Transforming Scholarly Communication through Open Science Outreaching Initiatives: An Exploratory Study
Keywords:
Outreaching tools, Scholarly Communication, Open Science, ResearchGate, Hindawi, ORCIDAbstract
communication selected from the list of innovative tools given by Kramer and Bosman (2015). The tools are refined and limited to the ones supporting open science, including websites, encyclopaedias, open access safeguards, mass presentations, unique identities, and academic networking sites counted to total 9 in number. Data from google analytics and similar web depicts the website metadata. It is evident from the data analysis that a maximum number of visitors (123.4 million) were at the research gate. The study also finds out that there lies a persistent gap between the use and useability potential ratio except in the case of ResearchGate which accounts for a ratio count of 11.6537 implying its popularity among personals other than the research group. And the mentioned tools fostering open science ideology have a high potential of making research more transparent, inclusive, and democratic.
Keywords- Outreaching tools, Scholarly Communication, Open Science, ResearchGate, Hindawi, ORCID
Downloads
References
Adie, E. (2014). Attention! a study of open access vs non-open access articles. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1213690googlescholar.
Al-Aufi, A., & Fulton, C. (2015). Impact of social networking tools on scholarly communication: A cross-institutional study. The Electronic Library. 33(2), 224-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EL-05-2013-0093.
Ambruster, C. (2011). Open access policy implementation: First results compared. Learned Publishing, 24(4). https://doi/10.1087/20110409.
Bernius, S., & Hanauske, M. (2009). Open access to scientific literature: Increasing citations as an incentive for authors to make their publications freely accessible. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1-9. http://doi/10.1109/HICSS.2009.335.
Bjork, B. C., & Solomon, D. (2012). Open access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine, 10, 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-10-73.
Carstens, A. (2022). New initiative incentivizes open research. The Scientist. https://www.the-scientist.com.
Ciriminna, R., Scurria, A., Gangadhar, S., Chandha, S., & Pagliaro, M. (2021). Reaping the benefits of open science in scholarly communication. Heliyon, 7(12). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08638.
Ejikeme, A. N., & Ezema, I. J. (2019). The potentials of open access initiative and the development of institutional repositories in Nigeria: Implications for scholarly communication. Publishing Research Quarterly, 35(1), 6-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-018-09626-4.
F1000Research. (n.d.) https://f1000research.com.
Google Analytics. (n.d.)https://analytics.google.com.
Google Scholar. (n.d.) https://scholar.google.com.
Heimstand, M., Saunderson, Fredric., & Health, T. (2014). From toddler to teen: growth of an open data ecosystem. JeDEM- eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 6(2), 123-135.
Hindawi. (n.d.) https://www.hindawi.com.
Islam, A., & Akter, R. (2013). Institutional repositories and open access initiatives in Bangladesh: A new paradigm of scholarly communication. Liber Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries. 23(1). https://doi.org/10.18352/iq.8245.
Kramer, B., & Boseman, J. (2015). 101 Innovations in scholarly communication – the changing research workflow. http://innoscholcomm.silk.co.
Lo, Y. M. (2022). The art and logic of scholarly communication: Effective skills for publishing and beyond. Food Science & Nutrition, 10(4), 981-984. http://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2766.
McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, Stuart., Kenall, A., Lin, J., . . . Yarkoni, T. (2016, July). How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife, 5. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800.
Murphy, J. A. (2021). Collaborative annotation: Tools for enhancing learning and scholarly communication. Serials Review, 47(3-4), 157-162. http://doi/10.1080/00987913.2021.1986917.
Noorden, R. V., Maher, B., & Nuzzo, R. (2014). The top 100 papers: Nature explores the most-cited research of all time. Nature, 514, 550-553.
ORCID. (n.d.) https://orcid.org.
PLOS. (n.d.) https://plos.org.
Publons. (n.d.) http://publons.com.
Razack, A., Ibrahim, H., Sam, M., Fikri, A. S. F., & Saleh, A. (2021). Artificial intelligence-assisted tools for redefining the communication landscape of the scholarly world. Science Editing. 8. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.244.
ResearchGate. (n.d.) https://www.researchgate.net.
Schmidt, B., Bertino, A., Beucke, D., Brinken, H., Jahn, N., Matthias, L., . . . Bargheer, M. (2018). Open science support as a portfolio of services and projects: From awareness to engagement. Publications, 6(2), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6020027.
Sciworthy. (n.d.) https://sciworthy.com.
Similar Web. (n.d.) https://www.similarweb.com.
SPARC Europe. (2016). The open access citation advantage service. http://sparceurope.org/oaca/.
Useful Science. (n.d.) https://www.usefulscience.org.
Vicente- Saez, R. & Martinez- Fuentes, C. (2018). Open science now: a systematic literature review for an integrated definition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.busres.2017.12.043.
Wang, X., Liu, C., Mao, Wenli., & Fang, Z. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. http://doi/10.1007/s11192-015-1547-0.
Yiotis, K. (2005). The open access initiative: A new paradigm for scholarly communications. Information Technology and Libraries. 24(4). https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v24i4.3378.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Indian Library Association
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
