Wednesday, 18 October 2017

5 Steps to tweet your research at conferences effectively | Editage Insights

 Source: https://www.editage.com/insights/5-steps-to-tweet-your-research-at-conferences-effectively








5 Steps to tweet your research at conferences effectively

Elena Milani | Oct 12, 2017 | 584 views



5 Steps to tweet your research at conferences effectively
Ever
since I started my PhD (and even before) I’ve been told about the
importance of using social media for communicating about my research.
But, just like every other PhD student and early career researcher, I
spend most of my time doing research and writing about my project.
So how do you use social media to
promote your research effectively, if you don’t have any time? The
solution is simpler than you can imagine: tweet your conference
presentation. Among all social media platforms, Twitter is probably the
most effective platform for talking about and promoting your research
online. It has the potential to reach the academic community,
stakeholders, professionals, and general public.
Why should you do it? Live tweeting your
conference presentations efficiently helps you communicate your
research, improve networking, and start new collaborations. The academic
community is on Twitter, and you can reach your target public with your
messages. This brings us to the very important question of how do you
tweet your presentations while you are at a conference? In short, how do
you live-tweet during a conference you are presenting at?
These few steps are all you need to help you tweet your presentations.
1. Prepare the tweets before the conference
Tweets are messages of 140 characters
that include a short message, relevant hashtags, a web link and/or a
picture. You should prepare them before going to the conference. You
don’t need many tweets: on Twitter, you can’t explain everything about
your research, but each time you tweet, you should provide a key message
about your project that can be understood independently as well as in
the context of the presentation.
You could prepare some tweets in advance like the ones below:
  • One tweet to promote
    your talk before speaking at the conference: The idea is to let other
    attendees know about your presentation and work, and you can engage with
    them on Twitter; this tweet should include the presentation title and
    the name of the conference. You could tag relevant people as well,
    including the conference organizers.
  • One tweet to introduce
    your presentation: Make sure this tweet includes the presentation title
    and the conference you are attending. Also, include a picture of your
    first slide or the abstract.
  • Anything between three
    to eight tweets that provide the key messages about your research: Share
    key slides from your slide deck and highlight the key message from
    them.
To prepare these tweets, you can follow the simple steps listed below:
  • Write a short abstract of the research in bullet points and include objects, findings, and why it’s important and/or innovative.
  • Reduce the bullet
    points to 4-6 in total and shorten each sentence. Cut out jargon,
    details, and anything that is not necessary to convey the main message.
  • Add relevant hashtags
    (more about hashtags below) and names of people you want to mention
    (e.g. your university, your co-authors, your funders…people you think
    may be interested in your work).
  • Rephrase each sentence
    to make it meaningful, concise, and of 140 characters. If your tweet
    exceeds 140 characters, anything you type from the 141st character won’t
    appear and your tweet will appear incomplete.
  • Review your tweets and ask a colleague or a friend whether they are clear and easy to understand.
By following these steps, you can
frame tweets to explain your research efficiently. After your
presentation, you can also share links related to your research (project
or profile page on the university website, ResearchGate profile), or to
one of your publications relevant to your talk. Encourage readers to
ask questions about your research or to follow you on Twitter and other
social media accounts (e.g. LinkedIn or ResearchGate).
2. Use media
I always suggest tweeting pictures, such
as those of relevant slides or charts, because images increase the
visibility of tweets, especially the screenshot of the conference
abstract. If you don’t have any relevant images, don’t feel compelled to
include irrelevant images. Instead of thinking of images as a
’decorative’ element, treat them as visual messages that reinforce the
text in the tweet.
One of the problems regarding the use of
images is the copyright; always use images you own or credit the
original source. If your presentation includes data that you plan to
include in journal publication in the future, it might be safer not to
share such data.
3. Choose the right hashtag         
Hashtags are keywords formed by one or
more words preceded by a hash sign (#); for example, #PhDadvice or
#HigherEd. Hashtags label conversations on Twitter, and people search
for or tweet including a specific hashtag when they want to join the
discussion.
Most academic conferences have hashtags;
for example the Science in Public conference in Sheffield (UK), in July
2017, used #SIPsheff17, so everybody attending the conference or
talking about it on Twitter used this hashtag in their tweets. Make sure
your tweets include the hashtag of the conference, if there is one. You
should also include other hashtags relevant to your topic and your
target audience. Through Twitter hashtags, you can reach both the
participants of the conference and public who won’t attend it but are
potentially interested in your work.
In addition to the conference hashtag,
you can add 1-3 hashtags relevant to your presentation. If you don’t
know what hashtags to use, you can consult hashtag databases such as
SciHashtag and Symplur.com or platforms such as Hashtagify.me and
RiteTag to find them. Before using a hashtag, always check its stream,
because it may be not used anymore or it may be a false friend: some
hashtags, even if they have words related to our research topic, may
label conversations are not relevant at all. Most hashtag search
platforms also indicate whether a particular hashtag is in use,
trending, or obsolete. Using a wrong hashtag will not give your tweets
the attention they deserve.
4. Ask a colleague to tweet your talk
If a colleague is attending the same
conference, you can ask him/her to tweet your presentation in real time.
Provide the tweets and your Twitter handle as well. You could also
share the tweets you prepared with them and ask them to tweet on your
behalf. If your colleague isn’t at conference, you can do the live
tweeting by scheduling the tweets 10-15 minutes after the presentation
starts, using platforms such as TweetDeck, Hootsuite or Buffer.
Scheduling the tweets with a certain delay is very important just in
case the presentation starts late.
5. Reply to questions on Twitter
After your live tweeting, you may
receive several Twitter notifications of retweets or favourites of your
messages. You may also receive Direct Messages or mentions with
questions, comments, and concerns, from academics or professionals
interested in your work. These mentions and messages indicate that you
were able to communicate your research well, and they offer an
opportunity to engage with other scholars and stakeholders. Don’t ignore
these messages and try to reply to them to the best of your ability.
Thank those who compliment you, try to address the concerns of those who
doubt your work, and move the conversation to private message. Email
those who want to know more about your research or suggest a future
collaboration. You may also come across people who use harsh words. We
may also come across people who insult us, and in this case, the best
course of action is to ignore them.
Live tweeting not only helps raise
awareness but also increases engagement and draws attention. Arming
yourself with the right tools, preparing your tweets in advance, and
planning well will help you live tweet your research effectively.  
Related reading:


Is your research viral yet? Researchers and social media



5 Steps to tweet your research at conferences effectively | Editage Insights

Monday, 16 October 2017

SSRN Top Downloads For: AARN: Educational Policies & Equality (Topic)

 Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/topten/topTenResults.cfm?groupingId=2136383&netorjrnl=jrnl





Ethical and Unethical Methods of Plagiarism Prevention in Academic Writing

 

Abstract

This paper discusses plagiarism origins, and the ethical solutions
to prevent it. It also reviews some unethical approaches, which may be
used to decrease the plagiarism rate in academic writings. We propose
eight ethical techniques to avoid unconscious and accidental plagiarism
in manuscripts without using online systems such as Turnitin and/or
iThenticate for cross checking and plagiarism detection. The efficiency
of the proposed techniques is evaluated on five different texts using
students individually. After application of the techniques on the texts,
they were checked by Turnitin to produce the plagiarism and similarity
report. At the end, the "effective factor" of each method has been
compared with each other; and the best result went to a hybrid
combination of all techniques to avoid plagiarism. The hybrid of ethical
methods decreased the plagiarism rate reported by Turnitin from nearly
100% to the average of 8.4% on 5 manuscripts.


















Keywords: Plagiarism, Plagiarism Prevention, Academic Cheating, Ethical Approaches, Unethical Approaches







JEL Classification: L11, L1, L2, M11, M12, M1, M54, Q1, O1, O3, P42, P24, P29, Q31, Q32, L17














































































































Bakhtiyari, Kaveh and Salehi, Hadi and
Embi, Mohamed Amin and Shakiba, Masoud and Zavvari, Azam and
Shahbazi-Moghadam, Masoomeh and Ale Ebrahim, Nader and Mohammadjafari,
Marjan, Ethical and Unethical Methods of Plagiarism Prevention in
Academic Writing (June 19, 2014). International Education Studies, vol.
7, no. 7, pp. 52-62, 2014. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2457669
 





SSRN Top Downloads

Thursday, 12 October 2017

Will 'Publish or Perish' Become 'Clicks or Canned'? The Rise of Academic Social Networks | EdSurge News



 Source: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-08-01-will-publish-or-perish-become-clicks-or-canned-the-rise-of-academic-social-networks

Will 'Publish or Perish' Become 'Clicks or Canned'? The Rise of Academic Social Networks

Scholars want peers to find—and cite—their research, and these days
that increasingly happens on social media. The old adage ‘publish or
perish’ could soon go digital as ‘clicks or canned.’

