Analyses of the "Innovations in Scholarly Communication" survey: which tools do researchers use?


#1

About the survey

The Innovations in Scholarly Communication project was a global survey of 20663 researchers during 2015/2016 by Jeroen Bosman and Bianca Kramer from the Utrecht University Library, Netherlands

The online survey employed an open, non-probability sample. A largely self-selected group of 20663 researchers, librarians, editors, publishers and other groups involved in research took the survey, which was available in seven languages. The survey was open from May 10, 2015 to February 10, 2016. It captured information on tool usage for 17 research activities, stance towards open access and open science, and expectations of the most important development in scholarly communication. Respondents’ demographics included research roles, country of affiliation, research discipline and year of first publication.

A full description of data collection, survey response and methodology is in a data publication in F1000 Research:

Kramer, Bianca & Jeroen Bosman (2016) Innovations in scholarly communication - global survey on research tool usage. F1000 Research. DOI:10.12688/f1000research.8414.1

The data are available via https://101innovations.wordpress.com/survey-2015-2016/

About this topic

This survey data is a very valuable resource for the Stencila community. It can help us identify established workflows and pain points for researchers and help inform development priorities for Stencila. This topic is a place to share and discuss analyses of the survey data.

Of course, it’s also an ideal data set to illustrate how Stencila can be used to do reproducible research! I’ll be writing Stencila Documents and Sheets using this datset and posting them here.

Feel free to make comment, make suggestions for analyses, add your own analyses, or help out with others!


#2

Hi Nokome,

I have some initial analyses specifically about life scientists and data analysis tools. Sadly, I didn’t have Stencila at my disposal when analysing this :wink: but I did try to do this in the open - my analysis and notes are at https://github.com/npscience/open-research-doathon (it’s not the tidiest repo; let me know if you’d like me to dig something out).

Also, I hope we can add a little insight when we release the results of our recent survey about reproducible research documents (soon). I’ll link this in here when it’s out.

Best,

Naomi


#3

Heya Naomi,

That’s awesome! I’ll take a look and see if I can reproduce some of your analyses using Stencila.

Thanks, Nokome