The ecosystem of research tools for scholarly communication

PurposeNumerous research tools exist but their usage among researchers across the different phases of the research cycle of scholarly communication remains unknown. This research aims to address this knowledge gap by mapping the research tools frequently used by global researchers against the various phases of the research cycle of scholarly communication.Design/methodology/approachThis research adopts a descriptive research design and conducts a cross-tabulation of secondary data consisting of 20,663 useable responses in a global survey of research tools for scholarly communication. This research also administered a survey to academic experts to classify the research tools according to traditional, modern, innovative and experimental categories.FindingsThis research reveals the six phases of the research cycle (i.e. discovery, analysis, writing, publication, outreach and assessment) and the research tools of scholarly communication frequently used by researchers worldwide in each phase as a whole and by roles, disciplines, regions and career stages. Notably, this research indicates that most of the research tools used by researchers are classified as “modern” and “innovative”.Originality/valueThe original insights herein should be useful for both established and early career researchers to gain and share research insights, as well as policymakers and existing and aspiring service providers who wish to improve the utility and usage of research tools for scholarly communication. Notably, this research represents a seminal endeavor at enhancing a global survey (secondary research) using a follow-up expert survey (primary research), which enabled the organization of research tools for scholarly communication into four refined categories. In doing so, this research contributes finer-grained insights that showcase the importance of keeping up with the advancement of technology through the use of modern, innovative and experimental research tools, thereby highlighting the need to go beyond traditional research tools for scholarly communication.

[1]  Mohammad Nazim,et al.  Factors influencing the adoption and use of open access scholarly communication among researchers in India , 2022, Online Inf. Rev..

[2]  R. A. Alias,et al.  Artificial intelligence (AI) library services innovative conceptual framework for the digital transformation of university education , 2022, Libr. Hi Tech.

[3]  P. Kirschner,et al.  A qualitative study of social sciences faculty research workflows , 2022, J. Documentation.

[4]  Tanmay De Sarkar.  Integrating research tools with library websites , 2021, Library Hi Tech News.

[5]  Weng Marc Lim,et al.  An open innovation approach to co-produce scientific knowledge: an examination of citizen science in the healthcare ecosystem , 2021, European Journal of Innovation Management.

[6]  Weng Marc Lim,et al.  What do we know about transfer pricing? Insights from bibliometric analysis , 2021 .

[7]  Weng Marc Lim,et al.  How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines , 2021 .

[8]  Weng Marc Lim,et al.  How do digital natives perceive and react toward online advertising? Implications for SMEs , 2021, Journal of Strategic Marketing.

[9]  Weng Marc Lim,et al.  What do we know about business strategy and environmental research? Insights from Business Strategy and the Environment , 2021, Business Strategy and the Environment.

[10]  Weng Marc Lim.  Pro-active peer review for premier journals , 2021 .

[11]  Weng Marc Lim,et al.  A bibliometric retrospection of marketing from the lens of psychology: Insights fromPsychology & Marketing , 2021 .

[12]  Weng Marc Lim,et al.  Research Constituents, Intellectual Structure, and Collaboration Patterns in Journal of International Marketing: An Analytical Retrospective , 2021, Journal of International Marketing.

[13]  Weng Marc Lim,et al.  20 years of Electronic Commerce Research , 2021, Electronic Commerce Research.

[14]  Holly Else.  How a torrent of COVID science changed research publishing — in seven charts , 2020, Nature.

[15]  Yian Yin,et al.  Unequal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientists , 2020, Nature Human Behaviour.

[16]  Donna Frederick.  Scholarly communications, predatory publishers and publish or perish culture in the 2020s , 2020 .

[17]  Abdullah Abrizah,et al.  A global questionnaire survey of the scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers , 2020, Learn. Publ..

[18]  Andrew Cox,et al.  The intelligent library , 2019, Libr. Hi Tech.

[19]  H. Boateng,et al.  Scholarly Communication Practices in Humanities and Social Sciences: A Study of Researchers’ Attitudes and Awareness of Open Access , 2018, Open Information Science.

[20]  Anthony Watkinson,et al.  Jack Meadows (1934–2016): A tribute to a great information scientist , 2017, Learn. Publ..

[21]  Joanna Wild,et al.  A MOOC approach for training researchers in developing countries , 2017 .

[22]  Bianca Kramer,et al.  Innovations in scholarly communication - global survey on research tool usage , 2016, F1000Research.

[23]  Bernard Jacquemin,et al.  Open access to research data in electronic theses and dissertations: an overview , 2014, Libr. Hi Tech.

[24]  Sarika Sawant,et al.  Transformation of the scholarly communication cycle , 2012 .

[25]  Gunilla Widén,et al.  Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media: A Finnish case study , 2011, Electron. Libr..

[26]  Michael Mabe,et al.  The effect of the internet on researcher motivations, behaviour and attitudes , 2011, J. Documentation.

[27]  Sharon Q. Yang,et al.  Evaluating and comparing discovery tools: how close are we towards next generation catalog? , 2010, Libr. Hi Tech.

[28]  Jason Priem,et al.  How and why scholars cite on Twitter , 2010, ASIST.

[29]  Rob Procter,et al.  Virtual research environments in scholarly work and communications , 2009, Libr. Hi Tech.

[30]  Jingfeng Xia,et al.  Scholarly Communication in East and Southeast Asia: traditions and challenges , 2006 .

[31]  José Villar,et al.  Why is research from developing countries underrepresented in international health literature, and what can be done about it? , 2004, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[32]  Caroline Sharp,et al.  The Use of Research to Improve Professional Practice: a systematic review of the literature , 2003 .

[33]  T. Nchinda.  Research capacity strengthening in the South. , 2002, Social science & medicine.

[34]  Elaine Lally,et al.  A researcher's perspective on electronic scholarly communication , 2001, Online Inf. Rev..

[35]  CHRISTINE L. BORGMAN,et al.  Digital libraries and the continuum of scholarly communication , 2000, J. Documentation.

[36]  K. England.  Getting Personal: Reflexivity, Positionality, and Feminist Research∗ , 1994 .

[37]  E. Hovy,et al.  The Future of Research Communication. , 2011, Dagstuhl reports.

[38]  Kenneth Arnold,et al.  The Body in the Virtual Library: Rethinking Scholarly Communication , 1995 .