Wilson et al. performed an extensive survey of conceptual dissemination frameworks in health sciences and social sciences. Of the 33 included frameworks that were deemed detailed enough to be actually used in practice, 28 were either implicitly or explicitly based on one or more of three theories: persuasive communication, diffusion of innovation and social marketing.
Since 2005, the Center for Studies in Higher Education (CSHE), has been conducting research to understand the needs and practices of faculty for in-progress scholarly communication (i.e., forms of communication employed as research is being executed) as well as archival publication. This report brings together the responses of 160 interviewees across 45, mostly elite, research institutions in seven selected academic fields: archaeology, astrophysics, biology, economics, history, music, and political science. The overview document summarizes the main practices explored across all seven disciplines: tenure and promotion, dissemination, sharing, collaboration, resource creation and consumption, and public engagement. In this report, readers can search various topics within and across case studies. The report identifies five key topics, addressed in detail in the case studies, that require real attention:
European Commission (EC)
Targeted information to multiple audiences (e.g general public and media) in a strategic and effective manner and possibly engaging in a two-way exchange.
The use of academic profiling sites is becoming more common, and emerging technologies boost researchers’ visibility and exchange of ideas. In our study we compared profiles at five different profiling sites. These five sites are ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID and ORCID.
The Vienna Principles have been defined by a working group of the Open Access Network Austria (OANA). The collection of 12 principles represents a model for scholarly communication in the 21st century, with the aim of creating a widespread discussion towards a shared vision of the scholarly communication system of the future. As such, they are highly relevant to dissemination of research.
According to Beaufort, there are three levels of disseminating research results to the public.
The studies presented in this section investigated dissemination to the public from the researchers’ and public engagement enablers’ point of view. The first, “Factors affecting public engagement by researchers” came out of a project by the UK consortium TNS-BMRB & PSI, and represents an update to an earlier project by the Royal Society in 2006.
Helping students wandering in the land of the mind to work, finish, publish, become famous, have impact, win prizes, and reflect glory on their thesis advisors
Helping students wandering in the land of the mind to work, finish, publish, become famous, have impact, win prizes, and reflect glory on their thesis advisors
The studies presented in this section investigated dissemination to the public from the researchers’ and public engagement enablers’ point of view. The first, “Factors affecting public engagement by researchers” came out of a project by the UK consortium TNS-BMRB & PSI, and represents an update to an earlier project by the Royal Society in 2006.
The report proposes a vision for the future of scholarly communication; it examines the current system -with its strengths and weaknesses- and its main actors. It considers the roles of researchers, research institutions, funders and policymakers, publishers and other service providers, as well as citizens and puts forward recommendations addressed to each of them.
The Open Science training handbook is an open, living handbook on Open Science training. It is a key resource and a first step towards developing Open Access and Open Science curricula, supporting and connecting an emerging Open Science community that wishes to pass on their knowledge as multipliers.
The Open Science training handbook is an open, living handbook on Open Science training. It is a key resource and a first step towards developing Open Access and Open Science curricula, supporting and connecting an emerging Open Science community that wishes to pass on their knowledge as multipliers.
The OpenUP dissemination strategy as formulated in deliverable D2.1 is a practical example of how dissemination can be implemented in an EU project.
The Science as an open enterprise report highlights the need to grapple with the huge deluge of data created by modern technologies in order to preserve the principle of openness and to exploit data in ways that have the potential to create a second open science revolution.
Exploring massive amounts of data using modern digital technologies has enormous potential for science and its application in public policy and business. The report maps out the changes that are required by scientists, their institutions and those that fund and support science if this potential is to be realised.
The Science as an open enterprise report highlights the need to grapple with the huge deluge of data created by modern technologies in order to preserve the principle of openness and to exploit data in ways that have the potential to create a second open science revolution.
Exploring massive amounts of data using modern digital technologies has enormous potential for science and its application in public policy and business. The report maps out the changes that are required by scientists, their institutions and those that fund and support science if this potential is to be realised.
This paper presents the findings from a survey study of UK academics and their publishing behaviour. The aim of this study is to investigate academics’ attitudes towards and practice of open access (OA) publishing. The results are based on a survey study of academics at 12 Russell Group universities, and reflect responses from over 1800 researchers.
This paper presents the findings from a survey study of UK academics and their publishing behaviour. The aim of this study is to investigate academics’ attitudes towards and practice of open access (OA) publishing. The results are based on a survey study of academics at 12 Russell Group universities, and reflect responses from over 1800 researchers.
