Program of Scientiﬁc Communication Development for Older Age

Cohort Scholars

Kateryna Vlasenko

1,2 a

, Olha Rovenska

3 b

, Olena Chumak

4 c

, Iryna Lovianova

5 d

and Vitaliy Achkan

6 e

National University of “Kyiv Mohyla Academy”, 2 Skovorody Str., Kyiv, 04070, Ukraine

Limited Liability Company Technical University “Metinvest Polytechnic”, 80 Pivdenne Hwy,

Zaporizhzhia, 69008, Ukraine

Donbass State Engineering Academy, 72 Academichna Str., Kramatorsk, 84313, Ukraine

Donbas National Academy of Civil Engineering and Architecture,

14 Heroyv Nebesnoy Sotni Str., Kramatorsk, 84333, Ukraine

Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University, 54 Gagarin Ave., Kryvyi Rih, 50086, Ukraine

Berdyansk State Pedagogical University, 4 Shmidta St, 71100, Berdyansk, Ukraine

Keywords:

Types of Activities, Web Tools, Research Activities on Mathematics.

Abstract:

This paper is aimed at studying scientiﬁc communication as an integral part of a scientist’s activity. The authors

of this article analysed the development of informational technologies, which gave rise to a new paradigm of

scientiﬁc communication Research 2.0. In the present study the analysis of research papers, describing models

of scientiﬁc communication is done. The ﬁndings allow to deﬁne the structure and content of a comprehensive

program of activities, connected to scientiﬁc communication in compliance with the Scientiﬁc Communication

Life Cycle Model. In order to introduce a program, aimed at lowering scholars’ emotional barriers in course

of their professional interaction, a target group of older age cohort scholars in the ﬁelds of Mathematics and

Methods for teaching Mathematics was chosen. The ﬁve-stage program of activities encouraged professional

interaction of older age cohort scholars and introduced them to the methods of presenting research ﬁndings,

elements of managing and mechanisms of applying the ﬁndings by means of Research 2.0. A constructive

description of each module of the program is done, actions and a strategy are described, communication

between participants and tutors through the platform Higher School Mathematics Teacher is arranged in this

research. In order to assess the efﬁciency of implementing the program, Researcher Development Framework

(RDF) is used. The study also presents the results of the activity of older age cohort researchers, who were

engaged in the program. Following the change in the phase of the development of researchers’ characteristic

features and in compliance with RDF, a conclusion is made about a positive impact of the program on the

development of scholars’ interaction skills, the awareness of the procedures of actual professional conduct.

The impact of the program on the scholar’s emotional comfort in course of professional communication is

proved as well.

1 INTRODUCTION

The scholars’ effective performance is an attribute

of sustainable development of the society. Factors,

contributing to effective scientiﬁc activity. The de-

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8920-5680

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3034-3031

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3722-6826

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3186-2837

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8669-6202

velopment of intellectual and psychological quali-

ties of a scientist, correlation between the process

of thinking and creativity, phenomena of scientiﬁc

discovery and genious were always of high interest

for psychologists, educators, science historians. Nu-

merous researches were done into speciﬁc attributes

of a scientist, considering them from different the-

oretical perspectives. Attempts to identify personal

qualities, which are central to the professional ac-

tivity of a scientist, were made in classical research

by Bogoyavlenskaya (Bogoyavlenskaya, 2021), Cox

406

Vlasenko, K., Rovenska, O., Chumak, O., Lovianova, I. and Achkan, V.

Program of Scientiﬁc Communication Development for Older Age Cohort Scholars.

DOI: 10.5220/0012064900003431

In Proceedings of the 2nd Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology (AET 2021), pages 406-420

ISBN: 978-989-758-662-0

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

(Cox, 1926), Guilford (Guilford, 1959), Hollingworth

(Hollingworth, 1926), Roe (Roe, 1961), (Terman,

1922), stated, that scientiﬁc communication (a com-

plex of processes and mechanisms of transmitting sci-

entiﬁc ideas inside a scientiﬁc community) is an inte-

gral part of a scientist’s activity. Fast-paced devel-

opment of modern science and the level of scientiﬁc

achievements prompted scientists to search for new

means of scientiﬁc communication.

The ﬁrst aspect meant integrating skills of sci-

entiﬁc communication into a basic set, which is

identiﬁed by sociologists, employers and scientists

(Brownell et al., 2013; Gray et al., 2005; West, 2012;

Vlasenko et al., 2019) as critical for any scientist.

Hence, courses in communication are introduced into

curricula for postgraduate students in many coun-

tries, among which are the following: Great Britain

(Quality Assurance Agency, 2019), the USA (Amer-

ican Association for the Advancement of Science,

2009, 2023), Canada (Ontario Universities Council on

Quality Assurance, 2023) and Australia (Australian

Qualiﬁcations Framework, 2014). In turn, in educa-

tional literature there are numerous papers (Levine,

2001; Mulnix, 2003; Gillen, 2006; Kozeracki et al.,

2006; Jones et al., 2011; Cameron et al., 2020), which

state, that such components of scientiﬁc communica-

tion as reading scientiﬁc papers by other scientists and

promoting own scientiﬁc concepts can help budding

researchers to develop core skills of a scientist and

boost their conﬁdence in scientiﬁc thinking. So, in-

spired by this idea, the authors in the present paper did

an overall review of the history of communication in

science. A paper by Vickery (Vickery, 2000) presents

detailed means and attributes of oral and written com-

munication in pre-digital era and shows a picture of

prerequisites for modern methods of scientiﬁc com-

munication. Special attention is given to the devel-

opment of scientiﬁc communication in the 20th cen-

tury. It’s result from industrial research, occurrence

of Big Data, computer networks and Internet com-

munication. Early in the 21st century, Hurd (Hurd,

2000, 2004) offers a new paradigm of communica-

tion in science and shows that digital media offer new

roles and functional opportunities to the participants.

Thus, the development of information technologies

changed the mode of scientiﬁc communication. The

conventional system based on printing, which relied

on a referred scientiﬁc journal as a key mechanism

for presenting scientiﬁc ﬁndings, underwent transfor-

mation and turned into a system, dependent on digital

means of transmitting information. As Hurd (Hurd,

2000) stated, scientometrics bases replaced conven-

tional libraries and publications turned to electronic

formats; communication in science evolves to the pro-

cess, which counts more on on-line resources. This

transition from printed to digital format changed the

roles of all the participants of the scientiﬁc communi-

cation system. Transformation of contemporary sci-

ence, namely its digital aspect, has a speciﬁc impact

on older age cohort scholars. In many cases a well-

established ethos of scientiﬁc activity contradicts new

rules: lack of skills for searching digital information

puts under threat relevance and timeliness of a re-

search; absence of experience in disseminating scien-

tiﬁc ﬁndings by means of digital resources obstructs

partners’ interest in those ﬁndings.

Though new policy of scientiﬁc communication,

as well as academic rules, cannot be formally labelled

as norms, they start dominating science universally.

Non-compliance forces older age cohort scholars and

researchers feel uneasy, to adapt, to ﬁnd ways of in-

ternal and external solutions to the conﬂict. Recently

the issue of adapting older age cohort scholars to new

rules of scientiﬁc communication has become a press-

ing one.

