In this article, the relationship of bibliometric techniques (especially citation analysis) to communication theory and research is examined, using the invisible college as the principal example. The invisible college is used because it is the best-known model of scientific communication, and because it is based in bibliometric studies of science. As such, the invisible college is typical of constructs that describe processes yet are founded on the study of structures; the ambiguity surrounding the use of the term is symptomatic of the confounding of structure and process in the study of scholarly communication. A revised definition of the invisible college is proposed that reemphasizes its fundamentally communicative nature, and issues for future theory building in scientific communication are suggested.
The paper develops applied and theoretical results obtained by the author in a long-term, corpus-based research on the cross-linguistic scientific communication and on its most distinctive problem — translating modern scientific texts mainly on digital information processing from English into Russian (and vice versa). These texts are characterized primarily by the growing number of multi-word language-specific new terms. In this respect special attention is paid in the paper to modern authentic «digital» neologisms-clusters in English: to their cross-linguistic idiomatic character, their language-specific types and patterns, to their systematization as well as to their communicative and cognitive distinctions. The paper introduces their equivalent terminological counterparts in Russian and the way they are to be translated into Russian. Some important generalizations and proposals are also introduced concerning new trends in the formation of language-specific «digital» terminological clusters in English and the way they can be rendered into Russian. The paper concludes with outlining some further perspectives in studying cross-linguistic scientific communication, its new terminology and developing its cross-linguistic translation, particularly by digital resources.
Although opening up of research is considered an appropriate and trend-setting model for future scientific communication, it can still be difficult to put open science into practice. How open and transparent can a scientific work be? This article investigates the potential to make all information and the whole work process of a qualification project such as a doctoral thesis comprehensively and freely accessible on the internet with an open free license both in the final form and completely traceable in development. The answer to the initial question, the self-experiment and the associated demand for openness, posed several challenges for a doctoral student, the institution, and the examination regulations, which are still based on the publication of an individually written and completed work that cannot be viewed by the public during the creation process. In the case of data and other documents, publication is usually not planned even after completion. This state of affairs in the use of open science in the humanities will be compared with open science best practices in the physical sciences. The reasons and influencing factors for open developments in science and research are presented, empirically and experimentally tested in the development of the first completely open humanities-based PhD thesis. The results of this two-part study show that it is possible to publish everything related to the doctoral study, qualification, and research process as soon as possible, as comprehensively as possible, and under an open license.
The Internet is the most recent and relevant innovation in the field of media communication, as well as the medium that reproduces most of the characteristics of global society. In trying to describe contemporary society, we cannot neglect the social implication of the web. Our assumption is that the evolution of the Internet has led to problematic effects on the relevance of concepts such as individuality, author, authorship and copyright, as commonly used up till now. The first part of the article focuses on individuality as a means to describe individual actors and social structures in the first modernity, paying particular attention to the idea of the author as an individual in the field of intellectual products. New communication forms online make the connection between the individuality of the author and the text weaker and less recognizable. The second part develops the theme of scientific knowledge in contemporary society, with regard to scholarly authorship. The Internet has produced deep transformations in scholarly publications. Technical and structural characteristics of the Internet suggest possibilities for a reorganization of the scientific system towards the replacement of authorship and reputation with innovative mechanisms of information processing and selection.
A new method for citing articles and books in scientific publications is proposed. The method all but eliminates the need to list references. In addition to identifying and illustrating the basic rules involved, this article uses the proposed method. Thus, while citations appear throughout, no references are presented. Instead, readers can locate each cited publication by simply copying the citation verbatim and inserting it into the dialogue box of Google Scholar. Two more recommendations for improving the transmission of scientific are also proposed.
