Otvorená veda a informačné správanie vedcov v SR
Roč.9,č.2(2017)
Charakterizuje sa otvorená veda ako prepojenie vedy s verejnosťou a presun vedy do digitálneho prostredia s využitím digitálnych knižníc a koncepcie open access. Analyzujú sa vybrané modely otvorenej vedy a digitálnej vedy, najmä prepojenie vedy s verejnosťou, digitálne služby, práca s dátami, altmetria. Faktory otvorenej vedy obsahujú transparentné metódy, manažment dát, elektronické publikovanie. Charakterizuje sa princíp otvoreného prístupu k publikáciám a dátam. Na základe vlastného kvalitatívneho výskumu – rozhovorov s 19 vybranými vedcami v SR – s využitím metodológie konceptuálneho modelovania sa identifikujú spoločné metodologické analytické procesy a odlišnosti v publikačných stratégiách v odboroch. Predstavujú sa výsledky analýz zameraných na vnímanie publikovania v digitálnom prostredí, open access a otvorenej vedy a prekážok vedeckej práce. Zistenia poukazujú na dva typy diskurzov o otvorenej vede a digitálnom publikovaní; podporný (zvyšovanie počtu citácií, rýchlosť publikovania) a kritický (komercionalizácia, problém financovania vedy). Potvrdili sa rezervy v podpore otvorenej vedy, najmä z aspektu otvoreného prístupu k publikáciám a dátam. Prekážky boli kategorizované na systémové, individuálne, technologické, administratívne, finančné. Predstavuje sa ekologický model informačných interakcií s prepojením faktorov doménovej expertízy, metodológie a otvorenej vedy. Určuje sa vedecká informačná gramotnosť ako skúsenosť pri hľadaní zmyslu pri skúmaní objektov a problémov v disciplínach. Navrhujú sa odporúčania pre akademické knižnice a informačných profesionálov pri podpore otvorenej vedy a informačných potrieb vedcov.
otvorená veda; digitálna veda; open access; informačné správanie vedcov; vedecká informačná gramotnosť
BATES, Marcia. 2005. An Introduction to Metatheories, Theories, and Models. Chapter 1. In Theories of Information Behavior. Ed. By K. Fisher ET AL, 1-24, Meford, NJ., Information Today.
BJÖRK, B.Ch., 2005. A Life-Cycle Model of the Scientific Communication Process. In Learned Publishing. 2005, 18, 165–176.
BJÖRK, B. C., & Solomon, D. 2012. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC medicine, 10(1), 73.
BORGMAN, Ch. L. 2015. Big Data, Little Data, No Data. Scholarship in the Networked World. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2015. 383 p.
BORGMAN, Ch., 2007. Scholarship in the Digital Age. Information, Infrastructure and the Internet. Cambridge: MIT Press. 336 s.
BORGMAN, Ch. (2012). The Conundrum of Sharing Research Data. In JASIST, 63 (2012), 6, 1059-1078.
BROWN, C. 2010. Communication in the Sciences. In Annual Review of Information Science and and Technology. Vol. 44. Ed. B. Cronin. Medford, Information Today, 2010, 287-316.
BUDAPEST Open Access Initiative. 2012. [online][cit. 2017-07-27]. Dostupné na: http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai-10-recommendations
BURDICK, Anne et al. 2012. Digital Humanities. [online].Cambridge. Ma., MIT Press 2012.153 s. [cit. 2017-07-30]. Dostupné z: https://mitpress.mit.edu/.../9780262018470_Open_Access_Edition.
CASE, D.O. 2012. Looking for information: a survey of research on information seeking, needs and behavior. 3rd.ed., Bingley, Emerlad 2012. 491 p.
CHOWDHURRY, Gobinda G. 2014. Sustainability of Scholarly Information. London: Facet Publ., 2014. 231 p.
DAVID, Paul. 2014. The Republic of Open Science – the Institution´s Historical Origins and Prospects for Continued Vitality. MERIT Working Papers 082, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT). Dostupné na: https://ideas.repec.org/p/sip/dpaper/13-037.html
DAVID, Paul. 2003. The Economic Logic of „open science“ and the Balance between Private Property Rights and the Public Domain in Scientific data and Information: A Primer. Stanford University, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy research. Discussion paper No. 02-30. Final Draft 2003. 17 s.
ERDELEZ, S. & Means, T. 2005. Measuring changes in information sharing among life science researchers. In: Knowledge Management: Nurturing Culture, Innovation and Technology, 29-40.