1.1 Analysis of Scientiﬁc Papers

In educational literature, dedicated to academic edu-

cation, scientiﬁc communication is considered from

a point of view of positive impact on the process of

developing scientist’s core skills of a. In papers by

Levine (Levine, 2001), Mulnix (Mulnix, 2003), a cor-

relation between the skills level of processing scien-

tiﬁc literature and efﬁcient scientiﬁc activity is stated.

Research by Gillen (Gillen, 2006) proves that though

a majority of scientists are able to understand and ab-

sorb informative aspects of scientiﬁc articles, they of-

ten face difﬁculties interpreting the ﬁndings and an-

alyzing them critically. As researchers might lack

in strategies, necessary for building up credible crit-

icism, then developing the skills of scientiﬁc commu-

nication becomes critical for engaging them into ac-

tive scientiﬁc process. Research paper by Kozeracki

et al. (Kozeracki et al., 2006) highlight, that design-

ing courses, aimed at the critical analysis of articles

in scientiﬁc journals and presentation of own research

increases scientiﬁc literacy and self-conﬁdence of re-

searchers.

Researching the problem of developing a skill in

scientiﬁc communication, Cameron et al. (Cameron

et al., 2020) came to a conclusion, that behavior and

attitude to scientiﬁc writing, speaking and presenting

ﬁndings contribute to scientiﬁc identity. As the main

factor of this process is its fulﬁllment in all the aca-

demic stages from a postgraduate student to a scien-

tiﬁc advisor, it is indicative of a potential for engag-

ing means of scientiﬁc communication for enhancing

Program of Scientiﬁc Communication Development for Older Age Cohort Scholars

407

career perseverance. Research papers by Smyrnova-

Trybulska et al. (Smyrnova-Trybulska et al., 2019),

Kuzminska (Kuzminska, 2021), look into this issue.

These works allow to state that introducing the scien-

tiﬁc communication program into educational process

ensures development and improvement in researchers

such a skill as undertaking scientiﬁc communication;

contributes to developing digital competencies and

building up an image of a scientist, thus integrating

into a single scientiﬁc community. The researchers

conﬁrmed that digital competencies concerning scien-

tiﬁc competencies allow researchers to search for sci-

entiﬁc and professional information more efﬁciently,

to work with open systems of scientiﬁc research sup-

port, to analyse data and visualize them with the help

of up-to-date informational computer technologies, to

create and manage personal educational environment,

a portfolio, etc.

Studying the problems, connected to developing

professional skills in a scientist, experts emphasized

the necessity to build models of scientiﬁc commu-

nication. One of the earliest models of scientiﬁc

communication is the UNISIST model (UNESCO,

1971) (the United Nations Information System in Sci-

ence and Technology), offered by the United Na-

tions Educational, Scientiﬁc and Cultural Organiza-

tion (UNESCO) with the aim to improve scientiﬁc

and technical communications. Taking into account

ever-growing impact of the Internet technologies on

communication between scientists, Søndergaard et al.

(Søndergaard et al., 1972) presented an extended and

revised UNISIST model. One more model by Gar-

vey and Grifﬁth (Garvey and Grifﬁth, 1972) means to

describe the communication process in science, but it

lacks informational technologies support. In studies

by Hurd (Hurd, 2000, 2004) this model is revised in

order to consider the impact of digital technologies,

such as electronic publications, self-publications and

electronic libraries.

Kling et al. (Kling et al., 2003) offer a model of

scientiﬁc collaboration STIN (Socio-Technical Inter-

action Network), which allows to understand better

the character of professional relationships inside sci-

entiﬁc communities. Swisher (Swisher, 2003) offer

a linear step-by-step model which deﬁnes the stages

that a new concept goes through in the system of

scientiﬁc communication. In a cycle of research by

Björk and Hedlund (Björk and Hedlund, 2003, 2004;

Björk, 2007a,b) a model of SCLC (Scientiﬁc Com-

munication Life Cycle) is presented. It describes the

process of communication from the beginning of a re-

search up to using the ﬁndings for the beneﬁt of the

society. This model covers both, formal and informal

communication, but the main focus is on the life cycle

of publications as well as readers’ activity aimed at

getting access to those publications. A systematized

review of the characteristics of these and other models

of scientiﬁc communication can be found in a study

by Lugovi

c et al. (Lugovi

c et al., 2015). The sci-

entists put focus on the development of technologi-

cal innovations of Web 2.0 that resulted in occurrence

of a new paradigm of scientiﬁc communication Re-

search 2.0.

The analysis of papers by Luzón (Luzón, 2009),

Ullmann et al. (Ullmann et al., 2010), Procter et al.

(Procter et al., 2010), Koltay et al. (Koltay et al.,

2015) shows, that the term “Scientiﬁc communica-

tion Research 2.0” determines new approaches in

creating scientiﬁc knowledge, based on the notions

of unity and collaboration. The scientists describe

how generating and managing collective knowledge

brings about new structures and systems of scien-

tiﬁc communication. Kuzminska (Kuzminska, 2021)

consider that scientiﬁc blogs, social networking sites

for the collaboration of scientists ResearchGate and

Academia.edu, applications for managing and sharing

publications (Mendeley, Qiqqa, EndNote), services

Open Peer Review, international and national biblio-

metric systems (in Ukraine – Open Ukrainian Cita-

tion Index, “Bibliometrics of Ukrainian science”) and

other make part of such structures. Though the main

channel for publishing the research ﬁndings is still an

article in a journal with a peer review, Research 2.0

provides wide opportunities for the improvement of

research processes and can lead to changing the prin-

ciples of research activity in future.

The research is dedicated to the development of a

comprehensive program of activities, linked to scien-

tiﬁc communication in compliance with SCLC Model

and principles of Research 2.0. There is evidence

among the objectives of the research, that introduc-

tion of the program in place into the process of the

professional development of older age cohort schol-

ars contributes to enhancing digital scientiﬁc commu-

nication skills and validates the role thereof as a cata-

lyst for building up conﬁdence and stabilizing schol-

ars’ personal comfort.

2 METHOD

2.1 Participants

During 2019-2020 the comprehensive program of ac-

tivities, aimed at developing scholars’ digital scien-

tiﬁc communication skills was introduced into the

educational process of professional development of

older age cohort scholars at Ukrainian universities. 52

AET 2021 - Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

408

scholars aged 50+ participated in the experiment (ﬁg-

ures 1, 2).

Figure 1: Gender sampling frame, % of the total number of

participants.

Figure 2: Age sampling frame, % of the total number of

participants.

According to targeted selection, the sampling

frame must comprise researchers working in the same

area of knowledge. It was done, taking into account

the speciﬁcs of the scientiﬁc communication system

for different disciplines. The experiment was done

at scientiﬁc schools, where the researchers work in

the domain of Mathematics and Teaching Methods.

The quality composition of the program participants

in accordance with specialization and professional at-

tributes is presented in ﬁgures 3–5.

Development of a comprehensive program of ac-

tivities in scientiﬁc communication in compliance

with SCLC Model. In the ﬁrst stage of the pro-

gram development with the help of the deductive

content analysis of the research papers (Søndergaard

et al., 1972; Kling et al., 2003; Swisher, 2003; Björk,

2007a,b), dedicated to the models of scientiﬁc com-

munication, the authors of this study deﬁned the struc-

ture of the program and the key aspects of the content,

designed to provide its compliance with the paradigm

of Research 2.0. Compared to other models, the

SCLC Model Björk (Björk, 2007a,b) is more com-

prehensive, detailed and contains more constituents

that reﬂect activity, ﬁndings, elements of governance,

Figure 3: Specialisation of the participants of the experi-

ment, % of the total number.

Figure 4: Qualitative composition of the participants of the

experiment in accordance with professional attributes, % of

the total number.

mechanisms, etc. when developing the program of

activities, connected to scientiﬁc communication, the

SCLC Model serves as a roadmap for positioning all

the components of the system of scientiﬁc collabo-

ration as a global interconnected informational sys-

tem. The developed comprehensive program consists

of ﬁve stages of different duration from 0.5 to 2 cred-

its ECTS, each of them contains 2–5 modules (ta-

bles 1, 2).

In the second stage, when doing analysis concern-

ing the nature of Research 2.0, Koltay et al. (Koltay

et al., 2015), Sheombar (Sheombar, 2019) gave a con-

structive description of activities and projects, as well

as actions and strategies which contribute to develop-

ing scientiﬁc research skills in young scientists and

which are based on the principles of openness, col-

laboration, conversation and connectedness.

Communication between the program participants

and tutors took place on the platform Higher School

Program of Scientiﬁc Communication Development for Older Age Cohort Scholars

409

Figure 5: Qualitative composition of the participants of the

experiment in accordance with professional attributes, % of

the total number.

Mathematics Teacher (Vlasenko and Sitak, 2023).

Forum, on-line chatting and electronic mailing were

chosen as the means of communication. Through

their personal accounts the participants got access to

the description of events, activities and strategies for

each of the stages of the program, listed below.

2.2 Developing Topics for the

Informational Environment

Most of the older age cohort researchers have no

proper information basis regarding digital scientiﬁc

communication, which is connected to the fact that

digital scientiﬁc communication is a rather speciﬁc

activity, avoided by older people in everyday life. As

a rule, even scholars, who are active in doing scien-

tiﬁc research, have fragmented knowledge of scien-

tiﬁc communication basics. The main goal of this

stage is developing in researchers a systematic knowl-

edge concerning scientiﬁc communication, its key

components, new trends and technologies, basics of

efﬁcient work with information, research data man-

agement. Watching video-lectures allows the partic-

ipants to understand how digital scientiﬁc communi-

cation happens nowadays, how open access, open sci-

ence and licenses, research data management impact

the life cycle of a research. Participation in semi-

nars, trainings means applying best updated practices

and search techniques in order to work with scientiﬁc

sources, to use universal and specialized information

resources, new web-applications for various types of

research, etc.

Table 1: The structure of the comprehensive program of ac-

tivities, concerning scientiﬁc communication in compliance

with the SCLC Model. Stages 1, 2.

Creating the information environment

Activities concerning

scientiﬁc communi-

cation

Content of the activity

An on-line course in

scientiﬁc communi-

cation

Watching video lectures,

chatting

Practical assign-

ments

Doing practical assignments

on searching information,

quoting, preparing pre-

sentations, designing a

manuscript, etc.

Presentation of Uni-

versity programs,

events by the Min-

istry for Education

and Science and

businesses, aimed at

supporting scientists

Electronic mailing of video

materials and samples of

documents; meetings with

management, representa-

tives of the Ministry for

Education and Science

representatives of business,

program alumni

Doing the research

Searching for ideas,

deﬁning a topic for

research

Getting acquainted with so-

cial networking web-sites

for scientists; creating pro-

ﬁles and micro-networks.

Searching the infor-

mation resources

Searching publications in

databases, archives, book-

marks, getting (saving) the

publications, paid and free

subscriptions

Reading publications Reading summaries, full

texts

Doing the research it-

self

Communication in collabo-

rations

Integrating the re-

sults into the context

of a general problem

Work with references, quot-

ing

The authors of the present study believe, that

in the informational environment, dedicated to the

problem of digital scientiﬁc communication, it makes

sound sense to highlight the following topics:

1. General overview of key components and strate-

gies of digital scientiﬁc communication, usage of

new web-applications in all the stages of the re-

search life cycle, especially when searching for

information and spreading the ﬁndings. Social

networks for scientists ResearchGate, Mendeley,

Academia.edu.

2. Scientiﬁc information: main types of sources.

AET 2021 - Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

410

Table 2: The structure of the comprehensive program of ac-

tivities, concerning scientiﬁc communication in compliance

with the SCLC Model. Stages 3–5.

Presenting the ﬁndings

Non-formal commu-

nication

Seminars, conferences,

mailing colleagues, mi-

croblogs, subscriptions

to the projects in social

networking web-sites

Publication in a re-

viewed edition

Preparing a manuscript,

searching publishing

houses. Designing the

manuscript, communica-

tion with an editor and a

reviewer

Promoting sharing

and search

Promotion in blogs, so-

cial networks for scientists,

open libraries, University re-

sources

Tracking the publica-

tion

Indexing, bookmarks, tags

Secondary publica-

tions

Monographs, publishing in

mass media

Applying the ﬁndings

Promoting the im-

provement of the

standard of living

(application in indus-

try, IT, healthcare)

Getting acquainted with the

process of standartisation,

ﬁling an author certiﬁcate/a

patent

Education Passing on knowledge

through workshops, educa-

tional videos, one-to-one

counselling

Feedback for science Forecasting beneﬁts for the

future of science

Contests for scientists, grant programs

Contests for young

scientists by Univer-

sities and the Min-

istry for Education

and Science

Filing documents

Contests organized

by businesses

Preparing presentations,

participation in startup-

schools

Specialized search systems such as Google

Scholar, ScienceDirect, DOAJ and databases

(Web of Science, Scopus, ZbMATH, Math-

SciNet), strategies for efﬁcient search on the In-

ternet.

3. Tools for monitoring new publications on the

research problems. Subscriptions (Mendeley

Groups, ResearchGate). Scientist’s proﬁles (Sco-

pus Author ID, ResearherID, ORCID iD).

4. A scientiﬁc article in a reviewed journal as

the main element of scientiﬁc communication.

Academic publishing houses (Springer, Elsevier,

Pleiades Publishing).

5. Studying various aspects of scientiﬁc papers and

publication strategies. OJS/PKP journal systems.

6. Management of bibliographic references (applica-

tions Mendeley Web Importer, EndNote, BibTex,

Zotero).

7. Key notions of scientometrics. Scientometric in-

dices Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar,

Open Ukrainian Citation Index et al.

8. Copyright. Creative Commons license.

9. Archiving the research data. Repositories DOAJ

and ArXiv.

When creating the informational environment,

educational materials published on the platforms

Prometheus (Prometheus, 2020), EdEra (EdEra,

2019, 2018), YouTube channel (PC Technology Cen-

ter, 2019; Research HUB, 2019) and own materials

by the authors of this study were used (Vlasenko

et al., 2021). As an illustrative basis for scientometric

and bibliometric techniques, a cycle of research by

Rovenska and Novikov (Rovenska, 2019; Rovenska

and Novikov, 2020; Novikov and Rovenska, 2017a,b)

was used.

As the main indicator of the efﬁciency of scientiﬁc

work is receiving accolades and ﬁnancial rewards, the

authors of this paper believe it pertinent to share rele-

vant links to grant programs and awards with the pro-

gram participants, announced by university manage-

ment, businesses and professional unions. Receiving

an accolade by a researcher can serve as one of the

criteria of developed skills in digital scientiﬁc com-

munication and core skills in general.

2.3 Doing Research

The ﬁrst module, which is to deﬁne the topic, initi-

ates the research. Review of ideas is the main func-

tion of this module. Social media offer useful com-

munication channel for ﬁnding new ideas and com-

municating with the world. Participants register and

create own accounts in the main social networks for

scientists, such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu and

Mendeley. According to a research by Nentwich and

König (Nentwich and König, 2014) on academic use

of social networks, the function “Proﬁle” comes top

among eight most popular functions of social me-

dia for scientiﬁc purposes. The proﬁles created can

Program of Scientiﬁc Communication Development for Older Age Cohort Scholars

411

be ﬁlled with publications that the participants al-

ready have. In this module the participants also create

micro-networks with the representatives of a certain

scientiﬁc school. When the topic is deﬁned, social

networking sites for scientists become an additional

tool for searching partners for collaboration.

Since the research process is based on the com-

petencies, related to searching, assessing and apply-

ing information, the second module is dedicated to

developing skills in searching information resources.

The development of Web 2.0 brought about easy and

accessible means of receiving information. Still, ac-

cess to information does not necessarily mean ex-

panding knowledge. Research 2.0 resources allow

to make changes in the methods of assessing infor-

mation sources on their topic. The participants are

offered to focus on the assessment of the accessible

information, based on bibliometric indicators. The

module gives an opportunity to master the speciﬁcs

of work with both, interdisciplinary (Scopus, Web of

Science, Google Scholar), and specialised (ZbMATH,

MathSciNet) scientometric databases.

It is necessary to draw the participants’ attention

to the opportunities which subscriptions (both, free

and paid) give as well as risks arising out of it. Not

only using social media for private purposes, but also

for academic ones requires preventive measures from

spam and harassment from unscrupulous communi-

ties. Participants can also face challenges when re-

ceiving publications, for instance, if the publication is

not accessible any more, or the publication was not

digitalized. When such situations happen, it prompts

ﬁnding alternative ways of receiving the publication,

such as buying a hard copy, search in archives or

among colleagues.

The third module is dedicated to the development

of practical skills in reading publications. The partic-

ipants work on the constructive methods for review-

ing the content of a publication with the help of key

words, summaries, reading full texts, creating book-

marks, comments and annotations in Mendeley, ap-

plications for tracking quotes EndNote, BibTex.

When doing own research, the need for expanding

own scientiﬁc horizon through communication with

single-minded scientists increases, and most of the

older age cohort scholars scientists enhance live com-

munication etiquette. However, the challenges of the

time require mastering on-line modes of communica-

tion with colleagues. According to a recent research

by the Ministry for Education and Science of Ukraine

(MESU, 2020) the most common reasons that hamper

the development of scientiﬁc communication among

scientists are: psychological unpreparedness for new

types, modes of scientiﬁc communications and un-

derdeveloped network of personal connections and

communication channels. For remote communica-

tion the participants are recommended (but not lim-

ited by) such means of communication as Zoom, e-

mail, Viber, Facebook (Messenger), Telegram, Skype,

WhatsApp. As the survey shows (MESU, 2020),

these channels are the most widely used in profes-

sional communication among scientists.

The ﬁnal module of this stage is dedicated to im-

proving the practical skills in working with reference-

messengers, such as Mendeley Web (functions Web

Importer and Citation Plugin), EndNote (adding in-

formation about sources from Web of Science, from

on-line libraries, websites of publishing houses, and

own notes), Zotero and others.

2.4 Presentation of Findings

This stage comprises ﬁve modules, which are – infor-

mal communication, presentation of ﬁndings through

publishing, sharing promotion, tracking and sec-

ondary publications. The main difference from com-

munication within the ﬁrst module is that an author

has a complete control over those who become the re-

ceivers of the information about the ﬁndings. On top

of conventional presentations at conferences, semi-

nars, the participants also learn about informal com-

munication channels which are accessible tools of Re-

search 2.0, such as blogs, subscriptions for Research-

Gate projects, tags and opportunities for joint work

in Mendeley Groups. Using the resources of Re-

search 2.0 increases the efﬁciency of scientiﬁc com-

munication, as researchers receive a feedback (on-line

comments) much earlier and can ﬁx the errors, com-

plete the article and send it for publication.

In the module, dedicated to presenting the ﬁnd-

ings through publication in a reviewed journal, the

participants can learn about the proper formats of ar-

ticles for academic publishing houses Springer, El-

sevier, Pleiades Publishing (mastering AMS-LaTex

is an obligatory prerequisite) and acquire the prac-

tices for communication with the editor and review-

ers through Open Journal Systems. An important

nuance of the module is that some participants ex-

perience communication with predaceous publishing

houses and for the ﬁrst time face academic plagiarism.

Taking it into account, maintaining academic reputa-

tion becomes profoundly valuable.

Modules, dedicated to sharing, promoting search

and tracking publications, encompass the whole spec-

trum of practical skills in using bibliometric means –

from identifying the indices universal decimal clas-

siﬁcation (UDC) and Mathematics Subject Classi-

ﬁcation (MSC) to using descriptors (DOI, ISSN).

AET 2021 - Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

412

The basics of information search and scientometrics,

which the participants learnt during lectures and sem-

inars in the ﬁrst stage, are now acquired through

personal experience in using scientometric databases

(Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar), archives

(ArXiv), etc. The participants are recommended not

only to create formal proﬁles Scopus Author ID, Re-

searcherID and ORCID, but also de-facto analysis of

absolute and normalized indicators, namely h-index

and impact-factor of the publication.

The ﬁnal module of this stage concerns secondary

publications of scientiﬁc ﬁndings. This module sig-

niﬁcantly falls behind the previous ones and is op-

tional. Secondary publications make sense in terms

of sustainable impact on the development of science,

when they give other scientists or external experts an

opportunity to learn more about the ﬁndings in solv-

ing a certain problem. Among the communication

norms, which are also mastered in this stage are copy-

right for scientists, open access and research ethics.

2.5 Application of Findings

This stage highlights practical skills in transferring

scientiﬁc knowledge in several directions in parallel –

improving the quality of life through its application

in industry, IT, healthcare; integration of the knowl-

edge into education and learning; feedback in science.

The participants are recommended to select a direc-

tion of application, depending on the kind of scientiﬁc

research. Thus, in order to commercialize scientiﬁc

knowledge, the participants are advised to register a

patent or an author certiﬁcate. Application in edu-

cation and learning means running classes and work-

shops for students, one-to-one counselling, creating

educational videos, etc.

The speciﬁcs of scientiﬁc communication in

Mathematics is to use the ﬁndings broadly in order

to amass theoretical knowledge. The research ﬁnd-

ings, as well as the methods of receiving them can be

used for further studying various issues of Mathemat-

ics, including Applied Mathematics, prognostication,

hypothesizing and other. Secondary publications, for

instance sections of monographs or a popular science

article allow the participants to acquire the skills in

digital communication with the audience outside their

own scientiﬁc school.

2.6 Contests for Scientists and

Participation in Grant Programs

According to Björk (Björk, 2007b), the global sys-

tem of scientiﬁc communications performs two func-

tions – the ﬁrst is to pass on scientiﬁc knowledge, the

second is to contribute to decision-making in support-

ing research from the side of University leadership,

business, non-governmental organisations. This stage

must be introduces into the program, as lack of under-

standing concerning the mechanisms of grant partic-

ipation is a strong communication barrier in the gen-

eral system of science and innovations support. Par-

ticipation in contests is not obligatory, but is recom-

mended to all the program participants. This stage

allows to develop skills in preparing contest papers,

presentations, startup projects.

2.7 Method of Assessing the Findings

During the experiment

The assessment of the program implementation was

done with the help of Domain B (Personal effective-

ness), Domain D (Engagement, inﬂuence and impact)

of Researcher Development Framework (RDF) (The

Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Lim-

ited, 2023), offered by a world leader in support-

ing professional development of researchers, the Re-

search and Advisory Centre “Vitae”, Cambridge, UK.

RDF is made of the empiric data, collected through

surveying experts in order to identify characteristic

features of researchers, deﬁned in RDF as descrip-

tors. Descriptors are structured into four domains and

twelve subdomains that cover knowledge, intellectual

abilities, methods and professional standards of doing

a research, as well as personal qualities, knowledge

and ability to ensure efﬁcient collaboration with oth-

ers, and a wider impact of research (ﬁgure 6). Each

of sixty three descriptors contains three to ﬁve phases,

that are separate development stages or the efﬁciency

level within the descriptor (The Careers Research and

Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited, 2023).

2.8 Findings

In this work, we offer an overview of the developed

program and the results of its implementation. Our

study does not involve in-depth statistical analysis of

the obtained results.

The comprehensive program of the activities,

which is aimed at developing core skills of a scien-

tist with the help of scientiﬁc communication means,

was introduced into the process of advanced train-

ing of scientists in 9 scientiﬁc schools of and Teach-

ing Methods of Donbas State Engineering Academy,

Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University, Sumy State

Pedagogical University, Berdiansk State Pedagogical

University.

The assessment of the results of the program

implementation was done through surveying partici-

Program of Scientiﬁc Communication Development for Older Age Cohort Scholars

413

Figure 6: The Researcher Development Framework by Vitae (The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited,

2023).

pants. Every participant of the program was assessed

by at least 2 stakeholders through an on-line survey-

ing. The goal of the survey was to identify the skills

level in the participant attributes that personal com-

munication skills that prompt the progress in scientiﬁc

activity and academic career.

The data concerning changes in the descriptor de-

velopment or the level of efﬁciency within the de-

scriptor in the program participants can be found in

tables 3, 4.

Positive results of implementing the program

(marked as “+”) are conﬁrmed by deepening of the

development phase or the level of efﬁciency within 4

descriptors in 30–50% of the participants, 11 descrip-

tors in 50–75% of the participants and 14 descriptors

in more than 75% of the participants of the program.

The program has the most signiﬁcant impact on the

development of career skills, necessary for respon-

sibility and control over professional development;

awareness of the standards, requirements and proce-

dures of professional behavior; skills, necessary for

interaction, management and inﬂuence on academic,

social, cultural and economic context.

In course of detecting communication competence

it is appropriate to test emotional difﬁculties in pro-

fessional communication. For this reason, a method

AET 2021 - Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

414

Table 3: Changing the development phase of a descriptor

or the level of efﬁciency inside a descriptor in the program

participants (Domain: Personal effectiveness).

Descriptor/Subdomain in 30-

50%

of the

partic-

ipants

in 50-

75%

of the

partic-

ipants

in more

than

75%

of the

partici-

pants

Personal qualities

Enthusiasm +

Perseverance +

Integrity +

Self-conﬁdence +

Self-reﬂection +

Responsibility

Self management

Preparation and prioriti-

sation

Commitment to research +

Time management +

Responsiveness to

change

Work-life balance +

Professional and career development

Career management +

Continuing professional

development

Responsiveness to oppor-

tunities

Networking +

Reputation and esteem +

“Diagnostics of emotional barriers” (Fetiskin et al.,

2002, p. 166–167) was applied by the authors of this

paper. After doing the course, based on the program

in place, a number of persons who deﬁne their emo-

tions as ‘hindering interaction with partners’ (N

) or

‘complicating establishing contacts’ (N

) decreased,

as it was anticipated. The diagnostics ﬁndings are pre-

sented on ﬁgure 7.

Forming such skills as ﬁnancial management of

research, understanding of academic and commercial

systems of ﬁnancial support becomes an additional

factor for the impact that the program has, which is

proved by the data concerning the program partici-

pants’ involvement in contests and grant programs for

researchers (ﬁgure 8).

3 DISCUSSION

In connection with the present research it makes

sound sense to mention the papers, dedicated to

Table 4: Changing the development phase of a descriptor

or the level of efﬁciency inside a descriptor in the program

participants (Domain: Engagement, inﬂuence and impact).

Descriptor/Subdomain in 30-

50%

of the

partic-

ipants

in 50-

75%

of the

partic-

ipants

in more

than

75%

of the

partici-

pants

Working with others

Collegiality +

Team working +

People management +

Supervision

Mentoring +

Inﬂuence and leadership +

Collaboration +

Equality and diversity +

Communication and dissemination

Communication methods +

Communication media +

Publication +

Engagement and impact

Teaching +

Public engagement +

Enterprise +

Policy

Society and culture +

Global citizenship +

Figure 7: The ﬁndings of emotional barriers diagnostics of

the program participants.

deﬁning skills of researchers that characterize them

as scientists in a volatile informational environment.

Davies et al. (Davies et al., 2011) deﬁne a set of cen-

tral skills of an efﬁcient researcher that are linked to

the adaptive nature of thinking. These authors con-

sider that scientists do cognitive activity ﬁltering in-

formation according to its importance, using various

Program of Scientiﬁc Communication Development for Older Age Cohort Scholars

415

Figure 8: The number of co-participation in contests for researchers among the program participants.

tools and methods for it. Such an activity is deﬁned

by a certain type of thinking, which allows to use

these tools and methods in the working processes,

aimed at achieving the desired outcome. As Koltay

et al. (Koltay et al., 2015) mention, researchers have

to acquire skills, linked to innovative thinking and

problem-solving. They also believe that the research

process nowadays is deﬁned by comprehending and

justifying data, as the ability to ﬁnd deeper meanings

is more important than formal reading. Moreover, due

to globalization and increased international cooper-

ation a practical skill of working in social networks

as well as cross-cultural communication skills are be-

coming more and more vital.

Comprehension, justifying, adaptive thinking,

problem-solving and innovative activity depend on

the information and deﬁne the circle of skills, neces-

sary for a modern scientist. Contemporary resources

of Research 2.0 have an impact on all the stages of the

life cycle of a research, which are connected to infor-

mation, starting with identifying an idea to spreading

the results. Thus, Research 2.0 gives a wide spectrum

of opportunities for personal growth of scientists, who

nevertheless are reluctant to use these opportunities

and excuse themselves by lack of time or experience.

According to conclusions by the Social media and re-

search workﬂow, Nicholas and Rowlands (Nicholas

and Rowlands, 2011), Sheombar (Sheombar, 2019),

Vlasenko et al. (Vlasenko et al., 2020b) only a few

researchers make the most of all the tools that social

media provide.

The authors of this paper believe that creating in

researchers a quality experience of using Research 2.0

resources in professional communication could be-

come a solution to this problem. As Mogull (Mogull,

2017) states, scientists often follow bad communica-

tion practices, reiterating typical mistakes. The most

typical problems are: lack of ideas because the con-

tent is inadequate when the information is processed

(inability to read summaries, incorrect application of

search techniques); lack of clearly deﬁned conclu-

sions because of inability to integrate the ﬁndings

into the structure of the general problem; poor choice

of the edition for publications; ignoring the process

of managing the publication, etc. By the present

research the authors join such experts as Mogull

(Mogull, 2017), Albert (Albert, 2000), Szklo (Szklo,

2006), Vlasenko et al. (Vlasenko et al., 2020a) who

consider, that clear and transparent digital commu-

nication practices can make a difference to scien-

tiﬁc thinking and improve the quality of scientiﬁc ad-

vancement. Thus, the suggested program of activities

is based on acquiring by scientists some personal ex-

perience in research work through the usage of the

means of digital communication.

The constituents of the program are aimed at im-

proving core skills of scientists through their scientiﬁc

communication. Each stage of their activity (from de-

veloping topics for the informational environment to

presenting the research ﬁndings) is ensured by a pro-

gram of activities, divided into several modules. Ev-

ery module focuses on developing certain skills. The

program means, that older age cohort scholars, who

advance their qualiﬁcations, will master the basics of

efﬁcient work with information, research data man-

agement, and will get an insight into digital scien-

tiﬁc communication, its components, new trends and

technologies of scientiﬁc communication; they will

learn how to use contemporary practices and search

techniques when working with information resources.

The attendees also master constructive means of re-

viewing the publications content, acquire the skills

AET 2021 - Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

416

of creating bookmarks, comments and summaries as

well as communicating with editors and reviewers

through open journal systems. Communication be-

tween the program participants and tutors takes place

on the forum and via an on-line chat on the platform

Higher School Mathematics Teacher (Vlasenko and

Sitak, 2023).

This assessment showed that combining means

of digital scientiﬁc communication on a certain sys-

tem and ensuring personal experience in using those

means contributes to the development of skills of

older age cohort scholars, necessary for responsibil-

ity and control over professional development; aware-

ness of the standards, requirements and procedures of

professional behavior, necessary for the efﬁcient re-

search management; development of the skills, cen-

tral to interaction, management and inﬂuence on aca-

demic, social, cultural and economic context, for in-

stance, skills in ﬁnancial management of research, un-

derstanding of academic and commercial system of

the ﬁnancial support of science.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Fast-paced development of informational environ-

ment, opportunities for researchers to communicate

with their colleagues and the whole scientiﬁc world

via the Internet ensured new opportunities in strength-

ening the global system of scientiﬁc communication.

This fact made it possible for researchers to im-

prove their core skills through promoting scientiﬁc

knowledge ensuring mechanisms of participation in

contests, interaction, collaboration, personal develop-

ment and justiﬁed the timeliness of developing the

program of activities in digital scientiﬁc communica-

tion for older age cohort scholars, based on the prin-

ciples of Research 2.0.

Analysing the research into the models of scien-

tiﬁc communication and considering the experience

of mature scientists, working in Mathematics and

Teaching Methods, allowed the authors of the present

paper to deﬁne the structure of a comprehensive pro-

gram of activities, aimed at developing skills in scien-

tiﬁc communication and core skills of researchers, as

well as to devise educational and methodological ma-

terials for its implementation in compliance with the

SCLC Model, which ensures acquiring personal user

experience through the practice of using the means of

digital scientiﬁc communication.

The above mentioned program of activities was

structured in accordance with certain stages of a re-

searcher’s activity and involves scientiﬁc communi-

cation through the means of digital learning environ-

ment. Among such activities were: on-line courses in

scientiﬁc communication, presentations of programs

for supporting researchers, workshops, educational

videos, one-to-one counselling.

The above mentioned activities encouraged the re-

searchers to seek sources of information and integrate

their ﬁndings into the context of the overall prob-

lem by digital means; to introduce scholars to social

networks; to create accounts and micro-networks; to

maintain informal communication at seminars, con-

ferences, e-mailing colleagues; to submit publications

through open journal systems.

Hence, those activities were aimed at forming

communication skills and presenting research ﬁnd-

ings remotely; practical skills in using bibliometric

means; skills in applying contemporary practices and

searching techniques when working with sources of

information; practical skills in imparting scientiﬁc

knowledge; skills in preparing start-up projects. All

in all, the participants’ activity was focused on de-

veloping systemic understanding of the nature of Re-

search 2.0, which is based around openness, collabo-

ration, conversation and connectedness.

The participants evaluated the ﬁndings of the pro-

gram introduction by means of Researcher Develop-

ment Framework, which allows to detect the level of

formation of researchers’ speciﬁc features in such do-

mains as Personal effectiveness and Engagement, in-

ﬂuence and impact. Positive changes in the stages of

the descriptor development or changes in the level of

its efﬁciency prove the efﬁciency of implementing the

program and its inﬂuence on the development of re-

searchers’ skills in scientiﬁc communication. It was

also conﬁrmed, that the latter became a signiﬁcant

catalyst for lowering emotional barriers in course of

professional interaction. The analysis of the informa-

tion on the participants’ involvement in contests and

grant programs for scientists proved the skills level of

in ﬁnancial management of research and understand-

ing of the system of ﬁnancial support.

The ﬁndings of this research allow to develop

trainings for developing speciﬁc communication

skills of the academia. Courses, developed on the

basis of such a program, contribute to quality and

speedy increase in communication competence, thus,

to a scholar’s personal emotional comfort. Communi-

cation competence along with emotional comfort, in

turn, become instrumental to scholars’ competitive-

ness in the ever changing environment.

The authors of this paper consider a vector of fur-

ther study to be the detection of scientiﬁc activity of

the program participants and correcting the model in

accordance with the speciﬁc features of age cohorts.

Program of Scientiﬁc Communication Development for Older Age Cohort Scholars

417

REFERENCES

Albert, T. (2000). Writing for journals: a paradigm

lost? Journal of Epidemiology and Community

Health, 54(9):642–643. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.

54.9.642.

American Association for the Advancement of Sci-

ence (2009). Cultivating Biological Literacy.

In Brewer, C. A. and Smith, D., editors, Vision

and Change in Undergraduate Biology: A Call

to Action, chapter 2, pages 10–19. Washington,

DC. http://web.archive.org/web/20211215202621

https://live-visionandchange.pantheonsite.io/wp-

content/uploads/2011/03/Revised-Vision-and-

Change-Final-Report.pdf.

American Association for the Advancement of Science

(2023). AAAS Communication Toolkit.

Australian Qualiﬁcations Framework (2014). Addendum

to AQF Second Edition January 2013. Amended

Qualiﬁcation Type: Masters Degree. Australian

Qualiﬁcations Framework Council, South Aus-

tralia. https://www.aqf.edu.au/download/420/adden

dum-aqf-second-edition-january-2013-amended-

qualiﬁcation-type-masters-degree/14/addendum-aqf-

second-edition-january-2013-amended-qualiﬁcation-

type-masters-degree/pdf

Björk, B. and Hedlund, T. (2003). Scientiﬁc Publica-

tion Life-Cycle Model (Splc). In de Souza Costa,

S. M., Carvalho, J. Á., Baptista, A. A., and Mor-

eira, A. C. S., editors, From information to knowl-

edge: 7th ICCC/IFIP International Conference on

Electronic Publishing held at the Universidade do

Minho - ELPUB 2003, Minho, Portugal, June 25-

28, 2003. Proceedings. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:

nbn:se:elpub-0317.

Björk, B. and Hedlund, T. (2004). A formalised model

of the scientiﬁc publication process. Online Infor-

mation Review, 28(1):8–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/

14684520410522411.

Björk, B.-C. (2007a). A model of scientiﬁc communication

as a global distributed information system. Informa-

tion Research, 12(2). http://informationr.net/ir/12-2/

paper307.html.

Björk, B.-C. (2007b). The scientiﬁc communica-

tion life-cycle model. http://web.archive.org/web/

20080122130452/http://sciencemodel.net/.

Bogoyavlenskaya, D. B. (2021). The mechanism of cre-

ativity: Why we discover the new. Voprosy Filosoﬁi,

(9):82–89. https://pq.iphras.ru/article/view/6602.

Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., and Steinman, L. (2013). Sci-

ence Communication to the General Public: Why We

Need to Teach Undergraduate and Graduate Students

this Skill as Part of Their Formal Scientiﬁc Train-

ing. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Edu-

cation, 12(1):E6–E10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

pmc/articles/PMC3852879/.

Cameron, C., Lee, H. Y., Anderson, C. B., Trachten-

berg, J., and Chang, S.(2020). The role of scientiﬁc

communication in predicting science identity and re-

search career intention. PLoS One, 15(2):e0228197.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228197.

Cox, C. M. (1926). The Early Mental Traits of Three

Hundred Geniuses, volume II of Genetic Studies of

Genius. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.157060.

Davies, A., Fidler, D., and Gorbis, M. (2011). The Re-

working of “Work”. Technical report, Institute for the

Future for University of Phoenix Research Institute.

https://legacy.iftf.org/futureworkskills.

EdEra (2018). Akademichna dobrochesnist onlain-

kurs dlia vchyteliv starshykh klasiv [Academic

Integrity: Online Course for Senior Readers].

https://courses.ed-era.com/courses/course-v1:

AmericanCouncils+AcIn101+AcIn2019/about.

EdEra (2019). Very Veriﬁed: Online Course on Media Lit-

eracy. https://veriﬁed.ed-era.com/ua.

Fetiskin, N. P., Kozlov, V. V., and Manuilov, G. M. (2002).

Social and Psychological Diagnostics of Personality

and Small Groups Development. Institute of Psy-

chotherapy Publishing House, Moscow.

Garvey, W. D. and Grifﬁth, B. C. (1972). Communica-

tion and information processing within scientiﬁc dis-

ciplines: Empirical ﬁndings for Psychology. Infor-

mation Storage and Retrieval, 8(3):123–136. https:

//doi.org/10.1016/0020-0271(72)90041-1.

Gillen, C. M. (2006). Criticism and Interpretation: Teach-

ing the Persuasive Aspects of Research Articles.

CBE—Life Sciences Education, 5(1):34–38. https:

//doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-08-0101.

Gray, F. E., Emerson, L., and MacKay, B. (2005). Meet-

ing the Demands of the Workplace: Science Students

and Written Skills. Journal of Science Education and

Technology, 14(4):425–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s10956-005-8087-y.

Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of Creativity. In Anderson,

H. H., editor, Creativity and Its Cultivation, pages

142–161. Harper & Row, New York.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: their nature

and nurture. Experimental Education Series. Macmil-

lan, New York. https://archive.org/details/b29818904.

Hurd, J. M. (2000). The transformation of scientiﬁc com-

munication: A model for 2020. Journal of the Amer-

ican Society for Information Science, 51(14):1279–

1283. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:

9999<::AID-ASI1044>3.0.CO;2-1.

Hurd, J. M. (2004). Scientiﬁc Communication: New Roles

and New Players. Science & Technology Libraries,

25(1-2):5–22. https://doi.org/10.1300/J122v25n01_

02.

Jones, S., Yates, B., and Kelder, J.-A. (2011). Learning

and Teaching Academic Standards Project: Learn-

ing and Teaching Academic Standards Statement for

Science. Technical report, Australian Learning &

Teaching Council. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/altc_

standards_SCIENCE_240811_v3_0.pdf.

Kling, R., McKim, G., and King, A. (2003). A Bit More

to It: Scholarly Communication Forums as Socio-

Technical Interaction Networks. J. Am. Soc. Inf.

Sci. Technol., 54(1):47–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/

asi.10154.

AET 2021 - Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

418

Koltay, T.,

Spiranec, S., and Karvalics, L. Z. (2015). The

Shift of Information Literacy Towards Research 2.0.

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(1):87–93.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.11.001.

Kozeracki, C. A., Carey, M. F., Colicelli, J., and Levis-

Fitzgerald, M. (2006). An Intensive Primary-

Literature–based Teaching Program Directly Beneﬁts

Undergraduate Science Majors and Facilitates Their

Transition to Doctoral Programs. CBE—Life Sciences

Education, 5(4):340–347.

Kuzminska, O. (2021). Selecting tools to enhance schol-

arly communication through the life cycle of scien-

tiﬁc research. Educational Technology Quarterly,

2021(3):402–414. https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.19.

Levine, E. (2001). Reading Your Way to Scien-

tiﬁc Literacy. Journal of College Science Teach-

ing, 31(2):122–125. https://studylib.es/doc/9019243/

reading-your-way-to-scientiﬁc.

Lugovi

c, S., Dun

der, I., and Horvat, M. (2015). The

Secondary Experience of an Information System En-

abling Scientiﬁc Communication. In Ver

c, D., Jugo,

D., and Ciboci, L., editors, Proceedings of Commu-

nication Management Forum 2015, volume 1, pages

562–587, Zagreb, Hrvatska. Edward Bernays College

of Communication Management.

Luzón, M. J. (2009). Scholarly hyperwriting: The function

of links in academic weblogs. Journal of the Ameri-

can Society for Information Science and Technology,

60(1):75–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20937.

MESU (2020). Naukovi komunikatsii molodykh vchenykh

pid chas karantynu [Scientiﬁc communications of

young scientists during quarantine]. Technical report,

Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine.

https://mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/nauka/rada

%20molodich%20uchenich/2020/07/komunikatsii-

molodikh-vchenikh-pid-chas-karantinu.pdf.

Mogull, S. A. (2017). Scientiﬁc and Medical Communica-

tion A Guide for Effective Practice. Routledge, New

York, NY.