Several
platforms have emerged over the past decade, offering researchers the
chance to share their work and connect with other scholars. But some of
those services have a bad rap from academics who say commercial sites
lack the integrity of institutional repositories run by traditional
universities. (Among the most widely-villified are ResearchGate and Academia.edu, which is evident by griping on social media and elsewhere.)

“The
idea that some of these sites are for-profit raises questions about
whether our work is really going to be available to the public, or if
we’re doing it for free for a corporation,” says Fatima Espinoza
Vasquez, assistant professor at the University of Kentucky’s School of
Information Science. “It also raises copyright issues. Even though we
own our work, researchers have to be very careful because academic
journals often have specific rules that about where you publish
research.”

Vasquez, who co-authored a 2015 paper
comparing services and tools offered by various academic social
networks, says researchers must weigh the benefits and drawbacks of
each. “They can be great tools to advance your research, especially
social research,” she says. “But just like with Facebook or any other
social network, we need to be aware of potential issues we might have
with copyright or privacy.”

Here’s a quick look at the academic social networks currently out there, and what they offer to scholars.

Academia.edu

With 53 million users and 19 million posted papers, Academia.edu
is the largest of the academic social networks. The site presents
itself as the easiest way to share papers with other academics, and
argues that its internal research shows that uploading your research
will yield a significant (69 percent) boost to citations over a
five-year period.

Users can create a profile, upload work, and
track views and citations. While Academia.edu is free to join, the site
introduced a premium feature in December 2016 that allows users to track
details about who’s looking at their research papers (similar to
LinkedIn Premium’s ability to show who’s viewed your profile). The
addition of paid features sparked a bit of controversy, causing some scholars to pull away from the commercial site in favor of institution-hosted repositories.

ResearchGate

Berlin-based ResearchGate raised more than $100 million in funding
over the past few years and has been working to expand its features.
More popular with scientific researchers than humanities scholars, the
platform focuses on sharing research outcomes—whether they’re
publishable or not. Traditionally, only successful experiments are
written up and accepted by peer-reviewed academic journals, but Ijad
Madisch, co-founder and CEO of ResearchGate, believes it’s just as important to share failed experiments.

According
to its website, ResearchGate’s mission is “to connect the world of
science and make research open to all.” The platform is free to join and
allows researchers to post their publications, connect with other
academics, and search for the publications of other users. ResearchGate
has grown exponentially in the past few years and currently has about 13 million users worldwide.

Mendeley

Created as a reference-management tool to help users organize their research, Mendeley
also includes a number of social-networking features. Users can connect
in private or public groups, comment on papers and keep track of the
connections of other users that they follow via a Facebook-like
newsfeed. The service also features a number of tools for research
management, including the ability to generate bibliographies, import
papers from other software and allow users to annotate documents.

Mendeley started as an open-access research network, and some researchers balked when publishing giant Elsevier purchased the site in 2013. While open science advocates remain skeptical of the partnership, Mendeley is still a popular choice for researchers looking to collaborate with other scholars.

Scholabrate

The latest addition to the growing list of social-networks aimed for higher education is Scholabrate.
The service claims to provide a more Facebook-esque, visual experience
for academics seeking to network with others in their field.

Aviv
Pichhadze, CEO and founder of Knowledge Observer, the company behind
Scholabrate, says most of his competitors are focused on publications
and research. “We asked instead, how do you highlight the individual as
opposed to the product?” He added that the site includes fields for
achievements in teaching, voluntary community work, and awards.

Instead
of acting as a repository for uploaded papers, Scholabrate allows you
to post links to externally published work. Users can connect with each
other and collaborate directly through the platform using one-on-one
videoconferencing or group discussion. “We want to streamline the
process of connecting and collaborating,” Pichhadze says.

