(Created page with " == Resumen == La expansión de las redes sociales obliga a la comunicación de la ciencia y a las revistas científicas a adaptarse al nuevo entorno. Estudios anteriores y m...") |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== Texto completo == | == Texto completo == | ||
− | <pdf>Media: | + | <pdf>Media:Arcila-Calderon_et_al_2019a-67906-4247-document.pdf</pdf> |
La expansión de las redes sociales obliga a la comunicación de la ciencia y a las revistas científicas a adaptarse al nuevo entorno. Estudios anteriores y modelos teóricos como Utaut y Utaut2, han probado que existe una relación entre la percepción de desempeño futuro de la tecnología (Expectativa de rendimiento), la dificultad de uso (Expectativa de esfuerzo) y la Influencia social a la que el individuo está sometido, sobre el uso real de dicha tecnología, pero aún existe poca investigación acerca de los mecanismos que causan dicho efecto. Partiendo de Utaut, la hipótesis planteada es que existe un efecto condicional indirecto de la Expectativa de rendimiento, la Expectativa de esfuerzo y la Influencia social, sobre el uso real de redes sociales en las revistas científicas, donde dicho efecto es mediado por la intención de uso y moderado por el género y la edad. Se realizó una encuesta a 300 editores de ciencias sociales del ranking Google Scholar. Confirmando parcialmente el modelo Utaut, los resultados de la mediación moderada evidencian que la Expectativa de rendimiento y la Influencia social en los editores inciden en el uso real de Facebook y Twitter, a través de la intención de uso, pero no sucede así en el caso de ResearchGate, Academia y LinkedIn. No hay evidencia clara de que la edad y el género moderen los predictores estudiados.
Acord, Sophia-Krzys; Harley, Diane (2013). “Credit, time, and personality: The human challenges to sharing scholarly work using Web 2.0”. New media & society, v. 15, n. 3, pp. 379-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812465140
Arcila-Calderón, Carlos; Calderín-Cruz, Mabel; Aguaded, Ignacio (2015). “Adoption of ICTs by communication researchers for scientific diffusion and data analysis”. El profesional de la información, v. 24, n. 5, p. 526-536. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2015.sep.03
Arcila-Calderón, Carlos; Piñuel-Raigada, José-Luis; Calderín-Cruz, Mabel (2013). “The e-research on media & communications: Attitudes, tools and practices in Latin America researchers”. Comunicar, v. 20, n. 40, pp. 111-118. https://doi.org/10.3916/C40-2013-03-01
Barjak, Franz; Lane, Julia; Poschen, Meik; Procter, Rob; Robinson, Simon; Wiegand, Gordon (2010). “E-infraestructure adoption in the social sciences and humanities”. Information, communication & society, v. 13, n. 5, pp. 635-651. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180903095849
Bellón-Rodríguez, Ana; Sixto-García, José (2011). “Aplicación y uso de la web 2.0 y de las redes sociales en la comunicación científica especializada: del marketing viral al usuario activo”. Anagramas. Rumbos y sentidos de la comunicación, v. 9, n. 18, pp. 61-70. https://doi.org/10.22395/angr.v9n18a4
Borgman, Christine L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the Internet. The MIT Press, ISBN: 978 0 262026192
Briceño, Ysabel (2014). “Saber y medios: hacia un modo emergente de la comunicación de la ciencia”. Bitácora-e. Revista electrónica latinoamericana de estudios sociales, históricos y culturales de la ciencia y la tecnología, v. 1. http://www.saber.ula.ve/handle/123456789/38746
Briceño, Ysabel; Arcila-Calderón, Carlos; Said-Hung, Elías (2012). “Colaboración y comunicación científica en la comunidad latinoamericana de físicos de altas energías”. E-colabora. Revista de ciencia, educación, innovación y cultura apoyadas por redes de tecnología avanzada, v. 2, n. 4, pp. 131-144.
