E-VISIBILITY OF SCHOLARS FROM INSTITUTES OF PEDAGOGY IN THE SCIENTIFIC DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED UNIVERSITIES FROM POLAND
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19251/sej/2021.14.1(9)Keywords:
scientific visibility, e-visibility, research e-profile, academic social sites, scientific effectivenessAbstract
The visibility and recognition of scholars are synonymous with their presence in the digital space. One of the most common methods of creating a presence in the virtual space is the e-profile as a “digital representation” of a researcher, a kind of “scholarly selfie”. The authors of this paper set out to define and compare the e-visibility of scholars affiliated with selected Instituetes of Pedagogy from: Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, University of Zielona Góra and University of Rzeszów. The five websites most frequently used by academics for their scholarly e-profiles were selected for the study: ResearchID, ScopusAuthorID, Google Scholar Citation, ResearchGate and Academia.edu. The analysis of the collected material showed that: (1) : a significant proportion of academics of the analysed institutes do not use tools such as reference databases (WoS and Scopus) and social scientific services (RG, GS and ACA) to consistently build their visibility, and thus their position, also in the digital scientific environment; (2) a significant part of scientists from the analysed institutes rarely publish in conference languages and very occasionally in journals indexed in prestigious bibliographic databases (WoS and Scopus), which directly influences the low percentage of references to their works; (3) this state of affairs causes that a significant part of the researched is in fact absent from the world circulation of science, and their visibility in the wider, international scientific community is unfortunately negligible.
References
Aaltojärvi, Inari, Ilkka Arminen, Otto Auranen, i Hanna-Mari Pasanen. 2008a. „Scientific Productivity, Web Visibility and Citation Patterns in Sixteen Nordic Sociology Departments”. Acta Sociologica 51 (1): 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699307086815.
Adriaanse, Leslie S, i Chris Rensleigh. 2017. „E-Visibility to Enhance Knowledge Sharing”. W , 1–12. Long Beach Golf and Spa, Mauritius: University of Mauritius. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17191.24489.
Becher, Melissa. 2015. „Factors Impacting Library Visibility on Academic Institution Home Pages”. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (5): 621–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.06.019.
Borgman, Christine L., i Jonathan Furner. 2005. „Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics”. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 36 (1): 2–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440360102.
Buzdygan, Dorota, i Górski, Marek M. (2015). Jak biblioteka może wspierać zarządzanie reputacją naukową uczonych i zespołów badawczych. W T. Piestrzyński & J. Jerzyk-Wojtecka (Red.), Biblioteka w społeczeństwie wiedzy. Informacja, Edukacja, Profesjonalizm (s. 101–118). Wydawnictwo UŁ. https://doi.org/10.18778/8088-191-4.08
Chung, Chung Joo, i Han Woo Park. 2012. „Web Visibility of Scholars in Media and Communication Journals”. Scientometrics 93 (1): 207–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0707-8.
Danesh, Farshid, Rahmatollah Fattahi, i Mohammad Hossein Dayani. 2017. „Stratification of Iranian LIS Academics in Terms of Visibility, Effectiveness and Scientific and Professional Performance: Research Report Part 1”. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 49 (2): 191–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000616632866.
Drabek, Aneta. (2018). Indeksowanie czasopism w referencyjnych bazach danych. figshare. https://figshare.com/articles/Indeksowanie_czasopism_w_referencyjnych_bazach_danych/5683972
Harzing, Anne-Wil, i Satu Alakangas. 2016. „Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A Longitudinal and Cross-Disciplinary Comparison”. Scientometrics 106 (2): 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9.
Haustein, Stefanie. 2015. „Scientific Interactions and Research Evaluation: From Bibliometrics to Altmetrics”. W Re:inventing Information Science in the Networked Society.Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science (ISI 2015), zredagowane przez F. Pehar, C. Schlögl, i C. Wolff, 36–42. Zadar, Groatia: Glückstadt: Verlag Werner Hülsbusch.
