Open Password – Wednesday, May 11, 2022
#1068
Science communication – scientometrics – awareness – bibliometrics – scientific publishing
Ukrainian workforce – Employment agency – Manuel Schulte – vfm – Understanding and using AI – Working with data – Fact checking in social media – Jan Eggers – Zoom – Herbert Staub – Media Consumer Survey 2022 – Metaverse – Deloitte – Possible applications – Virtual life events – Klaus Böhm – Virtual Goods – Extended Reality – Concerns
- Title
Awareness mentality and strategic behavior in science:
Research on the way from “Being Good” to “Looking Good”? (II) – By Dr. Rafael Ball
LettersWelcome Ukrainians to the German working world
III.
Understanding and using vfmKI – working with data – fact checking on social media
IV.
Media Consumer Survey 2022
Metaverse: Are we ready for the virtual experience?
Awareness mentality and strategic behavior
in science
Research on the way
from “Being Good” to “Looking Good”? (II)
By Dr. Rafael Ball, rafael.ball@library.ethz.ch
Rafael Ball in the ETH library
_____________________________________________________
- Causes of strategic behavior in science
_____________________________________________________
The causes for strategic (mis)behavior and thus for the attempt to get more attention and more citations are diverse, even if they have not been researched in detail (Huberts 2014). Nevertheless, it can be said that a major cause is the pressure of the entire science system and its communication and publication culture on individual scientists. Questions of personal responsibility and morality certainly also play a role, as there are people among scientists who don’t take the truth too seriously. The link between the number and quality of publications (and thus perceptions) and the allocation of funding and career opportunities is symptomatic and puts scientists under enormous pressure (Hall and Martin 2019, 414). The system creates false incentives and causes desperation, fear of losing jobs and livelihoods, career shortfalls and a widespread fear that funding will not be granted.
But the expectations of scientific journals are also growing. Under pressure from editors, who in turn are under pressure from publishers, journals have to publish increasingly spectacular findings and reports. The competition between journals and the assessment of their importance and quality through performance indicators and awareness scores also lead to tough competition in the publishing industry. This is passed on to the authors and puts additional pressure on scientists.
__________________________________________________
- Forms of strategic behavior in science
_____________________________________________________
Strategic behavior in science can take a variety of forms. You can carry out spectacular experiments. to achieve spectacular results (Podbregar 2021), you can optimize your citation rate through the strategic selection of publication outlets or you can subordinate yourself to trending topics and thus try to receive as much funding as possible. For example, it can currently be observed that in the first ten months of the corona pandemic alone, more scientific publications were published in such a short time than on any other topic. By April 2020, only around 4,800 scientists had dealt with the Sars-Cov-2 virus in a scientific publication. Within three months, the number of publications on this topic increased tenfold to 44,000 by July 2020 and doubled by the beginning of October to around 87,000 publications. In comparison, nanotechnology, which is definitely a trending topic, took 19 years to achieve such an increase in publications from 4,000 to 19,000 publications (Podbregar 2021).
It can be assumed that the great attention to Covid-19 among the general population has contributed to such a large number of publications on this topic. However, it is questionable whether increased public interest alone justifies increasing the number of scientific contributions on this topic to such an extent. With every new study and every new publication, the likelihood that it can be perceived, read and processed by the relevant experts decreases, as the sheer amount of information makes it impossible to absorb all the new findings on a topic.
Another aspect concerns “negative results”, which are failed experiments or hypotheses that were not confirmed in an experiment. These are neither desired in the scientific publishing system nor do they achieve the necessary acceptance and attention nor do they survive the peer review process (“ScienceMatters | ScienceMatters” n.d.).
None of this constitutes scientific misconduct. In the sense of increasing success and optimizing awareness, it is also morally questionable in the worst case, but not reprehensible (to the extent that the category of morality can even be introduced here).
It is only a very small step from a purely objective, reserved, research and knowledge-driven science to work that formulates questions, designs research experiments and presents results in such a way that they primarily serve to generate attention. Not everyone who uses social media skillfully and thereby makes their research better known than through pure “citation awareness” is conducting strategically controlled or even dubious research.
Strategic actions, scientific misconduct and manipulation move close together in a narrow corridor, the sharpness of which is lost the more quickly the greater the pressure on researchers to generate attention for their results. If “looking good” is better rewarded than “being good,” the inhibition threshold for moving from knowledge-driven science to an attention-seeking show drops (Moosa 2018, 71–73).
