Communication

bibliotecaufpa

7If4Pzk5d

Innovations in Scholarly

Communication

Results from the survey of Emerald

authors

Neil Flenley

April 2016

www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com


Introduction to the study

• In January 2016, over 1,000 Emerald authors took the time to

participate in a survey of Innovations in Scholarly

Communication.

• The survey – designed by project leaders at Utrecht University

Library – sought to measure the extent to which scholars are

using new digital tools to discover, analyse, write, publish, and

assess their work.

• We are pleased to publish the results collated from Emerald

authors in this document. The full survey results of 20,000

scholars worldwide is available at the dedicated Utrecht

University webpage from the 18th April 2016.


Discovery

Google Scholar is dominant as the key content

search tool for over 90% of Emerald researchers

What tools do you use to search for

literature/data?

Google Scholar

Web of Science

Scopus

PubMed

Mendeley

WorldCat

Institution's discovery service

EBSCO

ResearchGate

Science Direct

Paperity

ProQuest

Other

14%

12%

8%

9%

5%

3%

2%

2%

2%

13%

45%

42%

94%

• Almost every respondent used Google

Scholar to search for scholarly

content.

• Web of Science and Scopus lead a

long tail of miscellaneous search tools

and databases referred to by

scholars.

• Whilst Google was the most

frequently used tool by authors in all

subject groups, authors in Medicine,

Life and Physical Sciences, and Law

were more likely to use WorldCat and

PubMed.

• Librarians also reported higher levels

of use of PubMed (48% of Librarians

surveyed) and WorldCat (34%) than

those in other roles.

Base [all authors who use these tools] = 1034


Discovery

Most scholars access literature through institutional

resources, but as many as 61% use ResearchGate

What tools do you use to get access to

literature?

Institutional access

ResearchGate

E-mail the author

Open Access Button

Pay per view on publisher

platform

Academia.edu

Discovery services &

databases

Google

Research4Life

4%

2%

2%

2%

11%

27%

21%

61%

89%

• 27% of authors contact the author

directly when accessing literature.

• Authors based in S&E Europe were

most likely to use ResearchGate to

access literature (72% of respondents

in this region); in contrast, only 45% of

North American authors used this tool.

• Roughly half of authors in Life

Sciences and Medicine were using

Open Access Button – a much higher

level of use than seen by other

disciplines.

Download from the Web

Deepdyve

Via personal networks

Other

1%

1%

1%

1%

Base [all authors who use these tools] = 1027


Discovery

Google Scholar and Research Gate are the key tools

for authors seeking recommendations and alerts

Google Scholar

ResearchGate

JournalTOCs

Mendeley

Alerts via journal/publisher

websites

Academia.edu

Subject communities,

listservs

What tools do you use to get

alerts/recommendations?

Scopus

7%

7%

5%

2%

2%

14%

68%

62%

• Google Scholar and ResearchGate

are the principle means which

scholars are using to gain alerts and

recommendations about new work;

over 50% of respondents were using

these tools.

• Authors based in East Asia were most

likely to use Google Scholar for this

purpose (93% of respondents from

this region).

• In contrast, in N&W Europe, 53% of

authors used Google for alerts.

Authors here were more likely to use

JournalTOCs (22%) and alerts directly

from journal or publishers’ websites

(14%).

Other

6%

Base [all authors who use these tools] = 889


Discovery

Almost all of the authors surveyed used Acrobat

Reader for reading scholarly content

Acrobat Reader

using HTML view

Mendeley

Alternative pdf tools

iAnnotate

ReadCube

MS Word and others

Reference management

tools

Work with printed document

What tools/sites do you use to

read/view/annotate?

Papers (Mac)

UtopiaDocs

Hypothes.is

5%

3%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

12%

37%

94%

• Almost all respondents (94%) were

using Acrobat Reader software for

reading and annotating scholarly

content. A further 5% used alternative

pdf editing tools.

• One third read the HTML version on

screen.

• Authors working in Medicine (63%)

and Arts & Humanities (55%) were the

subject authors most likely to be

reading HTML.

• 10% of those working in Physical

Sciences used a printed version of a

document (survey average was just

1%).

Google tools

Other

0%

2%

Base= 1009; 97% response


Analysis

Excel and SPSS dominate, but individual subject areas

have associations with specific tools

What tools do you use to analyse data &

texts?

