Abstract

The archaeological sites of Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain), declared World Heritage Site in 2000, stand out for their international repercussion due to the scientific results on human evolution. The aim of science socialization has lead to different communication policies, one for scientific dissemination and another for society dissemination. Although there is no specific transmedia communication plan, all communication resources are taken into advantage, to the extent of creating the Atapuerca Universe. This Universe works as a transmedia model, where prosumers acquire a leading role disseminating contents. The expansion generated from above by the producers is therefore complemented with the expansion from below made by the prosumers, sharing, expanding, modifying and generating new contents. This paper demonstrates that transmedia strategies are applicable to scientific projects.

Abstract

Este artículo evalúa si hay vacíos en la cobertura de la información académica de Wikipedia y si existen diferencias estilísticas no obvias entre los artículos de revistas académicas que los usuarios y editores de Wikipedia deben conocer. Para ello se analizan los términos en los títulos de artículos de revistas que están ausentes de todos los títulos de las páginas de Wikipedia en inglés para cada una de las 27 categorías temáticas de Scopus. Los resultados muestran que la Wikipedia en inglés tiene menor cobertura de los temas de interés para las naciones que no son de habla inglesa, y existen lagunas probablemente causadas por la falta de editores especialistas dispuestos en algunas áreas. También se encontraron diferencias de estilo según las disciplinas, con algunos campos que utilizan sinónimos de “análisis” que fueron ignorados en Wikipedia, y otros que usan el tiempo presente en títulos para enfatizar los resultados de la investigación. Dado que Wikipedia es muy eficaz en la cobertura de temas de investigación académica de todas las disciplinas, puede ser utilizada por personas no especializadas. Por lo tanto, los especialistas deben verificar las lagunas de cobertura dentro de sus áreas para encontrar temas útiles y los bibliotecarios deben advertir a los usuarios que pueden faltar temas importantes. AbstractThis article assesses whether there are gaps in Wikipedia’s coverage of academic information and whether there are non-obvious stylistic differences from academic journal articles that Wikipedia users and editors should be aware of. For this, it analyses terms in the titles of journal articles that are absent from all English Wikipedia page titles for each of 27 Scopus subject categories. The results show that English Wikipedia has lower coverage of issues of interest to non-English nations and there are gaps probably caused by a lack of willing subject specialist editors in some areas. There were also stylistic disciplinary differences in the results, with some fields using synonyms of “analysing” that were ignored in Wikipedia, and others using the present tense in titles to emphasise research outcomes. Since Wikipedia is broadly effective at covering academic research topics from all disciplines, it might be relied upon by non-specialists. Specialists should therefore check for coverage gaps within their areas for useful topics and librarians should caution users that important topics may be missing.

Abstract

How much the excellent science uses web 2.0 tools to encourage public engagement in the research process is analyzed. Understanding participation, from the perspective of responsible research and innovation, not only as the communication of scientific results, but also the involvement of society in scientific development. For the analysis, an ad-hoc questionnaire developed using the Delphi method was designed and validated. The study sample is constituted by Spanish projects financed by the European Research Council in 2015. Among the results obtained, the reduced use of digital applications stands out. In fact, only 23.9% of projects have a website and less than 15% have a social profile. Regarding participation mechanisms, a limited 3% uses web 2.0 to involve citizens. With reference to the characteristics of the communication, it can be concluded that it is unidirectional from the institution responsible for the project to society -97% of the cases- and presents a high level of specialization -in more than 80% of the cases a technical language is used and the messages posted are aimed solely at experts-.