THE FOURTH PARADIGM. Data Intensive Scientific Discovery. 2009. Ed. By Toni Hey, Stewart Tansley, Kristin Tolle. Redmond, Washington: Microsoft Research 2009.
FIDEL, R. 2012. Human Information Interaction: An Ecological Approach to Information Behavior. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press 2012. 348 s.
FRY, J. 2013. Considerations in adopting a disciplinary analysis of scholarly communication and information behaviours. In: ASIST European Workshop. Abo, Abo Univ. 63-78.
FRY, J. 2006. Studying the scholarly Web: how disciplinary culture shapes online representations. Cybermetrics, 10(1), paper 2. Dostupné na: http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1p2.html
HAUSTEIN, Stefanie. 2016. Grand challenges in altmetrics: heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. In: Scientometrics [online]. Vol. 108, Iss.1, 413-423. [cit. 2017-07-30]. Dostupné na: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.04939, doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-1910-9
HEY, Tony, Tansley, Stewart, Tolle, Kirstin (eds.). 2009. The Fourth Paradigm. Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Redmond: Microsoft Research 2009. Dostupné na: http://research.microsofrt.com/en-us/collaboration/fourthparadigm
HJØRLAND, B. 2010. The importance of theories of knowledge: indexing and information retrieval as an example. Journal of the ASIST. 2010, 62, (1), 72-77.
HURD, J. 2000. The Transformation of Scientific Communication: A Model for 2020. In: JASIST. Vol. 51. No.14, (2000), pp. 1279-1283.
KARVALICS, L.Z. 2013. From Scientific Literacy to Lifelong Research: A Social Innovation Approach. In: Worldwide Commonalities and Challenges in Information Literacy Research and Practice. ECIL 2013. Rev. Sel. Papers. Ed. S. Kurbanoglu et al. Springer, Cham: 126-133.
KINCHIN, I.M., Streatfield, D., Hay, D.B. 2010. Using Concept Mapping to Enhance the Research Interview. In: International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2010, 9, (1), 52-89.
KIRCHNER, J,. Diaz, J., Henry, G., Fliss, S., Culshaw, J., Gendron, H., Cawthorne, J. 2015. The Centre of Excellence Model for Information Services. [online]. [cit. 2015-05-10]. Washington: Council on Library and Information Resources. 2015. 25s. Dostupné na:
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub163
KMEŤOVÁ, M. 2016. Otvorená veda, digitálna veda a informačná veda – vzťahy a súvislosti. In: Knižničná a informačná veda 27. Bratislava: UK, 2016, 69-80.
KOLTAY, T., Špiranec, S., Karvalics, L.Z.2016. Research 2.0 and the Future of Information Literacy. Amsterdam: Chandos.
LEYDESDORFF, Loet. 2010. The Knowledge-Based Economy and the Triple Helix Model. Chapter 9. In ARIST. Vol. 44. Ed. B. Cronin. Medford: Information Today 2010, 367-417.
LYNCH, Clifford, Dirks, Lee. 2011. New Initiatives in Open Research. In: Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference. http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284314874
MC GUINESS, C. 2006. What Faculty Think-Exploring the Barriers to Information Literacy Development in Undergraduate Education. In: Journal of Academic Librarianship. Vol. 32, No. 6, 573-582, Nov. 2006.
ONDRIŠOVÁ, Miriam. 2016. Alternatívne hodnotenia vplyvu vedeckých výstupov vo webovom prostredí. In: Knižničná a informačná veda 26. Bratislava, UK 2016, 28-44.
OPEN Science and Research, 2014. The Open Science and Research Handbook [online]. December 2014 [cit. 2017-03-23]. The Open Science and Research Initiative. 16 p. Dostup. na: http://openscience.fi
PALMER, C.I., Cragin, M.H. 2008. Scholarship and disciplinary practices. In Annual Review od Information Science and Technology. Vol. 43 (2), 163-212. Dostupné na: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aris.2008.1440420112
PRIEM, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., Neylon, C. 2010. Altmetrics: A manifesto. [online] 26 October 2010. [cit. 2017-04-27]. Dostupné na: http:// altmetrics.org/manifesto/
RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT Framework. 2010. [online].Vitae, CRAC (Careers Research and Advisory Centre), Research Council UK. Dostupné z: http://www.researchconcordat.ac.uk/documents/concordat.pdf
SCHNEIDER, R. 2013. Research Data Literacy. In: Worldwide Commonalities and Challenges in Information Literacy Research and Practice. ECIL 2013. Rev. Sel. Papers. Ed. S. Kurbanoglu et al. Springer, Cham, 134-140.
