W.: Open science: public consultation on Science 2.0: Science in transition. Key results, insights and possible follow up (2015). http://www.science20-conference.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/01_Jean-Claude_Burgelman_-_Open_Science__outcome_of_the_public_consultation_on__Science-20_science_in_transition.pdf
  7. 7.
    Calderón-Martínez, A., Ruiz-Conde, E.: Leading emerging markets: capturing and diffusing scientific knowledge through research-oriented repositories. Scientometrics 104(3), 907–930 (2015). doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1603-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeSordi, J.O., Conejero, M.A., Meireles, M.: Bibliometric indicators in the context of regional repositories: proposing the D-index. Scientometrics 107(1), 235–258 (2016). doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1873-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferreras-Fernández, T., García-Peñalvo, F.J., Merlo-Vega, J.A.: Open access repositories as channel of publication scientific grey literature. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality - TEEM 2015, pp. 419–426. ACM Press, New York (2015). doi:10.1145/2808580.2808643
  10. 10.
    Fisher, J.H.: Scholarly publishing re-invented: real costs and real freedoms. J. Electron. Publishing 11(2) (2008). doi:10.3998/3336451.0011.204
  11. 11.
    Friesike, S., Widenmayer, B., Gassmann, O.: Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry. J Technol. Trans. 40, 581–601 (2015). doi:10.1007/s10961-014-9375-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gorraiz, J.: Individual Bibliometric Assessment @ University of Vienna: From Numbers to Multidimensional Profiles. Zenodo (2016). doi:10.5281/zenodo.45402
  13. 13.
    Griffiths, P.: Maximizing the impact of your publications in an open access environment. In: Presentation on 43rd Biennial Convention (2016). http://hdl.handle.net/10755/603401
  14. 14.
    Henkel, R., et al.: Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics. Asian J. Androl. 18(2), 296–309 (2016). doi:10.4103/1008-682X.171582 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kartashova, A.A.: Transformation and deformation of scientific knowledge in connection with expansion of scientific approaches and techniques. Rossiyskiy Gumanitarnyi Zhurnal (Russ. Hum. Sci. J.) 5, 347–357 (2015). doi:10.15643/libartrus-2015.5.3. (in Russia)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kousha, K., Thelwall, M.: Disseminating research with web CV hyperlinks. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65, 1615–1626 (2014). doi:10.1002/asi.23070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kudim, K.A., Proskudina, G.Y., Reznichenko, V.A.: Comparing the EPrints 3.0 and DSpace 1.4.1 electronic libraries. In: Works of IX All-Russian Scientific Conference: Electronic Libraries: Advanced Techniques & Technologies, Electronic Collections - RCDL2007. Pereyaslavl-Zalesskyi, 15–18 October 2007 (2008). http://dspace.nsu.ru:8080/jspui/bitstream/nsu/143/1/paper_66_v2.pdf (in Russian)
  18. 18.
    Li, X., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K.: The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC informal scholarly communication. Lib J. Inf. Manage. 67(6), 614–635 (2015). doi:10.1108/AJIM-03-2015-0049 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mas-Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Aguillo, I.F.: Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? Scientometrics 101(1), 337–356 (2014). doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1345-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miguel, S., Tannuride, O., Cabrini, G.: Scientific production on open access: a worldwide bibliometric analysis in the academic and scientific context. Publications 4(1), 1 (2016). doi:10.3390/publications4010001
  21. 21.
    Laakso, M.: Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed. Scientometrics 99(2), 475–494 (2014). doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1205-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mukherjee, A., Stern, S.: Disclosure or secrecy? The dynamics of open science. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 27(3), 449–462 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2008.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nicholson, S.W., Bennett, T.B.: Dissemination and discovery of diverse data: do libraries promote their unique research data collections? Int. Inf. Libr. Rev. 48(2), 85–93 (2016). doi:10.1080/10572317.2016.1176448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nielsen, M.: Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nixon, W.: DAEDALUS: Initial Experiences with ePrints and Dspace at the University of Glasgow. Ariadne (37) (2003). http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue37/nixon/
  26. 26.
    Open Access 2020. http://oa2020.org
  27. 27.
    Paprinov, S.I.: Development of electronic libraries is the way to the open science. In: Electronic Libraries: Advanced Techniques and Technologies, Electronic Collections: Works of the XI All-Russian Scientific Conference RCDL 2009, pp. 225–234. Karelia Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Science, Petrozavodsk (2009). http://rcdl.ru/doc/2009/225_234_Invited-2.pdf (in Russian)
  28. 28.
    Parinov, S., Lyapunov, V., Puzyrev, R., Kogalovsky, M.: Semantically enrichable research information system socionet. Knowledge engineering and semantic web. In: 6th International Conference, KESW 2015, Moscow, Russia, September 30 - October 2, 2015, Proceedings. 518 of the series Communications in Computer and Information Science, pp. 147–157 (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24543-0_11
  29. 29.
    Parsons, J.: Welcome to Science 2.0|Open Access in Action. Library Journal, March 15 (2016). http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2016/03/oa/welcome-to-science-2-0-open-access-in-action/
  30. 30.
    Pinfield, S.: Making open access work: the “state-of-the-art” in providing Open Access to scholarly literature. Online Inf. Rev. 39(5), 604–636 (2015). doi:10.1108/OIR-05-2015-0167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Porter, A.L., Rafols, I.: Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics 81(3), 719–745 (2009). doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prokudin, D.E.: Through an open software publishing platform for integration into the global scientific community: addressing rapid publication of research results. Sch. Commun. Rev. 6(18), 13–18 (2013). doi:10.18334/np36109 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Qin, J., Lancaster, F.W., Allen, B.: Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 48, 893–916 (1997). doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199710)48:10<893:AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jamali, R., Russell, D., Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A.: Do online communities support research collaboration? Lib J. Inf. Manag. 66(6), 603–622 (2014). doi:10.1108/ajim-08-2013-0072 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schmidt, B., Orth, A., Franck, G., Kuchma, I., Knoth, P., Carvalho, J.: Stepping up open science training for European research. Publications 4(2), 16 (2016). doi:10.3390/publications4020016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Siedlok, F., Hibbert, P.: The organization of interdisciplinary research: modes, drivers and barriers. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 16, 194–210 (2014). doi:10.1111/ijmr.12016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smith, I.: Open access infrastructure. UNESCO, Paris (2015). http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002322/232204e.pdf
  38. 38.
    Solomon, D.J.: Strategies for developing sustainable open access scholarly journals. First Monday 11(6) (2006). doi:10.5210/fm.v11i6.1335
  39. 39.
    Strakhovskaya, I.G.: Culturological tools of interdisciplinarity. Vestnik Slavyanslik Kultur (Bull. Slavic Cultures) 4, 35–43 (2011). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Syrov, V.N.: Philosophy and Prospects of Interdisciplinary Researches in Russian Science. Vestnik VolgU (Bulletin of Volgograd University), Series 7, Philosophy. Sociology and Social Technologies, vol. 3, pp. 5–14 (2011)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative: setting the default to open. http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai-10-recommendations
  42. 42.
    Thelwall, M., Kousha, K.: Research gate: disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66, 876–889 (2015). doi:10.1002/asi.23236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Willinsky, J.: Open journal systems: an example of open source software for journal management and publishing. Libr. Hi Tech. 23(4), 504–519 (2005). doi:10.1108/07378830510636300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dmitry Prokudin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Irina Mbogo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lyudmila Murgulets
    • 1
  • Marina Kudryavtseva
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.ITMO UniversitySaint PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Saint Petersburg State UniversitySaint PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations