Les pratiques informationnelles des chercheurs

Introduction. This study explores the integration of scholarly blogs into digital research and information infrastructures, focusing on the attitudes and practices of German scholarly bloggers regarding the long-term accessibility of their blogs. Method and Analysis. We conducted 13 semi-structured interviews with scholarly bloggers. The interview transcripts were coded in MAXQDA 24 using a qualitative thematic approach. Results. Findings reveal that participants recognise the importance of making their blogs long-term accessible and express a desire for their integration into existing digital infrastructures. However, they also face organisational challenges and varying levels of engagement in preservation practices, ranging from obtaining formal identifiers like ISSNs and DOIs to relying on individual strategies such as local backups. Conclusions. This study emphasizes the need for clearer guidelines and support systems to facilitate the long-term accessibility of scholarly blogs. While bloggers generally recognise the importance of long-term accessibility, digital research and information infrastructures do not yet sufficiently offer solutions for bloggers.

This paper presents results from three studies on science blogging, the use of blogs for science communication. A survey addresses the views and motives of science bloggers, a first content analysis examines material published in science blogging platforms, while a second content analysis looks at reader responses to controversial issues covered in science blogs. Bloggers determine to a considerable degree which communicative function their blog can realize and how accessible it will be to non-experts Frequently readers are interested in adding their views to a post, a form of involvement which is in turn welcomed by the majority of bloggers.

En croisant deux approches, qualitative et quantitative, sur les discours et les pratiques des auteurs de carnets de recherche sur « Hypotheses.org » concernant la publication et la citation, nous montrons que les billets ne sont pas écrits pour remplacer les articles scientifiques classiques. Neuf logiques distinctes nous semblent décrire la manière dont les carnetières et les carnetiers interrogés s’investissent dans les carnets de recherche : logique d’élaboration, de mise en lien, de partage d’idées, de publication, d’édition, d’information, de pédagogie et de vulgarisation, de valorisation et d’éditorialisation de soi. L’écriture sur les carnets de recherche apparaît alors comme une pratique de communication directement reliée à l’activité de recherche, dont les effets sont loin d'être marginaux. À l’instar de ceux que produit la vulgarisation sur le chercheur, ils ne peuvent être quantifiés simplement, et ne s’expriment pas en termes de retour direct, facilement saisissable. Il faut pour les mesurer articuler traces, discours et contextes de l’appropriation de la pratique de carnetier. , Combining two qualitative and quantitative approaches, based on discourses and practices of the authors of "Hypotheses.org" research notebooks about publication and quotation, we show that blog posts are not written to replace the classical scientific articles. Nine distinct logics seem to describe the investment of each bloggers in their blogs : logic “set up”, , “linking”,”idea sharing”, ‘publication, edition, information’, ‘pedagogy and science popularization’, ‘valorization and self editorialization’ Writing on a research blog appears as a straighforward communication practice about the research activity, with far from marginal effects. These effects can not be simply quantified, as ones produced by science popularization about the researcher. They do not express in terms of direct feedback, easily grasped. It is necessary to measure their marks and data, to analyze speeches and contexts of the appropriation of research blogging.