Haustein, Stefanie, Isabella Peters, Judit Bar-Ilan, Jason Priem, Hadas Shema, i Jens Terliesner. 2014. „Coverage and Adoption of Altmetrics Sources in the Bibliometric Community”. Scientometrics 101 (2): 1145–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1221-3.
Hosseini, Elaheh, i Leila Hashempour. 2012. „The Status of Librarians’ Knowledge Sharing by the Usage of Web 2.0 Tools: A Case Study of Central Libraries of Tabriz Governmental Universities”. W E-Science and Information Management, zredagowane przez Serap Kurbanoğlu, Umut Al, Phyllis Lepon Erdoğan, Yaşar Tonta, i Nazan Uçak, 317:128–37. Communications in Computer and Information Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33299-9.
Kędzierska, Edyta. (2015). Wzmocnione publikacje: Nowy model wsparcia komunikacji naukowej. Zagadnienia Informacji Naukowej, 53(1), 44–53.
Kokowski, Michał. 2015. „Szkic aktualnej debaty nad naukometrią i bibliometrią w Polsce i zapomniane naukoznawstwo [A Sketch on the Current Debate on Scientometrics and Bibliometrics versus the Forgotten Science of Science]”. Prace Komisji Histroii Nauki PAU 14: 117–34.
Kwiek, Marek. 2015. „Academic Generations and Academic Work: Patterns of Attitudes, Behaviors, and Research Productivity of Polish Academics after 1989”. Studies in Higher Education 40 (8): 1354–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1060706.
———. 2018. „High Research Productivity in Vertically Undifferentiated Higher Education Systems: Who Are the Top Performers?” Scientometrics 115 (1): 415–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2644-7.
Lawrence, Steve. 2001. „Free Online Availability Substantially Increases a Paper’s Impact”. Nature 411 (6837): 521. https://doi.org/10.1038/35079151.
Letki, Natalia., i Nowotny, Marcin. (2019). Tytuł zamiast dorobku. Forum Akademickie, 06. https://prenumeruj.forumakademickie.pl/fa/2019/06/tytul-zamiast-dorobku/
Lindsey, Duncan. 1989. „Using Citation Counts as a Measure of Quality in Science Measuring What’s Measurable Rather Than What’s Valid”. Scientometrics 15 (3–4): 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017198.
Lowe, D. Jordan, i David D. Van Fleet. 2009. „Scholarly Achievement and Accounting Journal Eeditorial Board Membership”. Journal of Accounting Education 27 (4): 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2010.07.004.
Miguel, Sandra, Zaida Chinchilla-Rodriguez, i Félix de Moya-Anegón. 2011. „Open Access and Scopus: A New Approach to Scientific Visibility from the Standpoint of Access”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62 (6): 1130–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21532.
Mikki, Susanne, Marta Zygmuntowska, Øyvind Liland Gjesdal, i Hemed Ali Al Ruwehy. 2015. „Digital Presence of Norwegian Scholars on Academic Network Sites—Where and Who Are They?” Zredagowane przez Vincent Larivière. PLOS ONE 10 (11): e0142709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142709.
Minister Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. (2018, wrzesień 28). Komunikat Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego z dn. 28 września 2018 r. O kategoriach naukowych przyznanych jednostkom naukowym i uczelniom, w których zgodnie z ich statutami nie wyodrębniono podstawowych jednostek organizacyjnych. Biuletyn Informacji Publicznej, MNiSW.
Nahotko, Marek. 2010. Komunikacja naukowa w środowisku cyfrowym: globalna biblioteka cyfrowa w informatycznej infrastrukturze nauki. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo SBP.
Norman, Emma R. 2012. „Maximizing Journal Article Citation Online: Readers, Robots, and Research Visibility”. Politics & Policy 40 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00342.x.