Excel

SPSS

Matlab

R

STATA

NVivo

Atlas.ti

AMOS

SAS

ROpenSci

Maxqda

Mplus

MS Access/other MS

iPython Notebook

Eviews

Minitab

Google tools

Origin

Other

2%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

13%

13%

9%

8%

10%

Base [all authors who use these tools] = 997

61%

77%

• Whilst Excel remained the key tool

used, 69% of Social Science and

Economics scholars used SPSS, and

roughly 40% of Engineering &

Technology, and Physical Sciences

scholars used Matlab.

• Scholars working in Medicine were

more likely to be using NVivo (21% of

scholars in this group).

[Average no. of tools used by authors]

Most popular tools by subject group

1 2 3 4 5

Arts & Humanities [1.6] Excel SPSS NVivo R Matlab

Engineering & Technology [1.9] Excel Matlab SPSS R NVivo

Law [1.8] Excel SPSS NVivo R Matlab

Life Sciences [2.0] Excel SPSS NVivo Matlab R

Medicine [2.2] Excel SPSS NVivo R Matlab

Physical Sciences [1.7] Excel Matlab SPSS R NVivo

Social Sciences & Economics [2.0] Excel SPSS R STATA NVivo


Analysis

Dropbox is the key tool for sharing notebooks and

workflows, but fewer authors engage with this activity

What tools/sites do you use to share

notebooks/protocols/workflows?

Dropbox

Open Science Framework

Google tools

Scientific Protocols

myExperiment

Email

Protocol Online

Protocols.io

Microsoft tools

BenchLing

Evernote

Benchfly

ResearchGate

8%

6%

5%

4%

4%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

16%

21%

19%

• Fewer than one third of respondents

reported using tools to share

notebooks, protocols, and workflows.

• Within this area of activity, Dropbox

was the most commonly used tool.

• There was a long list of miscellaneous

tools utilised by scholars.

• Scholars working in Social

Science/Economics and Arts and

Humanities were more likely than

those in other disciplines to use

Dropbox and Google tools to share

this information.

Institutional resource

OneNote

NVivo

1%

1%

1%

Other

9%

Base [all authors who use these tools] = 310


Writing

MS Word is used by almost all respondents, with

Google tools used by just under one third

What tools/sites do you use to write/prepare

your manuscript?

MS Word

Google Drive/Docs

LaTeX

Scrivener

Overleaf (=WriteLaTeX)

Authorea

12%

3%

1%

1%

31%

97%

• MS Word is used by almost all

respondents (97%), but Google tools

were used by 31% of respondents.

• Authors in N. America were most

likely to use Google Drive/Docs.

• Librarians in particular were more

likely to use Google Docs than other

scholars (61% of Librarians; survey

average was 31%).

• 38% of authors in Physical Sciences,

and 24% of those in Engineering used

LaTeX to prepare manuscripts (survey

average for all scholars was 12%).

Scalar

1%

Other

8%

Base [all authors who use these tools] = 1029


Writing

Over half of respondents are using EndNote as their

preferred reference management tool

What tools/sites do you use for reference

management?

EndNote

Mendeley

RefWorks

Zotero

Papers

REfME

MS Word and other

Citavi

Bibtex

Google Scholar

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

16%

13%

10%

24%

54%

• After EndNote, Mendeley is used by

just under one quarter of Emerald

scholars surveyed.

• Librarians reported the highest levels

of reference tool use, with at least one

third reporting using EndNote, Zotero,

RefWorks and Mendeley.

• EndNote was particularly popular

amongst authors in Australasia (81%

used this tool), but less so in Europe

(42%).

• Latin American authors were most

likely to use Mendeley (41% used this

tool; survey average was 23%).

ReferenceManager

Other

1%

4%

Base [all authors who use these tools] = 764


Publication

Almost three quarters of respondents use

ResearchGate to archive and share their publications

What tools/sites do you use to archive/share

publications

ResearchGate

Institutional repository

SSRN

I share working papers

Academia.edu

Own or institution's website

arXiv

PubMed Central

Dropbox

Google Scholar, etc.

LinkedIn

RePEc

Other

3%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

3%

19%

17%

10%

38%

73%

• Following ResearchGate, an

institutional repository was used by

38% of respondents.

• Early career researchers (first

publishing between 2011-2015) were

less likely to use an institutional

repository to share their work than

other researchers. 28% shared work

in this way, compared to 47% of those

who had first published between

2001-2005. ResearchGate remained

the key tool for early career

researchers.

• Overall, authors from S&E Europe

were most likely to use their own

institution’s resources to share and

archive.