STEINEROVÁ, J. 2013. Methodological Literacy of Doctoral Students – an Emerging Model. In: Worldwide Commonalities and Challenges in Information Literacy Research and Practice. ECIL 2013. Conf. Proc. Ed. S. Kurbanoglu et al. Cham: Springer, 148-154.
STEINEROVÁ, J. 2015. Looking for Creative Information Strategies and Ecological Literacy. In: ECIL 2015. Ed. S Kubanoglu et al. Cham: Springer, 2015, 3-12. CCIA 552.
STEINEROVÁ, Jela. 2015. Otvorená veda a digitálna veda z pohľadu informačnej vedy. In: Bioetické výzvy a súčasnosť. Bratislava: Stimul 2015, 273-284.
STEINEROVÁ, J. 2014. Ecological Information Interactions for Digital Scholarship. In: Cognitive Traveling in Digital Space of the Web and Digital Libraries Yield of the Interdisciplinary Multi-Partner Project TraDiCe. Ed. P. Návrat et al. Bratislava: STU 158-169.
STEINEROVÁ, Jela., 2014a. Digitálna veda- východiská, princípy, problémy. In: ITLib. 2014, roč. 18 č. 1, 5-13.
STEINEROVÁ, J. 2016. Information Challenges of Digital Science: Conceptual Frameworks. In: Journal of Library and Information Science, Vol.42, No.1, April 2016, 33-40.
STEINEROVÁ, Jela, Ondrišová, Miriam, Buzová, Katarína. 2015. Otvorená veda a funkcie informačnej vedy. In ITLib špeciál. Roč. 19. 2015, s.16-26.
STEINEROVÁ, Jela, HRČKOVÁ, A. 2014. Information support of research information interactions of PhD. students in Slovakia. In: An International Journal on Grey Literature. Summer 2014. TGJ Vol. 10, no. 2., 79-85.
TALJA, S. 2005. The Domain-Analytic Approach to Scholars´ Information Practices. In: Theories of Information Behavior. Medford: ASIST-Information Today, 123-127.
TALJA, S,.& Hartel, J. 2007. Revisiting the user-centred turn in information science research: an intellectual history perspective. Information Research, 12(4) paper colis04. Dostupné na: http://InformationR.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis04.html
THEORIES of Information Behavior. 2005. Eds. Fisher, K.E., Erdelez, S., McKechnie, L. Medford: Inform. Today. 431 p.
THELWALL, M. 2010. Webometrics: emergent or doomed? Information Research, 15(4) colis713. Dostupné na: http://InformationR.net/ir/15-4/colis713.html
THELWALL, M. 2009. Bibliometrics to webometrics. In Information science in transition. Ed. A. Gilchrist. London: Facet 2009, 347-376.
VAN DE SOMPEL, H., Nelson, M., Lagoze, C. and Warner,S. 2004. Resource Harvesting within the OAI-PMH Framework. D-Lib Magazine, 10 (12), 2004.
VERBAAN, E., & Cox, A. M. 2014. Collaboration or Competition? Responses to Research Data Management in UK Higher Education by Librarians, IT Professionals, and Research Administrators. In iConference 2014 Proceedings, 281–292. doi:10.9776/14084
VILAR, Polona. 2015. Information behaviour of scholars, In Libellarium: journal for the research of writing, books, and cultural heritage institutions [online]. VII, 1, 17 - 39. [cit. 2016-05-30]. Dostupné z:<http://dx.doi.org/10.15291/libellarium.v7i1.194
VRANA, R. 2013. Promotion of Scientific Literacy and Popularization of Science with Support of Libraries and Internet Services. In: Worldwide Commonalities and Challenges in Information Literacy Research and Practice. ECIL 2013. Springer, Cham, 324-330.
WATSON, M.M. 2015. When will „open science“ become simply „science“? In: Genome biology [online], 16, 1[cit. 2017-07-27], Dostupné na: https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0669-2
WHITWORTH, B. & Friedman, R. 2009. Reinventing academic publishing online Part II: A Sociotechnical vision, First Monday. [online ]. Vol. 14, N. 9, [cit. 2014-02-23]. Dostupné na: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2642
WHITWORTH, A., Torras i Calvo, M-C., Moss. B., Kufle, N.A., Blasternes, T. 2015. Mapping Collective Information Practices in the Workplace. In: Information Literacy: Moving Toward Sustainability. ECIL 2015. Cham: Springer 2015, 49-58. CCIS 552.
ZUCCALA, A. 2009. The Layperson and Open Access. In: ARIST. Vol. 43. Ed. B. Cronin. Medford: Information Today, 359-396.
Copyright © 2017 ProInflow: Časopis pro informační vědy