Mulnix, A. B. (2003). Investigations of Protein Struc-

ture and Function Using the Scientiﬁc Literature: An

Assignment for an Undergraduate Cell Physiology

Course. Cell Biology Education, 2(4):248–255. https:

//doi.org/10.1187/cbe.03-06-0025.

Nentwich, M. and König, R. (2014). Academia Goes Face-

book? The Potential of Social Network Sites in the

Scholarly Realm. In Bartling, S. and Friesike, S., ed-

itors, Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How

the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and

Scholarly Publishing, pages 107–124. Springer Inter-

national Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/

978-3-319-00026-8_7.

Nicholas, D. and Rowlands, I. (2011). Social media

use in the research workﬂow. Information Ser-

vices & Use, 31(1-2):61–83. https://doi.org/10.3233/

ISU-2011-0623.

Novikov, O. and Rovenska, O. (2017a). Approximation of

classes of poisson integrals by repeated Fejer sums.

Lobachevskii Journal of Mathematics, 38(3):502–

509. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1995080217030209.

Novikov, O. O. and Rovenska, O. G. (2017b). Approxi-

mation of periodic analytic functions by Féjer sums.

Matematchni Studii, 47(2):196–201. https://doi.org/

10.15330/ms.47.2.196-201.

Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (2023).

Appendix 2: OCAV’s Undergraduate and Gradu-

ate Degree Level Expectations. https://oucqa.ca/

framework/appendix-1/.

PC Technology Center (2019). How to register on

ResearchGate and add own research [Kak zareg-

istrirovatsia na ResearchGate i dobavit svoe

issledovanie]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=NvaF8XpXPK4&list=PL7xlaPb8vE1JLNjZS_

5-yVO9QkuKloNxg&index=2.

Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M.,

Snee, H., Voss, A., and Asgari-Targhi, M. (2010).

Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly com-

munications. Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and

Engineering Sciences, 368(1926):4039–4056.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/

rsta.2010.0155.

Prometheus (2020). Naukova komunikatsiia v tsyfrovu

epokhu [Scientiﬁc communication in the digi-

tal age]. https://courses.prometheus.org.ua/courses/

course-v1:UKMA+SCDA101+2020_T1/about.

Quality Assurance Agency (2019). Subject Benchmark

Statement: Biosciences. Technical Report QAA2450,

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Edu-

cation. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/ qaa/subject-

benchmark-statements/subject-benchmark-statement-

biosciences.pdf?sfvrsn=21f2c881_4.

Research HUB (2019). How to ﬁnd Scopus indexed jour-

nals? https://youtu.be/GFGjKxkrUkY.

Roe, A. (1961). The Psychology of the Scientist. Science,

134(3477):456–459. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.

134.3477.456.

Rovenska, O. (2019). Approximation of analytic func-

tions by repeated de la Vallee Poussin sums. Com-

puter Research and Modeling, 11(3):367–377. https:

//doi.org/10.20537/2076-7633-2019-11-3-367-377.

Rovenska, O. G. and Novikov, O. A. (2020). On approxima-

tion of classes of analytic periodic functions by Fejer

means. Chebyshevskii Sbornik, 21(4):218–226. https:

//doi.org/10.22405/2226-8383-2018-21-4-218-226.

Sheombar, A. (2019). Reﬂections on social media use along

the academic research life cycle. IADIS Press. https:

//tinyurl.com/4jfafefv.

Smyrnova-Trybulska, E., Morze, N., and Kuzminska, O.

(2019). Networking Through Scholarly Communi-

cation: Case IRNet Project. In Smyrnova-Trybulska,

E., Kommers, P., Morze, N., and Malach, J., editors,

Universities in the Networked Society: Cultural Di-

versity and Digital Competences in Learning Com-

munities, volume 10 of Critical Studies of Education,

pages 71–87, Cham. Springer International Publish-

ing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05026-9_5.

Swisher, B. (2003). A Relevant Retrieval Model for the So-

cial Sciences. http://www.ou.edu/webhelp/socialsci/

modelrationale.htm.

Program of Scientiﬁc Communication Development for Older Age Cohort Scholars

419

Szklo, M. (2006). Quality of scientiﬁc articles. Rev Saude

Publica, 40(Spec no.):30–35. https://doi.org/10.1590/

s0034-89102006000400005.

Søndergaard, T. F., Andersen, J., and Hjørland, B.

(1972). Documents and the communication of sci-

entiﬁc and scholarly information: Revising and up-

dating the UNISIST model. Proceedings of the

American Society for Information Science and Tech-

nology, 40(1):516–516. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.

14504001102.

Terman, L. M. (1922). A New Approach to the Study of

Genius. Psychological Review, 29(4):310–318. https:

//doi.org/10.1037/h0071072.

The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC)

Limited (2023). Vitae programme | managed by

crac.org.uk. https://www.crac.org.uk/vitae.

Ullmann, T. D., Wild, F., Scott, P., Duval, E., Vandeputte,

B., Parra, G., Reinhardt, W., Heinze, N., Kraker, P.,

Fessl, A., Lindstaedt, S., Nagel, T., and Gillet, D.

(2010). Components of a Research 2.0 Infrastructure.

In Wolpers, M., Kirschner, P. A., Scheffel, M., Lind-

staedt, S., and Dimitrova, V., editors, Sustaining TEL:

From Innovation to Learning and Practice, volume

6383 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages

590–595. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel-

berg.

UNESCO (1971). UNISIST: study report on the feasibility

of a World Science Information System. UNESCO,

Paris.

Vickery, B. C. (2000). Scientiﬁc Communication in History.

Scarecrow Press, Lanham, Md.

Vlasenko, K., Chumak, O., Sitak, I., Kalashnykova, T., and

Achkan, V. (2020a). Clil method to increase students’

motivation in studying mathematics at higher tech-

nical school. Universal Journal of Educational Re-

search, 8(2):362–370. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.

2020.080205.

Vlasenko, K., Lovianova, I., Sitak, I., Chumak, O., and

Kondratyeva, O. (2019). Training of Mathematical

Disciplines Teachers for Higher Educational Institu-

tions as a Contemporary Problem. Universal Jour-

nal of Educational Research, 7(9):1892–1900. https:

//doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070907.

Vlasenko, K. and Sitak, I. (2023). Higher school mathemat-

ics teacher. http://formathematics.com.

Vlasenko, K., Volkov, S., Sitak, I., Lovianova, I., and

Bobyliev, D. (2020b). Usability analysis of on-

line educational courses on the platform “Higher

school mathematics teacher”. E3S Web of Confer-

ences, 166:10012. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/

202016610012.

Vlasenko, K. V., Lovianova, I. V., Chumak, O. O., Sitak,

I. V., and Achkan, V. V. (2021). The arrangement of

on-line training of master students, majoring in Math-

ematics for internship in technical universities. Jour-

nal of Physics: Conference Series, 1840(1):012007.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1840/1/012007.

West, M. (2012). STEM education and the work-

place. Occasional Paper Series 4, Australian

Government. Ofﬁce of the Chief Scientist.

https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/sites/default/ﬁles/

OPS4-STEMEducationAndTheWorkplace-web.pdf.

AET 2021 - Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

420