References
- 1“ROARMAP,”
http://roarmap.eprints.org/cgi/search/advanced (accessed 10 January 2020). - 2Research England, Monitoring sector progress towards compliance with funder open access policies, 2018,
http://re.ukri.org/documents/2018/research-england-open-access-report-pdf/ (accessed 10 January 2020). - 3“University of Manchester Open Access Gateway,”
https://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/using-the-library/staff/research/open-research/access/gateway/ (accessed 10 January 2020). - 4Chris Banks, “Focusing Upstream: Supporting Scholarly Communication by Academics,” Insights 29, no. 1 (2016): 37–44, DOI: 10.1629/uksg.292 (accessed 10 January 2020).
- 5Simon Bains, “The Role of the Library in Scholarly Publishing: The University of Manchester Experience.” Insights 30, no. 3 (2017): 70–77, DOI: 10.1629/uksg.380 (accessed 10 January 2020).
- 6“NIHR Plain English summary,”
https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/information-for-authors/plain-english-summary/ (accessed 10 January 2020). - 7“University of Manchester Research beacons,”
https://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/beacons/ (accessed 10 January 2020). - 8Xuan Liang et al., “Building Buzz: (Scientists) Communicating Science in New Media Environments.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91, no. 4 (2014): 772–791, DOI: 10.1177/1077699014550092 (accessed 10 January 2020).
- 9Julie Suleski and Motomu Ibaraki, “Scientists are talking, but mostly to each other: a quantitative analysis of research represented in mass media,” Public Understanding of Science 19, no. 1 (2010): 115–125, DOI: 10.1177/0963662508096776 (accessed 10 January 2020).
- 10Lorcan Dempsey, “Library collections in the life of the user: two directions,” LIBER Quarterly 26, no. 4 (2016): 338–359, DOI: 10.18352/lq.10170 (accessed 10 January 2020).
- 11Nancy Pontika, “Roles and jobs in the open research scholarly communications environment: analysing job descriptions to predict future trends,” LIBER Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2019): 1–20, DOI: 10.18352/lq.10282 (accessed 10 January 2020).
- 12Steffan Lemke, Isabella Peters and Athanasios Mazarakis, “‘If you use social media then you are not working’” – How do social scientists perceive altmetrics and online forms of scholarly communication?” LSE Impact Blog, March 20, 2019,
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2019/03/20/if-you-use-social-media-then-you-are-not-working-how-do-social-scientists-perceive-altmetrics-and-online-forms-of-scholarly-communication/ (accessed 10 January 2020). - 13Saeed-Ul Hassan et al., “Measuring social media activity of scientific literature: an exhaustive comparison of scopus and novel altmetrics big data,” Scientometrics 113, no. 2 (2017): 1037–1057, DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2512-x (accessed 10 January 2020).
- 14Nicolas Robinson-Garcia et al., “The unbearable emptiness of tweeting—About journal articles.” PLOS ONE 12, no. 8 (2017)
e0183551 , DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183551 (accessed 10 January 2020). - 15George Veletsianos, Nicole Johnson and Olga Belikov, “Academics’ social media use over time is associated with individual, relational, cultural and political factors,” British Journal of Educational Technology 50, no. 4 (2019): 1713–1728, DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12788 (accessed 16 January 2020).
- 16Qing Ke, Yong-Yeol Ahn and Cassidy R. Sugimoto, “A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter.” PLOS ONE 12, no. 4 (2017):
e0175368 , DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175368 (accessed 10 January 2020). - 17Adrian Diaz-Faes, Timothy D. Bowman and Rodrigo Costas, “Towards a second generation of ‘social media metrics’: Characterizing Twitter communities of attention around science,” PLOS ONE 14, no. 5 (2019):
e0216408 , DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216408 (accessed 10 January 2020). - 18“SciVal Topic Prominence,”
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scival/releases/topic-prominence-in-science (accessed 16 January 2010). - 19Tzipora Rakedzon, Timothy D. Bowman and Rodrigo Costas, “Automatic jargon identifier for scientists engaging with the public and science communication educators,” PLOS ONE 12, no. 8 (2017):
e0181742 , DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181742 (accessed 10 January 2020). - 20“Kudos,”
https://www.growkudos.com/ (accessed 10 January 2020). - 21“The Conversation,”
http://theconversation.com/uk (accessed 10 January 2020). - 22“xkcd Simple Writer,”
https://xkcd.com/simplewriter/ (accessed 10 January 2020). - 23“Scholarcy,”
https://www.scholarcy.com/ (accessed 10 January 2020). - 24“@UoMOpenAccess,”
https://twitter.com/UoMOpenAccess (accessed 10 January 2020). - 25University of Manchester Library, Research Metrics Reports,
https://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/using-the-library/staff/research/metrics/reports/ (accessed 10 January 2020); “Measuring Research Communications,” Research Metrics Matters,https://medium.com/research-metrics-matters/measuring-research-communications-35debd8b9ebb (accessed 10 January 2020). - 26Sarah Parks et al., “The changing research landscape and reflections on national research assessment in the future,” Research England (2019):
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3200.html DOI: 10.7249/RR3200 (accessed 10 January 2020). - 27Juan Pablo Alperin, Charles A. Gomez and Stefanie Haustein, “Identifying diffusion patterns of research articles on Twitter: A case study of online engagement with open access articles,” Public Understanding of Science 28, no. 1 (2018): 2–18, DOI: 10.1177/0963662518761733 (accessed 10 January 2020).
- 28Twitter thread,
https://twitter.com/twitemp1/status/1180604734530441216 (accessed 10 January 2020). - 29S.J. Chapman et al., “Randomized controlled trial of plain English and visual abstracts for disseminating surgical research via social media,” British Journal of Surgery 106, no. 12 (2019): 1611–1616, DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11307 (accessed 10 January 2020).
- 30Miltiadis D. Lytras, Saeed-Ul Hassan and Naif Radi Aljohani, “Linked open data of bibliometric networks: analytics research for personalized library services,” Library Hi Tech 37, no. 1 (2019): 2–7, DOI: 10.1108/LHT-03-2019-277 (accessed 10 January 2020).
- 31Kim Holmberg and Mike Thelwall, “Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication,” Scientometrics 101, no. 2 (2014): 1027–1042, DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3 (accessed 10 January 2020).
- 32Fatih Yakar et al., “The current usage of Instagram in neurosurgery,” Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery 19 (2020):
100553 , DOI: 10.1016/j.inat.2019.100553 (accessed 10 January 2020). - 33Noriko Hara, Jessica Abbazio and Kathryn Perkins, “An emerging form of public engagement with science: Ask Me Anything (AMA) sessions on Reddit r/science,” PLOS ONE 14, no. 5 (2019):
e0216789 , DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216789 (accessed 10 January 2020). - 34Asura Enkhbayar et al., “How much research shared on Facebook is hidden from public view? A comparison of public and private online activity around PLOS ONE papers,” arXiv,
https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.01476 (accessed 10 January 2020).