Bruns, Axel; Liang, Yuxian-Eugene (2012). “Tools and methods for capturing Twitter data during natural disasters”. First Monday, v. 17, n. 4. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i4.3937
Campos-Freire, Francisco; Rúas-Araújo, José (2016). “Uso de las redes sociales digitales profesionales y científicas: el caso de las 3 universidades gallegas”. El profesional de la información, v. 25, n. 3, p. 431-440. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2016.may.13
Campos-Freire, Francisco; Valencia, Andrea (2015). “Managing academic profiles on scientific social networks”. En: Rocha,
Álvaro; Correia, Ana-María; Costanzo, Sandra; Reis, Luis-Paulo (eds.). New contributions in information sytems and technologies, v. 353 , pp. 265-273. ISBN: 978 3 319 16485 4 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16486-1_27
Castillo-Esparcia, Antonio (2012). “Investigación e investigadores. Las revistas científicas como instrumento de comunicación”. Vivat Academia. Revista de comunicación, v. 14, n. 117, pp. 1002-1017. https://doi.org/10.15178/va.2011.117E.1002-1017
Cohen, Jacob (1992). “Statistical power analysis”. Current directions in psychological science, v. 1, n. 3, pp. 98-101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783
Cronbach, Lee J. (1951). “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”. Psychometrika, v. 16, n. 3, pp. 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Cummings, Jonathon N.; Kiesler, Sara (2005). “Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries”. Social studies of science, v. 35, n. 5, pp. 703-722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705055535
Davis, Fred D. (1989). “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology”. MIS quarterly, v. 13, n. 3, p. 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Davis, Fred D.; Bagozzi, Richard P.; Warshaw, Paul R. (1992). “Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace”. Journal of applied social psychology, v. 22, n. 14, pp. 1111-1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x
Direito-Rebollal, Sabela; Campos-Freire, Francisco (2016). “Altmetrics: A measure of scientific impact on social networks”. En: 11th Iberian conf on information systems and technologies (Cisti), pp. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/CISTI.2016.7521616
Dutton, William H. (2010). “Reconfiguring access in research: information, expertise and experience”. En: Dutton, William H.; Jeffreys, Paul W. World wide research: reshaping the sciences and humanities, pp. 21-39. MIT Press Scholarship Online. ISBN: 978 0 262014397
Dutton, William H.; Meyer, Eric T. (2009). “Experience with new tools and infrastructures of research: An exploratory study of distance from, and attitudes toward, e-research”. Prometheus, v. 27, n. 3, pp. 223-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109020903127802
Faul, Franz; Erdfelder, Edgar; Buchner, Axel; Lang, Albert-Georg (2009). “Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses”. Behavior research methods, v. 41, n. 4, pp. 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Faul, Franz; Erdfelder, Edgar; Lang, Albert-Georg; Buchner, Axel (2007). “G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences”. Behavior research methods, v. 39, n. 2, pp. 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
García-Peñalvo, Francisco-José (2017). Marco para la ciencia abierta. Seminario. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1069582
Gentil-Beccot, Anne; Mele, Salvatore; Holtkamp, Annette; O’Connell, Heath B.; Brooks, Travis C. (2009). “Informationresources in high-energy physics: Surveying the present landscape and charting the future course”. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 60, n. 1, pp. 150-160. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20944
Gibbons, Michael; Limoges, Camille; Nowotny, Helga; Schwartzman, Simon; Scott, Peter; Trow, Martin (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. SAGE Publications. ISBN: 978 0 803977945
Hara, Noriko; Solomon, Paul; Kim, Seung-Lye; Sonnenwald, Diane H. (2003). “An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration”. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 54, n. 10, pp. 952-965. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10291
Hayes, Andrew F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford. ISBN: 978 1 609182304
Liao, Chien-Hsiang (2011). “How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks”. Scientometrics, v. 86, n. 3, pp. 747-761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0309-2
Meyer, Eric T.; Dutton, William H. (2009). “Top-down e-infrastructure meets bottom-up research innovation: The social shaping of e-research”. Prometheus, v. 27, n. 3, pp. 239-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109020903127810
