Browsing by Author "Thielen, Joanna"

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Advancing research data management in the social sciences: Implementing instruction for education graduate students into a doctoral curriculum.
    (2017) Nichols Hess, Amanda; Thielen, Joanna
    Research data management (RDM) skills are vital yet often untaught in graduate programs, especially in the social sciences. In this article, my co-author and I presented a case study of how a Research Data Librarian and an Education Librarian partnered to provide targeted RDM instruction for a previously unconsidered student group: education doctoral students. We discussed the design, development, and implementation of this focused RDM support. Assessment data from a workshop and in-class sessions were also presented and contextualized. From this information, we offered practical suggestions that other social science librarians can use to create similar workshops at their institutions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Data Management 101 (Research Data Management presentation for SEHS)
    (2017) Thielen, Joanna; Nichols Hess, Amanda
    This presentation was given to graduate students in OU's School of Education and Human Services (SEHS) doctoral program during the Winter 2017 semester. It provides a general introduction to research data management and practical advice for implementing these practices. Topics covered include data discovery and re-use, data documentation and organization, and data storage and security.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Dataset from: Research Forum: Creating and Sustaining an Intra-library Venue to Share Library Faculty Research
    (2019) Thielen, Joanna; Spunaugle, Emily; Swanberg, Stephanie M.
    This data corresponds to the article "Research Forum: Creating and Sustaining an Intra-library Venue to Share Library Faculty Research"
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory open access journals: a needs assessment study
    (2020-04) Swanberg, Stephanie M.; Thielen, Joanna; Bulgarelli, Nancy
    Objective: The purpose of predatory open access (OA) journals is primarily to make a profit rather than to disseminate quality, peer-reviewed research. Publishing in these journals could negatively impact faculty reputation, promotion, and tenure, yet many still choose to do so. Therefore, the authors investigated faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory OA journals. Methods: A twenty-item questionnaire containing both quantitative and qualitative items was developed and piloted. All university and medical school faculty were invited to participate. The survey included knowledge questions that assessed respondents’ ability to identify predatory OA journals and attitudinal questions about such journals. Chi-square tests were used to detect differences between university and medical faculty. Results: A total of 183 faculty completed the survey: 63% were university and 37% were medical faculty. Nearly one-quarter (23%) had not previously heard of the term “predatory OA journal.” Most (87%) reported feeling very confident or confident in their ability to assess journal quality, but only 60% correctly identified a journal as predatory, when given a journal in their field to assess. Chi-square tests revealed that university faculty were more likely to correctly identify a predatory OA journal (p=0.0006) and have higher self-reported confidence in assessing journal quality, compared with medical faculty (p=0.0391). Conclusions: Survey results show that faculty recognize predatory OA journals as a problem. These attitudes plus the knowledge gaps identified in this study will be used to develop targeted educational interventions for faculty in all disciplines at our university.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    I Didn't Know That Was Open: Locating and Using Cool Free Quality Content
    (2019-10-21) Rodriguez, Julia E.; Swanberg, Stephanie M.; Thielen, Joanna
    Learn about the plethora of quality open content available from peer-reviewed research, data, monographs, textbooks and images and discuss some of the misconceptions about open access.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    STEM Chalk Talks (Reference Group Meetings Fall 2017)
    (2017) Thielen, Joanna; Hristova, Mariela
    These presentations were given during the Fall 2017 Reference Group meetings. The accompanying article is under review in Science & Technology Libraries.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    STEM Chalk Talks: Scientific Information Resource Training for All Librarians
    (2018) Thielen, Joanna
    To serve diverse patron needs, academic librarians need to be familiar with essential information resources in all disciplines. But many librarians, especially those without a STEM background, have little familiarity or comfort with scientific information resources. Recognizing this need, three STEM librarians gave a series of presentations on research in various STEM disciplines that were aimed at providing higher level, just-in-time training, tailored to their institution’s needs, for non-science librarians. This article explores the design, deployment, and assessment of these presentations, in hopes of inspiring other science librarians to help their colleagues overcome their ‘science-phobia.’
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Survey instrument and dataset for article entitled "Faculty Knowledge & Attitudes Regarding Predatory Open Access Journals: A Needs Assessment Study"
    (2019) Swanberg, Stephanie M.; Thielen, Joanna; Bulgarelli, Nancy
    Survey instrument and dataset for published article (see article's abstract below) Objective: Predatory open access (OA) journals’ purpose is to make a profit, not disseminate quality, peer-reviewed research. Publishing in such journals can negatively impact faculty reputations and promotion/tenure. Yet many publish in these journals, either knowingly or unknowingly. A medical school library and university library collaborated to investigate faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding thesepredatory open access journals. Methods: A 20-item questionnaire containing both quantitative and qualitative items was developed and piloted. All university and medical school faculty were invited to participate. The survey included knowledge questions, which assessed participants’ ability to identify predatory OAopen access journals, and attitudinal questions about such journals. Chi-square testing was used to compare differences between university and medical school faculty. Results: A total of 183 faculty completed the survey; 62.7% were university and 37.4% medical school faculty. Twenty three percent had not previously heard of the term “predatory journal” and when asked to review a journal in their field, only 59.9% correctly identified the journal as predatory. Yet, 86.9% reported feeling very confident or confident in their ability to assess journal quality. Chi-square testing revealed statistically significant differences in university versus medical school faculty ability to correctly identify the predatory OA journal (p = 0.0006) as well as their self confidence in assessing journal quality (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The results of this study will be used to develop an educational outreach campaign targeting faculty in all disciplines, including offering in-person workshops and creating dedicated webpages on the libraries’ website on predatory OA journals.