Software is increasingly crucial to scholarship, yet the visibility and usefulness of software in the scientific record are in question. Just as with data, the visibility of software in publications is related to incentives to share software in reusable ways, and so promote efficient science. In this article, we examine software in publications through content analysis of a random sample of 90 biology articles. We develop a coding scheme to identify software "mentions" and classify them according to their characteristics and ability to realize the functions of citations. Overall, we find diverse and problematic practices: Only between 31% and 43% of mentions involve formal citations; informal mentions are very common, even in high impact factor journals and across different kinds of software. Software is frequently inaccessible (15%-29% of packages in any form; between 90% and 98% of specific versions; only between 24%-40% provide source code). Cites to publications are particularly poor at providing version information, whereas informal mentions are particularly poor at providing crediting information. We provide recommendations to improve the practice of software citation, highlighting recent nascent efforts. Software plays an increasingly great role in scientific practice; it deserves a clear and useful place in scholarly communication.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of warrant in daily classification design in general and in negotiating disparate classification goals in particular. Design/methodology/approach This paper synthesizes classification research on forms of warrant and uses examples of classification decisions from ethnographic engagement with designers to illustrate how forms of warrant interact in daily classification decisions. Findings Different forms of warrant, though associated with incompatible theories of classification design, coexist in daily classification decisions. A secondary warrant might be employed to augment the primary warrant of a system, such as to decide among equally valid terms, or to overturn a decision based on the primary warrant, such as when ethical impacts are prioritized above user preference. Research limitations/implications This paper calls for empirical research using the application of warrant as an object of analysis. Originality/value The paper connects a ubiquitous and observable element of classification design – the application of warrant – to longstanding divisions in classification theory. This paper demonstrates how the analysis of daily classification design can illuminate the interaction between disparate philosophies of classification.

No abstract

No abstract

Development of Internet technologies has empowered ordinary users to create, contribute, share and connect with other members of the community. As users learn to exploit the potential of networked communications, they participate in a process, which facilitates a shift from individual to collective contributions and introduces an opportunity for multi-vocal and multifaceted representation of cultural heritage. Open access to crowdsourced collections requires reconsideration of the traditional authoritative approach of cultural heritage institutions. The arduous nature of the work rendered voluntarily in cultural heritage crowdsourcing initiatives calls for reconsideration of power relationships and giving power to devoted contributors supported by modern "intelligent" technology to regulate the process of representation and organization. Taking into consideration the fact that crowdsourced data are not without flaws, the question is how to better utilize the collective intelligence to create quality information. In this context, various issues such as power, control, trust, inter-contributor consensus, heterogeneity of opinions will be raised and discussed by the panelists. Each of the panelists comes from a different field of expertise (Computer science, Information science, Economics, Communication studies, cultural heritage) and various cultural backgrounds and geographical locations (United States, Europe and Israel). This diversity will be reflected in the presented perspectives on the crowdsourcing topic.