This short presentation deals with some of the current publishing workflows to platforms for scholarly knowledge sharing and SoMe networking. It is touched upon what kind of implications emerge from operating in these open and networked virtual research environments (VRE) e.g. publishing open access.

1. :
Platforms for
knowledge sharing
& networking
Scholarly social
media applications
M. Svendsen, Københavns Universitetsbibliotek,
MEF institutseminar, Kobæk Strand, 19.08.2015

2. :
Outline of today’s brief talk
1. Innovations in research communication: changing digital workflows in
platforms for knowledge sharing and collaboration
2. Enhancing outreach: publishing Open Access & the scholarly SoMe profile
3. UCPH Library – Digital scholarship projects: Digital Library Labs & Linked,
Open & Social (DEFF, Denmark’s Electronic Research Library)
4. Discussion: Q&A

3. :
Science 2.0 = Internet driven & ’Open’
Open Science Umbrella. Image credit: Flikr user 지우 황 CC BY 2.0
• Open scholarhip practice in HEI: Open education resources (OER);
MOOCs; open source software; open annotation/peer review…
• ‘Sharing is caring’: key to transparency and the changes in scientific
practice, influenced by social media, networks, open tools and analytics.

4. :
Innovation in research workflows:
from discovery  assessment of impact
Majority of research
Kramer, Bianca; Bosman, Jeroen (2015): 101 Innovations in Scholarly Communication - the Changing
Research Workflow. Figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1286826

5. :
Types of workflows:
from traditional  innovative
Kramer, Bianca; Bosman, Jeroen (2015): 101 Innovations in Scholarly Communication - the Changing
Research Workflow. Figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1286826
Trending workflow fases
 social discovery + file sharing tools
 datadriven + crowd-sourced
analysis
 collaborative online writing
 open access publishing
 scholarly outreach +
identification
 article level metrics

6. :
2. Enhancing outreach: publishing OA & the scholarly SoMe profile
Open Access publishing
Gold hybrid OA
journal, APC = 5200 $
Traditional TA
journal
Green OA
archiving
in CURIS

7. :
2. Enhancing outreach: publishing OA & in scholarly SoMe networks
Scholarly SoMe dissimination
of Open Access publications
Persistent linking +
identifiction btw. SoMe
networks profiles (author
ID’s)…
…and the storage/archving
of the publication (DOI’s)

8. :
Scholarly Social Media Networks
A survey published by Van Noorden, R. in Nature (aug. 2014) provided:
Data by 3500 respondents from 95 countries and found:
• Google Scholar (known by > 70 %)
• ResearchGate (RG) – 2nd best known scholarly SoMe platform w. 29 % of its
current user registrations in 2013
• Academia.edu and RG used by 20 % of the responsdents
Retrieved 28.5, 2015: http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.15711!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/512126a.pdf

9. :
Scholarly Social Media Networks / 2
• New (ongoing) survey study on scholarly communication tool usage (University of
Utrecht): Innovations in Scholarly Communication  changes since aug. 2014:
• Copenhagen University Library contributes to this study by sending out surveys in
autumn 2015 via a custom URL.

10. :
Scholarly Social Media Networks / 3
• Take the survey and get a snapshot of your own workflow profile and
compare to your peers: https://101innovations.wordpress.com/
• Own results (Librarian):
https://101innovations.wordpress.com/2015/8/5/survey-results-id2556/

11. :
Common denominators of the 5 fastest growing scholarly SoMe platforms:
• build by researchers for researchers (often domain specific within STEM or SSH)
• aim to increase scholarly reputation & discoverability of research by file-sharing and
dissimination of research output (articles, presentations, data sets, grey literature:
notes, drafts and negative results)
• built in tools to measure impact (attention via downloads, views, no. of followers etc.)
• generally interpret science in the broadest sense encouraging the spread of Open
Science and scholarship
Platforms sorted by year of emergence / worldwide reg.users
• (2007) ≈ 3 mio. @ Mendeley - Connecting users to empower research
• (2008) ≈ 24 mio. @ Academia.edu - Share research
• (2008) ≈ 4 mio. @ Research Gate - Scientific network
• (2011) ≈ < 1 mio. @ Figshare - Credit for all your research
(2012) ≈ 1,4 mio. @ OrcID - Connecting research & researchers
(integration w. Mendeley, Figshare, Scopus, WoS, CURIS (PURE)
• Similarity in brand images though differences in domain focus and primary goals
Classification of scholarly SoMe network / 1