Purpose. The presentation of challenges with which scientific journals and – more broadly – scientific communication, will have to face in the substantive, technological and financial sphere in the conditions of constant evolution of the digital world, dynamic development of new information systems in science (e-library, library 2.0) and new phenomena conditioning the behaviour of Internet users. Method. The views presented in the article are the result of a review of literature regarding scientific journals and empirical research, which was conducted from April to August 2018 among 132 authors representing the world of science and economic practices. Findings. The open access (OA) movement has caused significant changes in the behaviour of people of science in publishing and depositing research results. The prospect of taking over all the functions of scientific journals by scientific repositories still seems to be distant due to the lack of alternative methods for assessing the quality of scientific publications. There are doubts about the division into scientific, institutional repositories and the repositories belonging to scientific journals, which results from unclear business models of individual solutions. The phenomenon of self-publishing is stimulated by the dynamic development of research carried out by business units, skilfully analysing the resources of large data sets and successfully popularising research results in social repositories. This is new quality in the area of information exchange, which requires rapid adaptation on scientific grounds. An insufficiently implemented postulate to popularise scientific knowledge and its transfer to business practice remains an equally important challenge. Research and conclusions limitations. The results of the survey based on the respondents' subjective assessment should be treated with caution and do not allow to draw general conclusions. The research revealed significant discrepancies in respondents' opinions regarding the future of scientific journals and their prospects for functioning in new information systems. The highest doubts concern the quality assessment system of scientific publications and the business model of scientific repositories: the significant number of stakeholders of the scientific communication system, dispersed in various scientific, political and economic systems, further limits the possibility of formulating unambiguous decisions in this respect. Originality. The presented article formulates challenges for scientific journals whose functions are being increasingly taken over by scientific and social repositories. In contrast to the previously published works, this suggests solutions in the field of artificial intelligence, which will enable complete change in the way of publishing and validation of knowledge as well as quality control of scientific research. Type of work. Review article.
Purpose. The presentation of challenges with which scientific journals and - more broadly - scientific communication, will have to face in the substantive, technological and financial sphere in the conditions of constant evolution of the digital world, dynamic development of new information systems in science (e-library, library 2.0) and new phenomena conditioning the behaviour of Internet users. Method. The views presented in the article are the result of a review of literature regarding scientific journals and empirical research, which was conducted from April to August 2018 among 132 authors representing the world of science and economic practices. Findings. The open access (OA) movement has caused significant changes in the behaviour of people of science in publishing and depositing research results. The prospect of taking over all the functions of scientific journals by scientific repositories still seems to be distant due to the lack of alternative methods for assessing the quality of scientific publications. There are doubts about the division into scientific, institutional repositories and the repositories belonging to scientific journals, which results from unclear business models of individual solutions. The phenomenon of self-publishing is stimulated by the dynamic development of research carried out by business units, skilfully analysing the resources of large data sets and successfully popularising research results in social repositories. This is new quality in the area of information exchange, which requires rapid adaptation on scientific grounds. An insufficiently implemented postulate to popularise scientific knowledge and its transfer to business practice remains an equally important challenge. Research and conclusions limitations. The results of the survey based on the respondents' subjective assessment should be treated with caution and do not allow to draw general conclusions. The research revealed significant discrepancies in respondents' opinions regarding the future of scientific journals and their prospects for functioning in new information systems. The highest doubts concern the quality assessment system of scientific publications and the business model of scientific repositories: the significant number of stakeholders of the scientific communication system, dispersed in various scientific, political and economic systems, further limits the possibility of formulating unambiguous decisions in this respect. Originality. The presented article formulates challenges for scientific journals whose functions are being increasingly taken over by scientific and social repositories. In contrast to the previously published works, this suggests solutions in the field of artificial intelligence, which will enable complete change in the way of publishing and validation of knowledge as well as quality control of scientific research. Type of work. Review article.
International audience ; •In 25 years, open access, i.e. free and unrestricted access to scientific information, has become a significant part of scientific communication. However, its success story should not conceal a fundamental change of its nature.•Open access started, together with the Web, at the grassroots, as a bottom-up, community-driven model of open journals and repositories. Today the key driving forces are no longer community-driven needs and objectives but commercial, institutional and political interests.•This development serves the needs of the scientific community insofar as more and more content becomes available through open journals and repositories. Yet, the fall of open access as a community-driven model is running the risk of becoming dysfunctional for the scientists and may create new barriers and digital divides.
International audience ; •In 25 years, open access, i.e. free and unrestricted access to scientific information, has become a significant part of scientific communication. However, its success story should not conceal a fundamental change of its nature.•Open access started, together with the Web, at the grassroots, as a bottom-up, community-driven model of open journals and repositories. Today the key driving forces are no longer community-driven needs and objectives but commercial, institutional and political interests.•This development serves the needs of the scientific community insofar as more and more content becomes available through open journals and repositories. Yet, the fall of open access as a community-driven model is running the risk of becoming dysfunctional for the scientists and may create new barriers and digital divides.
