Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 97 Download : 43

Main Article Content

Abstract

In the digital age, disseminating published research has become crucial for maximizing scholarly impact. This study explores strategies for promoting academic work across traditional and emerging platforms. The research objectives include identifying effective dissemination methods, assessing the impact of open science initiatives, evaluating alternative impact measures, and providing recommendations for researchers. This study synthesizes insights from various academic fields and recent publications using a systematic literature review design. Findings reveal that successful research promotion involves a multidimensional approach, combining traditional methods like conference presentations with digital strategies such as social media engagement and open-access publishing. The study highlights the growing importance of altmetrics in capturing broader societal impact and emphasizes the need for researchers to develop digital literacy and public engagement skills. This study offers valuable insights for researchers, institutions, and policymakers seeking to boost the visibility and impact of their scholarly works.

Keywords

Altmeteric Digital Dissemination Open access Research Social media

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Copyright Reserved for Kabul University

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Noori, A. (2024). Maximizing the Reach and Impact of Scholarly Research Beyond Publication. Journal of Social Sciences - Kabul University, 7(2), 215–241. https://doi.org/10.62810/jss.v7i2.54
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Adams, J. (2013). The fourth age of research. Nature, 497(7451), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1038/497557a
  2. Allen, C., & Mehler, D. M. A. (2019). Open science challenges, benefits, and tips in early career and beyond. PLoS Biology, 17(5), e3000246. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246
  3. Beel, J., Gipp, B., & Eilde, E. (2010). Academic Search Engine Optimization (ASEO): Optimizing Scholarly Literature for Google Scholar & Co. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 41(2), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1353/scp.0.0082
  4. Bik, H., & Goldstein, M. (2015). Strategically Using Social Media. Success Strategies From Women in STEM: A Portable Mentor, 255.
  5. Björk, B. C. (2017). Gold, green, and black open access. Learned Publishing, 30(2), 173–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1096
  6. Cook, T., Boote, J., Buckley, N., Vougioukalou, S., & Wright, M. (2017). Accessing participatory research impact and legacy: developing the evidence base for participatory approaches in health research. Educational Action Research, 25(4), 473–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1326964
  7. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2014). Changing knowledge ecologies and the transformation of the scholarly journal. In The Future of the Academic Journal: Second Edition (pp. 9–83). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780634647.9
  8. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2003–2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23309
  9. Côté, I. M., & Darling, E. S. (2018). Scientists on Twitter: Preaching to the choir or singing from the rooftops? Facets, 3(1), 682–694. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2018-0002
  10. DORA. (2022). Read the declaration. https://sfdora.org/read/
  11. Eysenbach, G. (2012). Erratum: Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact (Journal of Medical Internet Research (2011) 13:4 (e123)). Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(1), e7. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2041
  12. Fayard, A.-L., & Metiu, A. (2014). The Role of Writing in Distributed Collaboration. Organization Science, 25(5), 1391–1413. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0893
  13. HAAK, L. L., FENNER, M., PAGLIONE, L., PENTZ, E., & RATNER, H. (2012). ORCID: a system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing, 25(4), 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1087/20120404
  14. Hemphill, L., Hedstrom, M. L., & Leonard, S. H. (2021). Saving social media data: Understanding data management practices among social media researchers and their implications for archives. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 72(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24368
  15. Hendricks, G., Tkaczyk, D., Lin, J., & Feeney, P. (2020). Crossref: The sustainable source of community-owned scholarly metadata. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00022
  16. Jamali, H. R., & Nikzad, M. (2011). Article title type and its relation with the number of downloads and citations. Scientometrics, 88(2), 653–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0412-z
  17. Jensen, E., & Buckley, N. (2014a). Why people attend science festivals: Interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research. Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512458624
  18. Jensen, E., & Buckley, N. (2014b). Why people attend science festivals: Interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research. Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512458624
  19. Leahey, E., Beckman, C. M., & Stanko, T. L. (2017a). Prominent but Less Productive: The Impact of Interdisciplinarity on Scientists’ Research. In Administrative Science Quarterly (Vol. 62, Issue 1, pp. 105–139). https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216665364
  20. Leahey, E., Beckman, C. M., & Stanko, T. L. (2017b). Prominent but Less Productive: The Impact of Interdisciplinarity on Scientists’ Research. In Administrative Science Quarterly (Vol. 62, Issue 1, pp. 105–139). https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216665364