In order to attract attention and secure livelihoods, questionable and inappropriate behavior in science is becoming increasingly common. In a survey conducted by Bouter (2015), 43% of all researchers surveyed admitted to having published questionable data and results, and 2% even admitted to having deliberately falsified them. When researchers were asked about their opinions about other scientists, 14% suspected that other researchers were falsifying and 72% that there were colleagues who published questionable results (Öchsner 2013, 95).
It is reasonable to assume that at least a certain proportion of such misconduct can be traced back to an exaggerated or misguided form of attention mentality. Against this background, inappropriate behavior in science can be understood as an expression of the goal of gaining attention and securing livelihoods.
This in turn leads to some challenges, particularly related to peer reviews. On the one hand, scientific misconduct cannot always be detected in a peer review process – especially not when we move in the gray area between strategic behavior to attract attention and actual misconduct. This reduces the reliability of the certification, which, as one of the four basic functions of a publication mentioned above, should also be achieved through peer reviewing.
ETH library
_____________________________________________________
- Effects and consequences
_____________________________________________________
The four basic functions of a publication (Shorley and Jubb 2013) have not become irrelevant even in the age of digitality, social media and awareness hype. The scientist is forced to fulfill the basic functions of publication. However, it is no longer enough to send the manuscript to a publisher and wait to see whether the contribution has been accepted. Blog entries about the paper’s new findings are expected, as is the use of Twitter and other social media to raise awareness of the new paper.
What is the perspective of scientific publishing? We must state that the classic concept of publication with all its implications will dissolve when the success of a publication is no longer measured solely by the truthfulness of the content, but by the mere determination and quantification of the perception (and no longer the perception itself) of what is communicated becomes. If perception (and its determination) becomes more important than truth, then all barriers will fall for the consistent shifting of boundaries from knowledge to opinion and vice versa. “Looking Good” is becoming more important than “Being Good”, also because a rapidly increasing number of publications makes qualified reception impossible. If scientific results are increasingly no longer reproducible, the common sense of the basic principle of publishing scientific findings for the purpose of their reception, discussion and further development of content will finally become bankrupt.
literature
Andersson, Kjell. 2008. Transparency and Accountability in Science and Politics: The Awareness Principle. 2008 edition. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230227767.
Bailey, Byron J. 2002. “Duplicate Publication in the Field of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.” Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery 126 (3): 211–16. https://doi.org/10.1067/mhn.2002.122698.
Ball, Rafael. 2007. “Science communication in transition: The use of question marks in the titles of scientific journal articles in medicine, the life sciences and physics from 1966 to 2005”. Information – Science & Practice 58 (6–7): 371–75. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000193627.
Ball, Rafael (ed). 2020. Changing science communication: From Gutenberg to Open Science. VS Publishing House for Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31541-2.
Barth, Alfred. 2019. Publish or Perish!: A Black Book of Science. Nordhausen: Traugott Bautz.
Bouter, Lex M. 2015. “Commentary: Perverse Incentives or Rotten Apples?” Accountability in Research 22 (3): 148–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.950253.
Conard, Jan. 2018. “The fatal consequence of sensational reports”. Fake or fact? Science, Truth and Trust, edited by Carsten Könneker, 251–58. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56316-8_22.
Franck, George. 2002. “The Scientific Economy of Attention: A Novel Approach to the Collective Rationality of Science.” Scientometrics 55(1):3–26. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016059402618.
Greenblatt, Stephen. 2012. The turning point: how the Renaissance began. 6th edition Munich: Settlers. https://doi.org/10.1163/25890581-089-01-90000018.
Hall, Jeremy, Ben R. Martin. 2019. “Towards a Taxonomy of Research Misconduct: The Case of Business School Research.” Research Policy, Academic Misconduct, Misrepresentation, and Gaming, 48 (2): 414–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.006.
Haustein, Stefanie, Isabella Peters, Judit Bar-Ilan, Jason Priem, Hadas Shema, Jens Terliesner. 2014. “Coverage and Adoption of Altmetrics Sources in the Bibliometric Community.” Scientometrics 101(2):1145–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1221-3.