Base [all authors who use these tools] = 896


Publication

Just over one fifth of authors used tools to archive or

share data

What tools/sites do you use to archive/share

data & code

GitHub

Dropbox

Figshare

Dataverse

Institutional repository

Google Drive

Dryad

Zenodo

MS Excel and others

Pangaea

6%

5%

4%

4%

3%

3%

10%

17%

16%

24%

• The question on tools used in the

sharing of data was answered by just

over one fifth of Emerald scholars.

• GitHub (24%) was the most common

choice amongst this group, followed

by Dropbox and Figshare.

• Subject affiliation influences the

choice of tools – 50% of Engineering

and Technology authors are using

GitHub (survey average is 24%),

whilst 43% of Medical authors were

using their institution's repository

(survey average 6%).

Personal website or

resources

BitBucket

3%

2%

Other

14%

Base [all authors who use these tools] = 243


Publication

Roughly 50% of authors use JCR and Scopus to help

decide where they should publish

What tools/sites do you use to decide which

journal to submit to?

JCR (impact factors)

Scopus

SCImago Journal Rank

DOAJ

Journalysis

Sherpa Romeo

National/University

classification

ABS rankings

Other ranking systems

QOAM

Google

Journal or publisher's website

6%

5%

3%

2%

2%

2%

2%

1%

14%

31%

56%

56%

• A long list of indexing options was

recorded in response to the question,

but JCR and Scopus both were used

by over 50% of Emerald authors.

• In particular, authors based in S&E

Europe were the most likely to consult

JCR, Scopus, and SCImago.

• Authors in Engineering & Technology

were most likely to consult Scopus

(66% of authors in this subject area).

• 30% of respondents who were yet to

publish an article had consulted open

access and self-archiving tool, Sherpa

RoMEO (survey average was 5%).

ABDC

Cabell

Other

1%

1%

4%

Base [all authors who use these tools] = 742


Publication

18% of respondents are using OA routes to

publish

What tools/sites do you use to publish? • Almost all of the authors surveyed

were publishing through a traditional

publishing house (98%).

Topical journal (traditional

publisher)

Topical journal (OA

publisher)

Data journal

F1000Research

Winnower

1%

1%

0%

18%

98%

• Authors in Physical and Life Sciences

and Medicine lead on the use of OA

publishing routes. 68% of Medicine

authors had used OA (survey average

18%)

• A small proportion of Law authors

used a data journal (13%), but this

was notably high proportion in

comparison to the survey average of

just 1%.

Other

4%

Base [all authors who use these tools] = 903


Outreach

Just under one third of respondents shared

presentations/posters online

What tools/sites do you use to archive/share

posters & presentations?

Slideshare

Vimeo

Figshare

ScienceOpen Posters

Own website

Speakerdeck

Dropbox

Prezi

Social media

Google Drive, etc.

F1000Posters

PowerPoint

Institutional repository

Academia.edu

7%

6%

5%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

2%

13%

56%

• Almost half of the scholars responding

to this question (56%) used

Slideshare to share presentations,

although a long list of other options

was recorded by the question.

• Authors working in

industry/government were more likely

to use social media tools to share this

content (21% of these authors; survey

average was 3%).

• Authors based in Asia were more

likely to use ScienceOpen Posters

than those in other regions. In

particular, 24% of authors in India

used this tool.

Zenodo

Other

0%

10%

Base [all authors who use these tools] = 317


Outreach

Just over half of authors use tools to

communicate to an audience outside academia

What tools/sites do you use to tell about your

research outside academia?

Twitter

Wordpress

Wikipedia

Kudos

Facebook

LinkedIn

ResearchBlogging.org

ResearchGate

Own or institution's website

Academia.edu

FameLab

1%

1%

4%

4%

9%

7%

12%

11%

26%

26%

38%

• Twitter was the most commonly used

tool (38%), but Facebook (11%) and

LinkedIn (9%) were also mentioned.

• Approximately one quarter used

Wordpress or Wikipedia.

• Authors working in Medicine were the

subject grouping most likely to use

Twitter to communicate (79%; survey

average 38%)

• Looking at regional differences,

authors based in Australasia showed

the greatest propensity to use Twitter

(62% used this tool).

Google tools

Pint of Science

1%

1%

Other

6%

Base [all authors who use these tools] = 546


Outreach

Three quarters of authors use ResearchGate and

Google Scholar to maintain profiles

What researcher profiles do you use? • Six key tools were reported for

maintaining researcher profiles.