  21. Leahey, E., Beckman, C. M., & Stanko, T. L. (2017c). Prominent but Less Productive: The Impact of Interdisciplinarity on Scientists’ Research. In Administrative Science Quarterly (Vol. 62, Issue 1, pp. 105–139). https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216665364
  22. Marsh, R. M. (2015). The role of institutional repositories in developing the communication of scholarly research. OCLC Systems and Services, 31(4), 163–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/OCLC-04-2014-0022
  23. Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018a). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
  24. Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018b). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. In Journal of Informetrics (Vol. 12, Issue 4, pp. 1160–1177). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
  25. McKiernan, E. C. (2017). Imagining the “open” university: Sharing scholarship to improve research and education. PLoS Biology, 15(10), e1002614. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002614
  26. Noori, A. (2024). Publishing Scholarly Articles: From Manuscript to Publication. Journal of Social Sciences-Kabul University,‎ 7(1), 240-273. https://jss.edu.af/jss/article/view/19
  27. Ortega, J. L. (2015). How is an academic social site populated? A demographic study of Google Scholar Citations population. Scientometrics, 104(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1593-7
  28. Ortega, J. L., & Aguillo, I. F. (2014). Microsoft academic search and Google Scholar citations: Comparative analysis of author profiles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1149–1156. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23036
  29. Paltridge, B. (2020). Writing for Academic Journals in the Digital Era. In RELC Journal (Vol. 51, Issue 1, pp. 147–157). https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688219890359
  30. Penfield, T., Baker, M. J., Scoble, R., & Wykes, M. C. (2014). Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Research Evaluation, 23(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt021
  31. Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., De Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., & Tsuchida, S. (2008a). Science communication: Interactions with the mass media. Science, 321(5886), 204–205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1157780
  32. Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., De Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., & Tsuchida, S. (2008b). Science communication: Interactions with the mass media. Science, 321(5886), 204–205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1157780
  33. Peters, H. P., Heinrichs, H., Jung, A., Kallfass, M., & Petersen, I. (2008). Medialization of science as a prerequisite of its legitimization and political relevance. In Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices (pp. 71–92). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_5
  34. Piwowar, H. A., & Vision, T. J. (2013). Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ, 2013(1), e175. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.175
  35. Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., Farley, A., West, J., & Haustein, S. (2020). the State of Oa: a Large-Scale Analysis of the Prevalence and Impact of Open Access Articles. Scholarly Research and Information, 2(4), 228–247. https://doi.org/10.24108/2658-3143-2019-2-4-228-247
  36. Poster, poster, on the wall; were you even there at all?’. In A Mixed Method Research into the Efficacy and Perceptions of Conference Poster Presentations. (n.d.).
  37. Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6, 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
  38. Rowe, N. (2019). Poster, poster, on the wall; were you even there at all?’ - a mixed method research into the efficacy and perceptions of conference poster presentations [University of Lapland]. https://lauda.ulapland.fi/handle/10024/63741
  39. Spicer, S. (2014). Exploring Video Abstracts in Science Journals: An Overview and Case Study. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1110
  40. Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037–2062. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23833
  41. Sumner, P., Vivian-Griffiths, S., Boivin, J., Williams, A., Venetis, C. A., Davies, A., Ogden, J., Whelan, L., Hughes, B., Dalton, B., Boy, F., & Chambers, C. D. (2014). The association between exaggeration in health-related science news and academic press releases: Retrospective observational study. BMJ (Online), 349(dec09 7), g7015–g7015. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7015
  42. Terras, M. (2015). Opening Access to Collections: The making and using open digitized cultural content. Online Information Review, 39(5), 733–752. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0193
  43. Werbińska, D. (2016). Academic Publishing: Issues and Challenges in the Construction of Knowledge. In System (Vol. 56). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.12.008
  44. Wilkinson, C. (2019). Evidencing impact: a case study of UK academic perspectives on evidencing research impact. Studies in Higher Education, 44(1), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1339028
  45. Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Jan Aalbersberg, I., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J. W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., … Mons, B. (2019). Erratum: Addendum: The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship (Scientific data (2016) 3 (160018)). Scientific Data, 6(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0009-6