Comparative Study

Open Access

|

Peer-reviewed

Role of the library service in the research enterprise

Krishna N. Parmar

DIP: 18.02.003/20210601

DOI: 10.25215/2455/060103

Received: December 25, 2020; Revision Received: February 02, 2021; Accepted: February 09, 2021

Abstract

Libraries are very important in research. Have provided services to researchers for many years. Changes in technology and new publishing models provide opportunities for libraries to be more involved in the research enterprise. Within this article, the author reviews traditional library services, briefly describes the eScience and publishing landscape as it relates to libraries, and explores possible library programs in support of research. Many of the new opportunities require new partnerships, both within the institution and externally. So that how can we improve our research? And how can useful library service in our research enterprise?? That is two most important questions for our research and answer is specifying in this article.

Keywords

The authors profoundly appreciate all the people who have successfully contributed to ensuring this paper in place. Their contributions are acknowledged however their names cannot be mentioned.

The author declared no conflict of interest.

This is an Open Access Research distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any Medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2021, Parmar, K.

Responding Author Information

Krishna N. Parmar @ mailto:info.ijsi@gmail.com

Related Content
Role of the library service in the research enterprise

Total Download: 17 | Total View: 751

PlumX Matrix

Plum Analytics uses research metrics to help answer the questions and tell the stories about research. Research metrics that immediately measure awareness and interest give us new ways to uncover and tell the stories of research.

Dimensions Matrix

Dimensions is a next-generation linked research information system that makes it easier to find and access the most relevant information, analyze the academic and broader outcomes of research, and gather insights to inform future strategy. (digital science)

Article Overview

ISSN 2455-670X

DIP: 18.02.003/20210601

DOI: 10.25215/2455/060103

Published in

Volume 06, Issue 1, January – March, 2021

  • 17Downloads
  • 0Citations
  • 751Views
  • 0Likes
Download PDF
How to Cite
Print
Share
[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_SOCIAL_ICONS]
  1. Boardman, Craig and Branco Ponomariov, (2012), “Management knowledge and the organization of team science in university research centers.” The Journal of Technology Transfer: 1 18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10961-012-9271-x.
  2. Butter, Karen, Anneliese Taylor, Emma Cryer, and Patricia Thibodeau (2012), “The growing crisis: Scholarly publishing pressures facing health sciences libraries.” Journal of Library Administration 52, no. 8: 672-698, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2012.746873.
  3. Carlson, Jake and others (2013), “The E-Science Institute Experience: How it Happened, What We Learned, and Where We Go From Here.” Unpublished article.
  4. Duraspace.org , (2012), “The DuraSpace/ARL/DLF 2012 E-science Institute.” Accessed December 1. http://duraspace.org/esi-coursedescription. Estabrooks, Carole A., Janet E. Squires.
  5. Greta G. Cummings, Gary F. Teare, and Peter G. Norton, (2009), “Study protocol for the translating research in elder care (TREC): Building context–an organizational monitoring program in long-term care project (project one).” Implementation Science 4, no. 1: 52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748- 5908-4-52.
  6. Gray, Jim , (2009), “Jim gray on eScience: A transformed scientific method.” In The fourth paradigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery, edited by Tony Hey, Stewart Tansley and Kristin Tolle, xixMicrosoft.
  7. Hahn, Karla, Charles Lowry, Clifford Lynch, David Shulenberger, and John Vaughn, (2009), “The university’s role in the dissemination of research and scholarship–A call to action.” Association of American Universities, http://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/ DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8924.
  8. Heidorn, P. Bryan, (2011), “The emerging role of libraries in data curation and escience.” Journal of Library Administration 51, no. 7-8: 662-672, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2011.601269.
  9. Humphrey, Charles, (2012) e-science and the life cycle of research. Alberta, CA, Available from http://datalib.library.ualberta.ca/ ~humphrey/lifecyclescience060308.
  10. Kenney, Anne R., and Nancy Y. McGovern (2013), “The five organizational stages of digital preservation.” In Digital Libraries: A Vision for the 21st Century .A Festschrift for Wendy Pratt Lougee on the Occasion of Her Departure from the University of Michigan. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/s/spobooks/ bbv9812.0001.001.
  11. Provost’s Task Force on the Stewardship of Digital Research Data. “Research Data Stewardship at UNC: Recommendations for Scholarly Practice and Leadership. Chapel.
  12. Hill, NC, (2012), http://sils.unc.edu/sites/ default/files/general/research/ UNC_Research_Data_Stewardship_Report. pdf.
  13. Sarli, Cathy C., Ellen K. Dubinsky, and Kristi L. Holmes (2010), “Beyond citation analysis: A model for assessment of research impact.” Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 98, no. 1 : 17-23, http:// dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.98.1.008.
  14. Shaffer, Christopher (2012), “Challenges in sharing research resources.” https://www.aamc.org/ download/263818/data/shafferoctober18.pdf.
  15. Stodden, Victoria C (2010). “Reproducible research: Addressing the need for data and code sharing in computational science.” Computing in Science & Engineering 12, no. 5: 8- 12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ MCSE.2010.113.
  16. Tenopir, Carol, Donald W. King, Sheri Edwards, and Lei Wu (2009), “Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns.” Aslib Proceedings 61, no. 1: 5-32, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012530910932267.
  17. Torniai, Carlo, Matt Brush, Nicole Vasilevsky, Erik Segerdell, ML Wilson, Tenille Johnson, Karen Corday, Chris Shaffer, and Melissa Haendel, (2011), “Developing an application ontology for biomedical resource annotation and retrieval: Challenges and lessons learned.” Paper presented at Proceedings in International Conference on Biomedical Ontology, Buffalo, NY, http:// ctsaconnect.org/system/files/Torniai%20et% 20al_ICBO-2011.pdf.
  18. Vasilevsky, Nicole, Tenille Johnson, Karen Corday, Carlo Torniai, Matthew Brush, Erik Segerdell, Melanie Wilson, Chris Shaffer, David Robinson, and Melissa Haendel, (2012), “Research resources: Curating the new eagle- i discovery system.” Database: The Journal of Biological Databases and Curation: bar067, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/database/bar067.
  19. Waldrop, M. Mitchell, (2008), “Science 2.0.” Scientific American 298, no. 5: 68-73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ scientificamerican0508-68.
  20. Wirz, Jackie, (2012) “Leveraging libraries for semantic infrastructure projects and data management services for maximum data reuse and visibility.” Accessed December 1, http://www.vivoweb.org/files/ presentations/12Fri/ Wirz_VIVO_Annotated.pdf.
  21. Wuchty, Stefan, Benjamin F. Jones, and Bri an Uzzi, (2007), “The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge.” Science 316, no. 5827: 1036-1039, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/ science.1136099.
Make a Submission