Murthy, Dhiraj; Lewis, Jeremiah P. (2015). “Social media, collaboration, and scientific organizations”. American behavioral scientist, v. 59, n. 1, pp. 149-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214540504
Myers, Teresa A. (2011). “Goodbye, listwise deletion: Presenting hot deck imputation as an easy and effective tool for handling missing data”. Communication methods and measures, v. 5, n. 4, pp. 297-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2011.624490
Neylon, Cameron; Wu, Shirley (2008). “Open science: Tools, approaches and implications”. En: Biocomputing 2009, pp. 540-544. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812836939_0051
Oller-Alonso, Martín; Segarra-Saavedra, Jesús; Plaza-Nogueira, Alberto (2012). “La presencia de las revistas científicas de ciencias sociales en los social media : de la Web 1.0 a la 2.0”. Index.comunicación: Revista científica en el ámbito de la comunicación aplicada, v. 2, n. 1, pp. 49-68. http://journals.sfu.ca/indexcomunicacion/index.php/indexcomunicacion/article/view/27/367
Ponte, Diego; Simon, Judith (2011). “Scholarly communication 2.0: Exploring researchers’ opinions on web 2.0 for scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and dissemination”. Serials review, v. 37, n. 3, pp. 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2011.10765376
Procter, Rob; Voss, Alex; Asgari-Targhi, Marzieh (2013). “Fostering the human infrastructure of e-research”. Information, communication & society, v. 16, n. 10, pp. 1668-1691. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.715667
Procter, Rob; Williams, Robin; Stewart, James; Poschen, Meik; Snee, Helene; Voss, Alex; Asgari-Targhi, Marzieh (2010). “Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications”. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, v. 368, n. 1926, pp. 4039-56. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0155
Quinlan, Stephen; Gummer, Tobias; Roßmann, Joss; Wolf, Christof (2017). “‘Show me the money and the party!’ – variation in Facebook and Twitter adoption by politicians”. Information, communication & society, v. 21, n. 8, pp. 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1301521
Rigby, John; Edler, Jakob (2005). “Peering inside research networks: Some observations on the effect of the intensity of collaboration on the variability of research quality”. Research policy, v. 34, n. 6, pp. 784-794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.02.004
Rúas-Araújo, José; Campos-Freire, Francisco; Puentes-Rivera, Iván (2016). “Utilización y valoración de las redes sociales generalistas y buscadores bibliográficos en las universidades gallegas”. Revista latina de comunicación social, n. 71, pp. 1187-1207. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2016-1141
Santana-Arroyo, Sonia (2011). “Redes de intercambio de información científica y académica entre los profesionales, en el contexto de la Web 2.0”. Revista cubana de información en ciencias de la salud, v. 21, n. 3. http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?pid=S1024-94352010000300006&script=sci_abstract
Schiermeier, Quirin (2017). “Science publishers try new tack to combat unauthorized paper sharing”. Nature, v. 545, n. 7653, pp. 145-146. https://doi.org/10.1038/545145a
Stewart, James (2007). “Local experts in the domestication of information and communication technologies”. Information, communication & society, v. 10, n. 4, pp. 547-569. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180701560093
Taiwo, Ayankunle; Downe, Alan (2013). “The theory of user acceptance and use of technology (Utaut): A meta-analytic review of empirical findings”. Journal of theoretical and applied information technology, v. 49, n. 1, pp. 48-58. http://www.jatit.org/volumes/Vol49No1/7Vol49No1.pdf
Venkatesh, Viswanath; Morris, Michael G.; Davis, Gordon B.; Davis, Fred D. (2003). “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view”. MIS quarterly, v. 27, n. 3, pp. 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Venkatesh, Viswanath; Thong, James Y. L.; Xu, Xin (2012). “Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use technology”. MIS quarterly, v. 36, n. 1, pp. 157-172.
Voss, Alex; Asgari-Targhi, Marzieh; Procter, Rob; Fergusson, David (2010). “Adoption of e-infrastructure services: configurations of practice”. Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, v. 368, n. 1926, pp. 4161-4176. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0162
Waldrop, Mitchell (2008). “Science 2.0. Is open access science the future? Is posting raw results online, for all to see, a great tool or a great risk?”. Scientific American, v. 298, n. 5, pp. 68-73.
Published on 03/01/19
Accepted on 03/01/19
Submitted on 03/01/19
Volume 28, Issue 1, 2019
DOI: 10.3145/epi.2019.ene.05
Licence: CC BY-NC-SA license
Are you one of the authors of this document?