Zotero

Similar to Mendeley, Zotero
functions primarily as a research tool, allowing users to collect,
save, cite and share materials from a wide range of sources. The site
also maintains a significant community of academics who can connect
through groups and forums, or through their search engine. Each Zotero
user can build a personal profile complete with CVs and other detailed
information.

It’s hard to say just how important these social
networks for scholars will become. “There are so many new sites coming
out, and I think everyone wants to play a role,” says Vasquez. “One
concern I don’t think people are talking about is how these sites are
tracking the most popular topics and showing that data to users. I
wonder, will research be dictated by big trends instead of actual
societal needs or individual interests? It’ll be interesting to see what
happens.”

 



Will 'Publish or Perish' Become 'Clicks or Canned'? The Rise of Academic Social Networks | EdSurge News

Despite Growth, Scientific Networking Sites Are Likely to Complement, Not Replace Open Access Repositories | Open Science

 Source: http://openscience.com/despite-their-initial-proliferation-scientific-networking-sites-are-likely-to-complement-not-replace-open-access-repositories/





Despite Growth, Scientific Networking Sites Are Likely to Complement, Not Replace Open Access Repositories

Group on Earth Observations Summit in Geneva, Switzerland, January 14, 2014 | © Courtesy of United States Mission Geneva.



October 12, 2017
Even though social media performance becomes
increasingly important for scientists, questions about the implications
that the business models of scholarly networking sites have persist,
while leaving institutional repositories and Open Access publishers with
a significant role to play in knowledge sharing.


A Blog Article by Pablo Markin.



As scholars become increasingly concerned with the visibility and
view counts that their scientific articles generate, social networking
platforms have been slated to become the primary venues for the
dissemination and sharing of scientific knowledge. However, as Jessica
Leigh Brown implies, as these scholarly social networking sites, such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu,
have sought to achieve both economic sustainability and reputation
within different scientific communities, Open Access institutional
repositories run by universities and institutes are likely to continue
to be important for ensuring content availability in the long term.


In other words, either as open source projects, e.g., Zotero, or startup initiatives, such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Mendeley,
these scholarly networks depend on either non-profit, donation-based or
private funding, which can either limit their scope or involve the
privatization of digital commons with possible non-positive responses in
the scientific communities. For instance, ResearchGate has had to
demonstrate swift reaction
to copyright infringement allegations from large journal publishers,
Academia.edu has not met with an enthusiastic response from scholars to
its attempts to introduce paid-for services and Mendeley, upon its
purchase by Elsevier in 2013, has raised concerns that its content
sharing practices might deviate from the principles of Open Access.


Even though social networking sites have been expected to further
promote the scientific communication and even provide alternatives to
the traditional publishing models, as Cornelius Puschmann has argued in 2013, despite their limited proliferation and growth performance,
such as in the case of ResearchGate, their eventual effect on the
journal publishing industry has not necessarily proved to be significant
or disruptive. While both specialized science-oriented and
general-purpose social networks, such as Twitter and Facebook, can
facilitate communication with colleagues, research promotion and
information dissemination locally and internationally, the effects of
the underlying business models that these platforms have are not
necessarily supportive of Open Access, due to their not infrequent
profit orientation. As David Grotty has stressed,
the practices of private social networking sites, such as user behavior
tracking, are likely to affect scholarly communication the implications
of which only begin to be fully comprehended for both content sharing
and scholarly networking, as large publishers either purchase or sue
science-related social networks.


By contrast, Open Access article and book publishers and repositories
are generally not expected to generate revenues off digital content
circulation, have transparent cost structures and can provide long-term
access to materials they store. This cannot be said of private social
networking companies that are exposed to market forces and legal
consequences of insufficiently protecting intellectual property rights.


Thus, both Open Access journal publishers and institutional
repositories are likely to play complementary roles in scientific
communication and networking in the future.


By Pablo Markin



Featured Image Credits: Group on Earth Observations Summit in Geneva, Switzerland, January 14, 2014 | © Courtesy of United States Mission Geneva.




Despite Growth, Scientific Networking Sites Are Likely to Complement, Not Replace Open Access Repositories | Open Science