Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
Academic publishing, as a practice and as a business, is undergoing the most significant changes in its 350-year history. Electronic journals and books, both Open Access and behind digital pay walls, are increasingly replacing printed publications. In addition to formal channels of scholarly communication, a wide array of semi-formal and informal channels such as email, mailing lists, blogs, microblogs, and social networking sites (SNS) are widely used by scientists to discuss their research (Borgman 2007, p. 47; Nentwich and König 2012, p. 50). Scholarly blogs and services such as Twitter and Facebook are increasingly attracting attention as new channels of science communication (see Bonetta 2007; Kjellberg 2010; Herwig et al. 2009). Radically different conceptualizations of scholarly (micro)blogging exist, with some users regarding them as a forum to educate the public, while others see them as a possible replacement for traditional publishing. This chapter will provide examples of blogs and microblogs as tools for scientific communication for different stakeholders, as well as discuss their implications for digital scholarship.
Bader, A., Fritz, G., & Gloning, T. (2012). Digitale Wissenschaftskommunikation 2010–2011 Eine Online- Befragung, Giessen: Giessener Elektronische Bibliothek. Available at: http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2012/8539/index.html [Accessed April 2, 2013].
Batts, S.A., Anthis, N.J., & Smith, T.C. (2008). Advancing science through conversations: Bridging the gap between blogs and the academy. PLoS Biology, 6(9), p.e240.
Bonetta, L. (2007). Scientists enter the blogosphere. Cell, 129(3), 443–445. CrossRef
Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: information, infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Cope, W.W., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Signs of epistemic disruption: Transformations in the knowledge system of the academic journal. First Monday, 14(46).
Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e123.
Golder, S., & Macy, M. (2012). Social Science with Social Media. ASA Footnotes, 40(1). Available at: http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/jan12/socialmedia_0112.html.
Herwig, J. et al., (2009). Microblogging und die Wissenschaft. Das Beispiel Twitter, Available at: http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ita-projektberichte/d2-2a52-4.pdf.
Houghton, J.W. (2010). Alternative publishing models: exploring costs and benefits. In C. Puschmann & D. Stein, (Eds.), Towards Open Access Scholarship. Selected Papers from the Berlin 6 Open Access Conference (pp. 27–40). Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.
Jankowski, N.W. et al. (2012). Enhancing scholarly publications: developing hybrid monographs in the humanities and social sciences. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Jinha, A. E. (2010). Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing, 23(3), 258–263. CrossRef
Kjellberg, S. (2010). I am a blogging researcher: motivations for blogging in a scholarly context. First Monday, 15(8).
König, R. (2011). Wikipedia—participatory knowledge production or elite knowledge representation? Discussion pages as an arena for the social construction of reality. In Contribution to the workshop Participatory knowledge production 2.0 : Critical views and experiences (pp.1–6). Virtual Knowledge Studio. Maastricht: Virtual Knowledge Studio.
Lazer, D., et al. (2009). Computational social science. Science, 323(5915), 721–723. CrossRef
Nentwich, M., & König, R. (2012). Cyberscience 2.0 : research in the age of digital social networks, Frankfurt; New York: Campus Verlag.
Nielsen, M. A. (2012). Reinventing discovery: the new era of networked science. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Priem, J., Piwowar, H., & Hemminger, B. (2011). Altmetrics in the wild: An exploratory study of impact metrics based on social media. Presented at Metrics 2011: Symposium on Informetric and Scientometric Research. New Orleans, USA, Oct 12, 2011.
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2011). Almetrics: a manifesto. Available at: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.
Procter, R., et al. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1926), 4039–4056. CrossRef
Puschmann, C., & Mahrt, M. (2012). Scholarly blogging: A new form of publishing or science journalism 2.0? In A. Tokar et al. (Eds.), Science and the Internet (pp.171–181). Düsseldorf: University Press.
Redfield, R. (2010). Arsenic-associated bacteria (NASA’s claims). RRResearch. Available at: http://rrresearch.fieldofscience.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html.
Reich, E. S. (2011). Researchers tweet technical talk. Nature, 474(7352), 431–431. CrossRef
Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2012) research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information C. A. Ouzounis, (Ed.), PLoS ONE, 7(5), e35869.
Stein, D., & Puschmann, C. (2010). Timely or Timeless? The scholar’s dilemma. thoughts on Open Access and the social contract of publishing. In D. Puschmann & D. Stein (Eds.), Towards Open Access Scholarship. Selected Papers from the Berlin 6 Open Access Conference (pp.5–10). Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.
Thelwall, M. et al. (2012) Chapter 9 Assessing the impact of online academic videos. In G. Widén & K. Holmberg (Eds.), Social Information Research (pp.195–213). Library and Information Science. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Tola, E. (2008). To blog or not to blog, not a real choice there. JCOM Journal of Science Communication, 2(2).
Weinberger, D. (2011). Too big to know: rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren’t the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room is the room. New York: Basic Books.
Weller, K., & Puschmann, C. (2011). Twitter for scientific communication: How can citations/references be identified and measured? In Proceedings of the ACM WebSci’11 (pp. 1–4). Koblenz: ACM Publishers.
Weller, K., Dröge, E., & Puschmann, C. (2011). Citation analysis in Twitter. approaches for defining and measuring information flows within tweets during scientific conferences. In M. Rowe et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Making Sense of Microposts (#MSM2011). CEUR Workshop Proceedings. (pp.1–12), Heraklion, Greece.
Wolfe-Simon, F., et al. (2010). A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science, 332(6034), 1163–1166. CrossRef
- (Micro)Blogging Science? Notes on Potentials and Constraints of New Forms of Scholarly Communication
in-adhesives, MKVS, Hellmich GmbH/© Hellmich GmbH, Zühlke/© Zühlke