Hinz, Oliver, Wil MP van der Aalst, Christof Weinhardt. 2020. “Research in the Attention Economy.” Business & Information Systems Engineering 62 (2): 83–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-020-00631-6.
Huberts, L. 2014. The Integrity of Governance: What It Is, What We Know, What Is Done and Where to Go. 2014 edition. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137380814.
Krull, William. 2017. The surveyed university: goal, desire and reality. Edited by Günther Burkert, Wilhelm Krull, Antonio Loprieno, and Eva Barlösius. 1st edition. Vienna: Passages.
Lee, Cheol Sung, Andrew Schrank. 2010. “Incubating Innovation or Cultivating Corruption? The Developmental State and the Life Sciences in Asia”. Social Forces 88 (3): 1231–55. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0282.
Meadows, A.J. 1998. Communicating Research. Library and Information Science. New York: Academic Press.
Moosa, Imad A. 2018. Moosa, I: Publish or Perish: Perceived Benefits versus Unintended Consequences. Cheltenham, UK Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
National Science Foundation. 2018. “Science and Engineering Indicators 2018”. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report.
Öchsner, Andreas. 2013. Introduction to Scientific Publishing: Backgrounds, Concepts, Strategies. SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38646-6.
Oeser, Erhard. 1976. Science and Information – Systematic Foundations of a Theory of Scientific Development Vol. 1 Philosophy of Science and Empirical Research in Science. Oeser, Erhard Science and Information 1 (RERO)0552544-41slsp. Vienna: Roldenbourg.
Osterloh, Margit, Bruno S. Frey. 2015. “Rankings and the Price of Science.” Journal of Cultural Studies 9 (1): 65–78. https://doi.org/10.14361/zfk-2015-0110.
Podbregar, Nadja. 2021. “Corona: 87,000 publications in ten months”. scinexx | The Knowledge Magazine, February. https://www.scinexx.de/news/medizin/corona-87-000-publikationen-in-zwei-monaten/, last accessed in January 2022.
Proquest. n.d. “Ulrich’s Periodicals DirectoryTM (57th Edition) 2019 – Ulrich’s Periodicals DirectoryTM (57th Edition) 2019”. Accessed April 23, 2020. https://www.proquest.com/products-services/related/Ulrichs-Periodicals-Directory.html.
Ram, Shri, Rudra Rameshwar. 2016. “Measuring Research Impact of Scholarly Publications Using Altmetrics”: In Scholarly Communication and the Publish or Perish Pressures of Academia, by Achala Munigal, 1st Edition. Hershey PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-1697-2.
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 2018. Experimentality: Hans-Jörg Rheinberger in conversation about the laboratory, studio and archive. Berlin: Kadmos.
“ScienceMatters | Science Matters.” n.d. Accessed April 20, 2021. https://www.sciencematters.io/.
Shorley, Deborah, Michael Jubb (eds.). 2013. The Future of Scholarly Communication. London: Facet. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781856049610.
Solla Price, Derek J. de. 1963. Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/pric91844.
Tunger, Dirk. 2018. “Altmetrics: Is the ‘attention economy’ coming?” Wissenschaftskommunikation.de (blog). November 28, 2018. https://www.forschungskommunikation.de/altmetrics-kommen-die-oekonomie-der-aufmerklichkeit-21609/.
Tunger, Dirk, Andreas Meier, Hans-Daniel Hartmann. 2017. “Altmetrics Feasibility Study”. FZJ-2018-00250. Central Library. https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/841963.
Weingart, Peter. 2005. The moment of truth? Study edition: On the relationship between science and politics, economy and media in the knowledge society. 2nd edition 2005 edition. Weilerswist: Velbrück Science.
letters
Ukrainians in the German working world
welcome
Welcome,
we send workers from Ukraine for work such as packing, sorting, receiving and delivering goods from the warehouse and many other activities.
We respond quickly to your requests and cover all costs related to hiring employees, accommodation, transportation to work and regular examinations.
We support many companies in your sector with quick recruitment with a minimum of formalities and a simple billing system.
Are you interested in additional employees to support you in carrying out your orders?
Manuel Schulte, manuel.schulte@griedeslick.com
vfm
Understanding and using AI – working with data –
checking facts on social media
Dear Colleagues
The vfm’s 2022 fall seminars are online on the website .
