ABSTRACT Purpose: This short paper describes the dashboard design process for online hate speech monitoring for multiple languages and platforms. Methodology/approach: A case study approach was adopted in which the authors followed a research & development project for a multilingual and multiplatform online dashboard monitoring online hate speech. The case under study is the project for the European Observatory of Online Hate (EOOH). Results: We outline the process taken for design and prototype development for which a design thinking approach was followed, including multiple potential user groups of the dashboard. The paper presents this process's outcome and the dashboard's initial use. The identified issues, such as obfuscation of the context or identity of user accounts of social media posts limiting the dashboard's usability while providing a trade-off in privacy protection, may contribute to the discourse on privacy and data protection in (big data) social media analysis for practitioners. Research limitations/implications: The results are from a single case study. Still, they may be relevant for other online hate speech detection and monitoring projects involving big data analysis and human annotation. Practical implications: The study emphasises the need to involve diverse user groups and a multidisciplinary team in developing a dashboard for online hate speech. The context in which potential online hate is disseminated and the network of accounts distributing or interacting with that hate speech seems relevant for analysis by a part of the user groups of the dashboard. International Information Management Association
LINK
Decisions and business rules are essential Components of an organization. Combined, these components form a basis for securing the implementation of new laws, regulations and internal policies into processes, work instructions and information systems. To ensure proper implementation, business rule types must be taken into account, as the functions per type may be different. The current body of knowledge on decision and business rule management offers some insights into different types of business rules, however, these types are often presented as a secondary focus of a contribution or set in stone without proper evidence supporting these claims. This study therefore aims to explore the different business rule types utilized in the body of knowledge as well as practice. This will form a basis to determine possible overlap and inconsistencies and aid in establishing the functional differences between the defined business rule types. By applying a literature review, semi-structured interviews and secondary data analysis, we observed that the current body of knowledge shows serious diffusion with regards to business rule types, the same holds for practice. Therefore, future research should focus to research these differences in detail with the aim to harmonize the proliferation of business rule types.
Purpose: This paper is a critical discussion of the Leiden Manifesto for libraries already engaged in bibliometric practices. It offers practical recommendations based on the work of the European Association for Research Libraries (LIBER) Working Group on Metrics. This work is in the beginning phase and summarizes literature on the topic as well as the experiences of the members of the Working Group. The discussion reflects today’s growing popularity of (quantitative) research assessment which is seen in enthusiasts introducing new metrics (i.e. altmetrics) and by critics demanding responsible metrics that increase objectivity and equity in evaluations.Design/methodology/approach: This paper is the result of the Working Group on Metrics of the European Association for Research Libraries (LIBER) that critically discussed the practicality of the Leiden Manifesto for libraries.Findings: Full compliance with the Manifesto is time-consuming, expensive and requires a significant increase in bibliometric expertise with respect to both staffing and skill level. Despite these apparent disadvantages, it is recommended that all libraries embrace the Manifesto’s principles. To increase practicality it is advised that libraries collaborate with researchers, management and other libraries at home and around the world to jointly design and provide services that can be reused within the library community.Originality/value: Libraries have increasingly been confronted with questions about research assessment, responsible metrics, and the role of digital products in evaluations and funding decisions. Although a wide range of recommendations and initiatives are available (e.g., DORA San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment) many recommendations are not straightforward enough to be implemented from a library perspective. This paper provides assistance for libraries to implement these principles by acknowledging the heterogeneous backgrounds the libraries may stem from.https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-01-2017-0004
MULTIFILE