Nourmohammadi, Hamzehali, i A. Keramatfar. 2014. „Assessment of Scientific Visibility of Estonia on Web: A Study”. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management 8 (2): 257–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2014.1015299.
Ortega, José Luis. 2015. „Relationship Between Altmetric and Bibliometric Indicators Across Academic Social Sites: The Case of CSIC’s Members”. Journal of Informetrics 9 (1): 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.004.
Pérez-Llantada, Carmen. 2010. „The ‘dialectics of change’ as a facet of globalisation: Epistemic modality in academic writing”. W English for Professional and Academic Purposes, zredagowane przez Miguel F. Ruiz-Garrido, Juan C. Palmer-Silveira, i Inmaculada Fortanet-Gómez, 25–41. Brill | Rodopi. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042029569_004.
Popovic, Aleksandra, Sanja Antonic, i Stela F. Matutinovic. 2012. „Rapid Changes of Serbian Scientific Journals: Their Quality, Visibility and Role in Science Locally and Globally”. W E-Science and Information Management, zredagowane przez Serap Kurbanoğlu, Umut Al, Phyllis Lepon Erdoğan, Yaşar Tonta, i Nazan Uçak, 317:61–70. Communications in Computer and Information Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33299-9.
Priem, Jason. 2014. „Altmetrics”. W Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact, zredagowane przez Blaise Cronin i Cassidy R. Sugimoto. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Pruchnicka, Joanna. 2014. „Sposoby komunikowania się instytucji naukowej z otoczeniem”. Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych. https://doi.org/10.14611/minib.12.02.2014.01.
Pulikowski, Arkadiusz. (2015). Widoczność polskich publikacji naukowych w Internecie. Zagadnienia Informacji Naukowej. Studia informacyjne, 1, 59–70.
Rehrl, Monika, Tuire Palonen, Erno Lehtinen, i Hans Gruber. 2014. „Experts in Science: Visibility in Research Communities”. Talent Development & Excellence 6 (1): 31–45.
Rębisz, Sławomir. 2017. „The Presence of Polish, Hungarian and Slovak Publications in the Field of Education in the Web of Science Database. A Bibliometric Comparative Study”. Practice and Theory in Systems of Education 12 (1): 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1515/ptse-2017-0003.
Rębisz, Sławomir, i Kapczyński, Marcin. (2018). Aktywność publikacyjna pracowników sektora nauki i badań z Polski, Słowacji i Węgier w latach 2005–2009 i 2010–2014. Zarządzanie Publiczne, 44(4), 403–425. https://doi.org/10.4467/20843968ZP.18.032.9935
Rychlik, Małgorzata. (2017). Perspektywy stosowania wskaźników altmetrycznych w ocenie dorobku polskiej humanistyki. W E. Kulczycki (Red.), Komunikacja naukowa w humanistyce: T. V (s. 91–102). Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Instytutu Filozofii UAM.
Tena-Espinoza-de-los-Monteros, Martin-Adalberto, Alicia García-Holgado, Jose Antonio Merlo-Vega, i Francisco Jose García-Peñalvo. 2017. „Diseño de un plan de visibilidad científica e identidad digital para los investigadores de la Universidad de Guadalajara (México) [Design of a Plan for the Scientific Visibility and Digital Identity of the Researchers of the University of Guadalajara (México)]”. Ibersid: Revista de sistemas de información y documentación 11 (1): 83–92.
Tennant, Jonathan. 2020. „Web of Science and Scopus are not global databases of knowledge”. European Science Editing 46 (październik): e51987. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51987.
Thelwall, Mike, i Kayvan Kousha. 2014. „Academia.Edu: Social Network or Academic Network?: Social Network or Academic Network?” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65 (4): 721–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23038.
Ward, Judit, William Bejarano, i Anikó Dudás. 2015. „Scholarly social media profiles and libraries: A review”. LIBER Quarterly 24 (4): 174. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.9958.
