Analysis and news impact and accountability[7] . And, clearly
explained, validated scholarship is vital for tackling pseudoscience and fake news. The popularity of events such as Pint of Science and The Infinite Monkey Cage, coupled with the rock-star status of some prominent scientists, suggest there is growing demand for mediated access to the latest research – if it can be communicated in the right way. Business models providing a platform
for the dissemination of research summaries to a lay readership have already been adopted by companies such as Sparrho and Kudos, and there are further opportunities to scale this up with the help of technology. A recent entrant is Science2Innovation, which connects industry to academics with in-demand skills via plain-language ‘blitzcards’ that describe industrial applications of the latest research.
A number of publishers request authors supplement their work with a lay summary or set of key findings at submission. Some authors find this challenging, and given the growth in research output, writing summaries post-publication is hardly scaleable. As a result, Elsevier, Scholarcy and others are applying machine-learning
to automatically create this information directly from the manuscript, combined with background knowledge from verified sources. The technology is still some way off from being able to generate an accurate, complete, plain-language summary that provides both the ‘what’ and ‘why’ for a given research paper – let alone a collection of papers on a single topic. However, there is scope to apply current
technology to generate a draft as a starting point for the author, or subject expert, to craft into a compelling story. The team at University of Manchester
library have been using this technology as part of their OpenAccess+ service[8]
.
When a new paper is published, the UoM OpenAccess+ creates a Twitter thread which comprises a AI-assisted summary of the paper’s findings, Altmetric mentions, and tags the funders and other interested researchers in the field. Steve Carlton, research services librarian, says: ‘Our service helps researchers reach a wider audience, and removes some of the barriers to that audience understanding and using their work’.
Phil Gooch is founder of Scholarcy
References:
1. Hinchliffe LJ (2020) Revisiting - Transformative Agreements: A Primer. The Scholarly Kitchen, 6 February. Available at:
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet. org/2020/02/06/revisiting-transformative-agreements- a-primer/
2. Birkhead T, Montgomerie R (2017) The Frustrating Process of Manuscript Submission. The Scientist, 10 May. Available at:
www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ opinion-the-frustrating-process-of-manuscript- submission-31524
3. Poynder R (2019) Open access: Could defeat be snatched from the jaws of victory? Available at: https://
richardpoynder.co.uk/Jaws.pdf
4. Oransky I, Marcus M (2020) Quick retraction of a faulty coronavirus paper was a good moment for science. StatNews, 3 February. Available at:
www.statnews.com/2020/02/03/retraction-faulty- coronavirus-paper-good-moment-for-science/
5. Hinchliffe LJ, Clarke M (2019) Fighting Citation Pollution – The Challenge of Detecting Fraudulent Journals in Works Cited. The Scholarly Kitchen, 25 September. Available at: https://scholarlykitchen.
sspnet.org/2019/09/25/fighting-citation-pollution/
6. Callaway E (2017) BioRxiv preprint server gets cash boost from Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. Nature News, 26 April. Available at:
www.nature.com/news/ biorxiv-preprint-server-gets-cash-boost-from-chan- zuckerberg-initiative-1.21894
7. Louët S (2019) Content marketing boosts open access adoption. Research Information, 25 November. Available at:
www.researchinformation.info/analysis- opinion/content-marketing-...
8. Carlton S (2019) #OAWeek2019: Open Access+. Library Research Plus Blog, 21 October. Available at:
https://blog.research-plus.library.manchester.
ac.uk/2019/12/18/supporting-open-access-for-books- lessons-learned/
Free webcast available now Sign up to watch on demand
Literature reviews in food science – what, why and how?
Presenter
Rhianna Gamble Head of Marketing, IFIS
As a not-for-profit publisher with the mission to fundamentally understand and best serve the information needs of the food community, IFIS Publishing commissioned research into research behaviour and the challenges around carrying out literature reviews.
As a result, IFIS have developed best practice guidance around literature reviews in food science, with supporting educational content.
Sponsored by
VIEW FOR FREE*
*Registration required
www.researchinformation.info/webcasts
Research information
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