In addition to the long-running fact check with Jörn Ratering and Jan Eggers (note: there are only a few places left), the vfm offers something new: Working with AI seems to be finding its way everywhere: it’s high time to deal with it. Jan Eggers (yes, the fact checker is also an AI specialist) explains in a short seminar what AI is, what it can do, where it is used and how our working world could change with AI.
Since a lot of data , series of numbers and statistics have become publicly accessible, media documentation has been required to collect, clean, evaluate and visualize such data. The two data cracks Claus Hesseling (NDR) and Ulrich Lang (SWR) show in a workshop what is possible for beginners.
This year, all seminars will be held as online half-day seminars via Zoom:
17th-18th October 2022 Understanding and using artificial intelligence
24th-28th October 2022 Scrape, clean, visualize – working with data
21st-25th November 2022 fact check on social media
Kind regards, Herbert Staub, head of studies vfm,
call: +41 79 734 67 83, herbert.staub@vfm-online.de
Media Consumer Survey 2022
for virtual experiences yet ?
- Four out of ten consumers are familiar with the Metaverse.
- Almost 40 percent can imagine using the Metaverse.
- Virtual meeting friends, traveling and shopping are very popular.
- Great interest in purchasing virtual goods.
(Deloitte) Anyone who is concerned with the future trends of the Internet can hardly ignore the term “metaverse”. The vision of merging the boundaries between the real and virtual worlds and immersing yourself in parallel worlds seems too attractive. The hype doesn’t seem to only affect digital natives: As Deloitte’s current edition of the Media Consumer Survey shows, 41 percent of the 2,000 consumers surveyed in February are familiar with the Metaverse. 27 percent say they have a concrete understanding of what the Metaverse is all about – an impressive value given the limited practical experience so far.
_____________________________________________________
More than a buzzword: wide range of possible applications
_____________________________________________________
Across all ages, almost 40 percent of respondents can imagine being active in the Metaverse themselves. If you ask about the most popular application scenarios, virtual meetings with friends are at the top (30 percent), followed by virtual trips (26 percent) and shopping tours (25 percent). A third of those interested in the Metaverse see virtual life events as a real alternative to real events. Another 27 percent would attend both virtual and real events.
“The Metaverse holds enormous potential for all age groups,” concludes Klaus Böhm, Head of Media & Entertainment at Deloitte Germany. “Companies can benefit from virtual shopping and product presentations and use digital platforms to keep their brand image high in the metaverse.” _____________________________________________________
Virtual goods: not just for early adopters this topic_______________________________________________________
Trading virtual goods in the metaverse is already partly a reality. The majority of those interested in Metaverse (55 percent) can basically imagine purchasing virtual goods – albeit at significantly lower prices. There is particularly great interest in media content such as video or music recordings (25 percent). This is followed by virtual concert tickets (21 percent) and virtual fashion for dressing up your own avatar – the digital double in the metaverse (19 percent).
_____________________________________________________
Full view: only with the right glasses
_____________________________________________________
The Metaverse can be opened up in two dimensions via the desktop, but it is only through the use of Extended Reality (XR) that the feeling of merging with the virtual parallel worlds arises. XR also includes closed virtual reality (VR) glasses as well as open augmented (AR) and mixed reality (MR) hardware. Almost every second person (48 percent) can imagine buying virtual reality glasses. However, the current sales figures are low.________________________________________________________
Brave new (alternative) world?_____________________________________________________________
45 percent of survey participants described the developments as “exciting” and therefore positive. In contrast, more than a third are looking towards the metaverse with concern. Among the 61 percent of respondents who do not want to use the metaverse, many doubt its added value (37 percent), prefer activities in real space (32 percent) or worry about a lack of data protection (26 percent).
OpenPassword
Forum and news
for the information industry
in German-speaking countries
New editions of Open Password appear three times a week.
If you would like to subscribe to the email service free of charge, please register at www.password-online.de.
The current edition of Open Password can be accessed immediately after it appears on the web. www.password-online.de/archiv. This also applies to all previously published editions.
International Cooperation Partner:
Outsell (London)
Business Industry Information Association/BIIA (Hong Kong)
Open Password Archive – Publications
OPEN PASSWORD ARCHIVE
DATA JOURNALISM
Handelsblatt’s Digital Reach