ResearchGate

Google Scholar

Academia.edu

ORCID

Profile page at own

institution

ResearcherID

My Science Work

Other

0%

6%

27%

20%

42%

42%

76%

72%

• After ResearchGate and Google

Scholar, Academia.edu and ORCID

are used by 40% of respondents.

• Authors based in N&W Europe were

less likely than other groups to use

Google Scholar to maintain a profile

page. Instead, this group was more

likely to have a profile page on their

own institution’s website (36% of

authors in this region).

• Authors in S&E Europe were the

group most likely to use

ResearchGate, ORCID, and

ResearcherID.

Base [all authors who use these tools] = 983


Assessment

Publons was the most common tool, although fewer

authors used online peer review

What tools/sites do you use for peer review

beyond that organized by journals?

Publons

Peerage of Science

PaperCritic

PubMed Commons

PubPeer

Share with personal groups

for comment

RubriQ

Academic Karma

Other

5%

3%

13%

11%

10%

8%

13%

20%

28%

• Tools used independently of a

publisher for peer review were used

less frequently by authors – fewer

than 20% of respondents reported

using online tools for review.

• Publons was the most commonly

used tool (28%).

• 8% of authors reported that they

consulted with their colleagues or

personal networks for feedback on

their work.

• Use of RubriQ was led by Librarians

(43% of Librarian authors used this

tool).

• 67% of authors working in Medicine

used PubMed Commons (survey

average was 11%).

Base [all authors who use these tools] = 183


Assessment

Scopus, JCR, and Web of Science remain as the key

tools for evaluating impact

What tools/sites do you use to measure

impact?

Scopus

JCR (impact factor)

Web of Science

Harzing Publish or Perish

Altmetric

Google Scholar

ImpactStory

PLoS article level metrics

Scimago

ResearchGate

Other

14%

10%

7%

2%

2%

1%

1%

3%

65%

58%

52%

• The big three impact measurement

tools - Scopus, JCR, and Web of

Science - were the top choices, used

by 52-65% of authors.

• Harzing Publish or Perish was used

by 14% of authors.

• Librarian authors were most likely to

use Altmetric (45% used this tool;

survey average 10%)

• Authors working in Law (45%),

Medicine (36%), and Arts &

Humanities (21%) also recorded

above average use of Altmetric.

• Authors based in S&E Europe and

Latin America reported the highest

levels of use of Scopus, Web of

Science, and JCR.

Base [all authors who use these tools] = 795


Future Developments in Scholarly Communication

Growth in Open Access and online sharing/networking

were seen as key developments for the future

The most important development in scholarly

communication in the coming years?

Growth of Open Access

Growth in online sharing and

networking

Decreasing importance of ranked

journals

More networking through Google

Scholar/ResearchGate

Application of multimedia tools

Development of further digital tools

New ways to measure impact

Quicker review and publishing times

Growth of Open Data

Tools to simplify the mass of digital

content

Easier access to information/digital

publication

Paying to publish

Quality standards falling

Other

5%

5%

4%

4%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

8%

10%

12%

34%

• Authors reported an interesting

range of views about how

scholarly communication may

develop in the future.

• The growth of Open Access was

the most frequently cited change

authors expected to occur.

• In general, authors saw greater

opportunities to network and

share content emerging in the

years ahead.

• Authors who had first published

before 1991were most likely to

predict the decreasing

importance of indexed journals

(16%; survey average 8%).

Don't Know

8%

Base= 641


Future Developments in Scholarly Communication

Author support for Open Access and Open Science

Do you support the goal of Open Access?

Do you support the goal of Open Science?

7%

5%

13%

Yes

20%

Yes

I don't know

I don't know

No

No

80%

75%

Subject affiliation, age, and job role did not have a significant bearing on the

likelihood of an author supporting Open Access and Open Science, but

there was a lower level of awareness about the term ‘Open Science’

amongst authors based in China, Japan, and Russia.

Base= 959 & 972


Annex: Profile of Respondents

Research role and subject

3%

4%

2%

5%

5% 4% 3% 2%

8%

11%

15%

63%

22%

71%

Professor / Assoc. Professor / Assist. Professor

PhD student

Postdoc

Librarian

Industry / Government

Bachelor/Masters Student

Publisher

Other

Social Sciences &

Economics

Engineering & Technology

Arts & Humanities

Life Sciences

Medicine

Physical Sciences

Similar magazines