A Librarian – a Member of Open Research Process
https://doi.org/10.20913/1815-3186-2024-4-89-97
Abstract
Open science extends the principles of openness and collaboration to the entire scientific process, from hypothesis through experiment and data collection to publication of research results. There appears a wide variety of tools that enable and facilitate the openness of research, as well as support the practice of open science. This review considers how libraries can use new technologies and tools to support open scientific research. It describes the stages of the research cycle, and shows how a librarian can help to make the results of research publicly available, how a librarian can be integrated into the research process using open science practices. We conducted a comparative analysis of the practices of open science and the system of open tools to support the life cycle of research, developed in the SPSL SB RAS. A Guide for Librarians on the use of open tools to support the research process has been developed. The guide can be used by libraries to support researchers throughout the research lifecycle, as well as to promote open science practices in our country.
About the Author
L. B. Shevchenko
State Public Scientific Technological Library of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Shevchenko Lyudmila Borisovna - Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Senior Researcher of the Open Science Research Department
15 Voskhod St., Novosibirsk, 630102
References
1. Guskov AE, Karaush AS, Menshchikov IE, Shkolin AV, Nedelskiy VO, Sabirov DSh and Shchukin TN (2022) National scientific information infrastructure: problems, tasks and prospects. Upravlenie naukoi i naukometriya 17 (3): 380–407. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.33873/2686-6706.2022.17-3.380-407.
2. Gushul YuV and Teslya EV (2020) Information and analytical support: modern tasks and development trajectories. Nauchnyye i tekhnicheskiye biblioteki 1: 24–44. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2020-1-24-44.
3. Dezhina IG (2023) Advantages and challenges to open science practices. Terra Economicus 21 (3): 70–87. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.18522/2073-6606-2023-21-3-70-87.
4. Lindeman EV, Sokolova YuV and Taran EN (2018) Russian National Public Library for Science and Technology activities in education: vectors and prospects. Nauchnye i tekhnicheskie biblioteki 12: 73–82. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2018-12-73-82.
5. Malysheva AV (2023) “Embedded librarian”: a review of literature. Nauchnye i tekhnicheskie biblioteki 2: 132–159. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2023-2-132-159.
6. Redkina NS (2022) The libraries and Open Science: vectors of interaction. Nauchnye i tekhnicheskie biblioteki 3: 105–126. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2022-3-105-126.
7. Redkina NS (2023) Digital competencies of librarians in the ecosystem of open science. Bibliosfera 2: 25–34. (In Russ.)]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20913/1815-3186-2023-2-25-34.
8. Rykhtorova AE (2023) The library as a driver of open science: essential competencies of a librarian. Bibliotekovedenie 72 (4): 349–356. (In Russ.)]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25281/0869-608X-2023-72-4-349-356.
9. Shevchenko LB (2023) Open tools to support scientific research processes. Nauchnotekhnicheskaya informatsiya. Seriya 1, Organizatsiya i metodika informatsionnoi raboty 9: 16–19. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.36535/0548-0019-2023-09-3.
10. Shevchenko LB (2023) Experience of the SPSTL SB RAS in the study of open tools to support scientific research. Upravlenie naukoi: teoriya i praktika 5 (3): 159–168. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2023.5.3.10.
11. Shrayberg YaL (2023) Special components of society digital transformation to influence technological and behavioral models of modern libraries (Annual report at the Seventh World Professional Forum “SOCHI–2023”). Nauchnye i tekhnicheskie biblioteki 8: 13–84. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2023-8-13-84.
12. Avissar-Whiting M, Belliard F, Bertozzi SM [et al.] (2024) Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science. PLoS Biology 22 (2): e3002502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502.
13. Blake L, Ballance D, Davies K, Gaines JK, Mears K, Shipman P, Connolly-Brown M and Burchfield V (2016) Patron perception and utilization of an embedded librarian program. Journal of the Medical Library Association 104 (3): 226–230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.008.
14. Corrall S (2014) Designing libraries for research collaboration in the network world: an exploratory study. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries 24 (1): 17–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.9525.
15. Delory BM, Li M, Topp CN and Lobet G (2018) archiDART v3.0: a new data analysis pipeline allowing the topological analysis of plant root systems [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 7: 22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13541.1.
16. Engzell P, Rohrer JM (2021) Improving social science: lessons from the open science movement. PS: Political Science & Politics 54 (2): 297–300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520000967.
17. Farrell J (2023) How to make data open? Stop overlooking librarians. Nature 624 (7991): 227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03935-1.
18. Federer L, Clarke S, Zaringhalam M and Huerta M (2020) Developing the librarian workforce for Data Science and Open Science. OSF Preprints: repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/uycax.
19. Ferguson J, Littman R, Christensen G, Paluck EL, Swanson N, Wang Z, Miguel E, Birke D and Pezzuto JH (2023) Survey of open science practices and attitudes in the social sciences. Nature Communications 14: 5401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41111-1.
20. Fleming JI, McLucas AS and Cook BG (2023) Review of four preregistration registries for special education researchers. Remedial and Special Education 44 (6): 495–505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325231160293.
21. Genschow O (2024) Open science fördert die Qualität von Forschung. Das Open-Science-Magazin. URL: https:// open-science-future.zbw.eu/open-science-foerdertqualitaet-forschung/ (accessed 13.03.2024).
