Diese Datenbank enthält über 40.000 Dokumente zu Themen aus den Bereichen Formalerschließung – Inhaltserschließung – Information Retrieval.
© 2015 W. Gödert, TH Köln, Institut für Informationswissenschaft / Powered by litecat, BIS Oldenburg (Stand: 21. Januar 2019)
1Mayernik, M.S. ; Acker, A.: Tracing the traces : the critical role of metadata within networked communications.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.177-180.
Abstract: The information sciences have traditionally been at the center of metadata-focused research. The US National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence documents revealed by Edward Snowden in June of 2013 brought the term "metadata" into the public consciousness. Surprisingly little discussion in the information sciences has since occurred on the nature and importance of metadata within networked communication systems. The collection of digital metadata impacts the ways that people experience social and technical communication. Without such metadata, networked communication cannot exist. The NSA leaks, and numerous recent hacks of corporate and government communications, point to metadata as objects of new scholarly inquiry. If we are to engage in meaningful discussions about our digital traces, or make informed decisions about new policies and technologies, it is essential to develop theoretical and empirical frameworks that account for digital metadata. This opinion paper presents 5 key sociotechnical characteristics of metadata within digital networks that would benefit from stronger engagement by the information sciences.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23927/full.
2Mayernik, M.S. ; Hart, D.L. ; Maull, K.E. ; Weber, N.M.: Assessing and tracing the outcomes and impact of research infrastructures.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.6, S.1341-1359.
Abstract: Recent policy shifts on the part of funding agencies and journal publishers are causing changes in the acknowledgment and citation behaviors of scholars. A growing emphasis on open science and reproducibility is changing how authors cite and acknowledge "research infrastructures"-entities that are used as inputs to or as underlying foundations for scholarly research, including data sets, software packages, computational models, observational platforms, and computing facilities. At the same time, stakeholder interest in quantitative understanding of impact is spurring increased collection and analysis of metrics related to use of research infrastructures. This article reviews work spanning several decades on tracing and assessing the outcomes and impacts from these kinds of research infrastructures. We discuss how research infrastructures are identified and referenced by scholars in the research literature and how those references are being collected and analyzed for the purposes of evaluating impact. Synthesizing common features of a wide range of studies, we identify notable challenges that impede the analysis of impact metrics for research infrastructures and outline key open research questions that can guide future research and applications related to such metrics.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23721/full.
3Mayernik, M.S.: Research data and metadata curation as institutional issues.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.973-993.
Abstract: Research data curation initiatives must support heterogeneous kinds of projects, data, and metadata. This article examines variability in data and metadata practices using "institutions" as the key theoretical concept. Institutions, in the sense used here, are stable patterns of human behavior that structure, legitimize, or delegitimize actions, relationships, and understandings within particular situations. Based on prior conceptualizations of institutions, a theoretical framework is presented that outlines 5 categories of "institutional carriers" for data practices: (a) norms and symbols, (b) intermediaries, (c) routines, (d) standards, and (e) material objects. These institutional carriers are central to understanding how scientific data and metadata practices originate, stabilize, evolve, and transfer. This institutional framework is applied to 3 case studies: the Center for Embedded Networked Sensing (CENS), the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) network, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). These cases are used to illustrate how institutional support for data and metadata management are not uniform within a single organization or academic discipline. Instead, broad spectra of institutional configurations for managing data and metadata exist within and across disciplines and organizations.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23425/abstract.