12. :
Nentwich & König (2014) list main featured and common functions build in the
software designs for scientific purposes:
1. User profile – the digital scholarly representation and portrait of the researcher
Follows same general practice of other known social media sites
2. Communication - messaging, chat, blogging, discussion fora / groups,
videoconferencing
3. Networking - list of contacts, person-search functions , invitations
4. Directing attention – displaying and customization of public profile, e.g. feeds,
notifications, like/share buttons, own metrics
5. Groups – collaboration, shared bibliographies, file uploads, alerts, event
mangement, collaborative online writing, selective membership options
6. Literature-related functions – integration of other databases, access to
publications, archives, access statistics, visualization of co-author networks
The structure of the these networks can be a valuable data source to explore
aspects of informal science communication outside the traditional publishing
spheres and institutional settings.
Classification of scholarly SoMe network / 2

13. :
The scholarly self(ie): a typology of researcher profiles
• 5 main types of academic persona (Barbour & Marshall, 2012) could be
observed on the social web as the:
1. Formal self: a rather static and simple self w. minimal interaction:
typically CMS for institutional faculty websites (UCPH reseracher profile)?
2. Networked self: a public individual presentation in an academic frame
focusing on sharing ideas and networking: typically scholarly SoMe
profiles (Mendeley, RG, academia.edu)
3. Comprehensive self: an online persona who uses SoMe for personal as
well as academic purposes with no strict separation: typically online
presence at networking sites (LinkedIn, FB and Twitter)
4. Teaching self: engaged in instructional activities w. strong focus on
students (not colleagues) and an equal partner to the digital natives.
5. Uncontainable self: online but opting out w. no SoMe engagement at all
risking that others will create one for the person and be defamed
• The extent of SoMe engagement varies according to activity level and
time invested (from: me-too presence – cyberentrepreneurship).
• In academia, the most frequent scenario is often a low degree of user
participation (from: passive networking to more infrequent online
activities).

14. :
Considerations & critique: rules of thumb
General considerations:
• In academia: many opposing opinions on the value of use of operating and
investing time in scholarly networks
• Lack of transparency, critical evaluation and monitoring of these commercial
businesses
• The interpretation of legal aspect to open access publications – the problem
of the researcher ‘home page’!
Specific critique:
• NOT a CRIS system or institutional repository w. proper exchange formats
and metadata (oai-pmh)
• Despite appealing domains like (.edu) most are commercial enterprises
earning money by selling analysis of user activities in their databases like
FB, Twitter etc. = key information (ex. Elsevier buying up Mendeley)
• The increasing demand from research funding of non-commercial CC
licensing of Open Access content is conflicting w. the business models of
these networks

15. :
UCPH Library – Digital scholarship projects
2 strategic projects closely related to today’s talk:
1. 3 Digital Library Labs (Hum, Samf, Sund/Science), internal projects at
the Faculty Libraries w. funding from Ministry of Culture (Official opening in
January 2016)
Main idea: intelligent research and study environment providing domain
specific software combined with cutting-edge hardware and installations for
events, teaching and formal training in digital tools for analysis, computation
and presentation (more info: Library Lab blog, #DSSLucph)
2. Linked, Open & Social (collaborative research library project under DEFF,
Denmark’s Electronic Research Library, running in 2015-2017)
Main idea: Information & knowledge sharing via SoMe and mobile platforms
and consolidation of a national infrastructure in the library sector. 3
combined elements: (more info: DEFF project call)
1) SoMe for scholars provided by libraries (eg. Mendeley for Institutions)
2) Linked Open Data & Altmetrics to research communication
3) Linked Open Data to library metadata & authority files

16. :
Research Support Services /
Copenhagen University Library
New website (pr. Oct. 1): http://kub.kb.dk/forskerservice/
Book us for: Tailored modules or courses on reference management, open
access publishing, outreach (CURIS & OrcID), bibliometrics
Mailbox: forskerservice@kb.dk
Personal contact:
Open Access Coordinator, Digital Social Science Lab (Project head),
Michael Svendsen, M: misv@kb.dk @tullemich
OrcID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5807-5326

17. :
References
• Barbour, K., & Marshall, D. (2012). The academic online: Constructing
persona through the world wide web. First Monday, 17, n.p. Retrieved May
29,2015 from: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3969
• Kramer, Bianca; Bosman, Jeroen (2015): 101 Innovations in Scholarly
Communication - the Changing Research Workflow. Figshare.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1286826
• Nentwich, M. & König, R. (2014). Academia goes Facebook? The potential
of social network sites in the scholarly realm. In: S. Bartling, & S. Friesike
(Eds.), Opening science (pp. 107-124). Springer Int. Publ.
• Van Noorden, R. (2014): Scientists and the social network. Nature,
512(7513), 126-129. Retrieved May 28, 2015, from:
http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.15711!/menu/main/topColumns/topLe
ftColumn/pdf/512126a.pdf

18. :