22. Goetz T (2007) Freeing the dark data of failed scientific experiments. Wired: website. URL: https://www.wired.com/2007/09/st-essay-3/ (accessed 27.02.2024).
23. Gupta V (2023) Citation Gecko technology for research and entrepreneurship. Library Hi Tech News. Published aheadof-print. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-04-2023-0060.
24. Hahnel M, Smith G, Scaplehorn N, Schoenenberger H and Day L (2023) The state of Open Data 2023: the longest-running longitudinal survey and analysis on open data. Digital Science, Figshare, Springer Nature. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24428194.v1.
25. Hislop CN, Farrier KP and Roth E (2024) Exploring freely available data tools to support open data and open science. Journal of Hospital Librarianship 24 (2): 104–111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15323269.2024.2326787.
26. Hussain A and Rafiq M (2023) Provision of research support services across the research lifecycle in university libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. Published online first. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006231207661.
27. Jacobs AM, Büthe T, Arjona A [et al.] (2021) The qualitative transparency deliberations: insights and implications. Perspectives on Politics 19 (1): 171–208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720001164.
28. Jain SJ, Sibbu K and Kuri R (2023) Conducting effective research using SciSpace: a practical approach: preprint. AUTHOREA: [platform for research]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.170111059.99508682/v1.
29. Liu L and Liu W (2023) The engagement of academic libraries in open science: a systematic review. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (3): 102711. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102711.
30. Lyon L (2016) Transparency: the emerging third dimension of Open Science and Open Data. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries 25 (4): 153–171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10113.
31. Mushi C, Mwantimwa K and Wema E (2023) Librarians’ competencies for implementing embedded librarianship in university libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 55 (3): 798–812. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221104809.
32. Öztemiz S and Şahin HN (2024) The role of research university libraries in research data management: the case of Türkiye. Information Development. Published online first. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669231224430.
33. Perkel JM (2018) Data visualization tools drive interactivity and reproducibility in online publishing: new tools for building interactive figures and software make scientific data more accessible, and reproducible. Nature 554 (7690): 133–134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-01322-9.
34. Rice R (2019) Unterstützung von Forschungs datenmanagement und offener Wissenschaft in wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken: die Sicht eines Data Librarians. Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare 72 (2): 263–273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31263/voebm.v72i2.3303.
35. Sayre F and Riegelman A (2019) Replicable services for reproducible research: a model for academic libraries. College & Research Libraries 80 (2): 260–272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.2.260.
36. Schmidt B, Chiarelli A, Loffreda L and Sondervan J (2024) Emerging roles and responsibilities of libraries in support of reproducible research. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries 33 (1): 1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.14947.
37. Schneider J (2024) Sorry we′re open, come in we’re closed: different profiles in the perceived applicability of open science practices to completed research projects. Royal Society Open Science 11 (1): 230595. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230595.
38. Shumaker D (2009) Who let the librarians out? Embedded librarianship and the library manager. Reference and User Services Quarterly 48 (3): 239–242, 257.
39. Si L, Zeng Y, Guo S and Zhuang X (2019) Investigation and analysis of research support services in academic libraries. The Electronic Library 37 (2): 281–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-06-2018-0125.
40. Siegfried D (2024) Establishing a library as an Open Science partner for economic research through impactoriented public relations work. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries 34 (1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.15060.
41. Tang R and Hu Z (2019) Providing research data management (RDM) services in libraries: preparedness, roles, challenges, and training for RDM practice. Data and Information Management 3 (2): 84–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/dim-2019-0009.
42. Thibault RT, Amaral OB, Argolo F, Bandrowski AE, Davidson AR and Drude NI (2023) Open Science 2.0: towards a truly collaborative research ecosystem. PLoS Biology 21 (10): e3002362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002362.
43. Verma VK and Charu (2023) Research support services: an analysis of top science and technology institutions. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal) 7602. URL: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/7602/ (accessed 13.03.2024).
44. Wilson K, Neylon C, Brookes-Kenworthy C, Hosking R, Huang CK, Montgomery L and Ozaygen A (2019) “Is the library open?”: Correlating unaffiliated access to academic libraries with open access support. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries 29 (1): 1–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10298.
45. Wittman JT and Aukema BH (2020) A guide and toolbox to replicability and open science in entomology. Journal of Insect Science 20 (3): 6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/ieaa036.
46. Zakaria MS (2021) Data visualization as a research support service in academic libraries: an investigation of world-class universities. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47 (5): 102397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102397.
47. (2020) Pre-registration. Stanford psychology guide to doing open science. URL: https://poldrack.github.io/psych-openscience-guide/1_preregistration.html (accessed 13.03.2024).
48. (2021) The role of academic and research libraries as active participants and leaders in the production of scholarly research: a report on an RLUK scoping study. Birmingham: Birmingham City Univ. URL: https://www.rluk.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/RLUKScoping-Study-Report.pdf (accessed 13.03.2024).
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Shevchenko L.B. A Librarian – a Member of Open Research Process. Bibliosphere. 2024;(4):89-97. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20913/1815-3186-2024-4-89-97
Views:
384
Email this article 