Todd Carpenter Presentation at Project Muse Publishers Meeting - April 24, 2014
 

Todd Carpenter Presentation at Project Muse Publishers Meeting - April 24, 2014

on

  • 866 views

Presentation by Todd Carpenter during the Project Muse Publishers meeting in Baltimore, MD on April 24, 2014. During this talk, Todd discussed standards related to scholarly publishing and the output ...

Presentation by Todd Carpenter during the Project Muse Publishers meeting in Baltimore, MD on April 24, 2014. During this talk, Todd discussed standards related to scholarly publishing and the output of several NISO initiatives.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
866
Views on SlideShare
661
Embed Views
205

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
7
Comments
0

15 Embeds 205

http://www.infodocket.com 119
http://feedly.com 39
http://www.scoop.it 12
https://twitter.com 7
http://www.newsblur.com 6
http://www.feedspot.com 4
http://127.0.0.1 4
http://newsblur.com 4
http://www.inoreader.com 3
http://reader.aol.com 2
https://www.commafeed.com 1
https://www.inoreader.com 1
http://digg.com 1
https://feedly.com 1
http://www.hanrss.com 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Todd Carpenter Presentation at Project Muse Publishers Meeting - April 24, 2014 Todd Carpenter Presentation at Project Muse Publishers Meeting - April 24, 2014 Presentation Transcript

    • Around  the  publishing  technology     world  in  45  minutes   A  bit  on  NISO  &  standards  for  digital  content   Authorship  &  Iden>fica>on   Demand  Driven  Acquisi>on   Open  Discovery   Annota>on   Altmetrics   April 24, 2014 1 25
    • Photo: Minneapolis College of Art and Design Library April 24, 2014 2
    • !  Non-­‐profit  industry  trade  associa>on  accredited     by  ANSI   !  Mission  of  developing  and  maintaining  technical   standards  related  to  informa>on,  documenta>on,   discovery  and  distribu>on  of  published  materials   and  media   !  Volunteer  driven  organiza>on:  400+  contributors   spread  out  across  the  world   !  Responsible  (directly  and  indirectly)  for  standards   like  ISSN,  DOI,  Dublin  Core  metadata,  DAISY  digital   talking  books,  OpenURL,  MARC  records,  and  ISBN   About     April 24, 2014 3
    • April 24, 2014 38% Publishers/Publishing Organizations 27% Libraries/Library Organizations 123 LSA Members (non-voting) 35% Library Systems Suppliers, Publishing Vendors & Intermediaries ISO ANSI Other SDOs National Information Standards Organization (NISO) 4
    • 5 Standards  are  familiar,  even  if  you  don’t  no4ce   Image: DanTaylor Image: Joel Washing April 24, 2014
    • Communica>ng  science  has  changed   Image: Walters Art Museum Image: Domenico, Caron, Davis, et al.
    • Being  an  author  isn’t     what  it  used  to  be   April 24, 2014 7
    • Standard  Model  Higgs  boson  paper     April 24, 2014 8
    • Y   April 24, 2014 10
    • Y  
    • Y  
    • •  ISO  27729:  Informa>on  &  Documenta>on  -­‐-­‐   Interna>onal  Standard  Name  Iden>fier  (ISNI)   •  Launched  in  Spring  2012   •  Iden>fier  for  public  iden>ty  of  par>es  in  cultural   crea>on  across  all  media   •  Main  contributor  is  the  Virtual  Interna>onal   Authority  File  (VIA)  –  Created  by  16  na>onal   libraries   April 24, 2014 13
    • April 24, 2014 14 Nearly  7.5  Million  ISNIs  are  assigned            Another  6  million  “unverified”  names    800,000  researchers/scholars    490,000  ins>tu>ons     Authorita4ve  iden4ty  (ISNI)     Versus    Individually  asserted  ID  (ORCID)    
    • Poten>al  reference  of  the  future?   <ORCID/ISNI>,  <ISSN>,  <Vol/Issue  [DOI  metadata]>,   <Ins>tu>on  ID>,  <Geo-­‐loca>on  [based  on  ISNI]>,   <Date  [DOI  metadata]>,  <DOI>   April 24, 2014 15
    • ODI  -­‐  Open  Discovery  Ini>a>ve      
    • The  context  for  ODI     •  Emergence  of  Library  Discovery  Services  solu>ons     –  Based  on  index  of  a  wide  range  of  content   –  Commercial  and  open  access   –  Primary  journal  literature,  ebooks,  and  more     •  Adopted  by  thousands  of  libraries  around  the  world,   and  impact  millions  of  users   17April 24, 2014
    • General  Goals   •  Define  ways  for  libraries  to  assess  the  level  of   content  providers’  par>cipa>on  in  discovery  services   •  Help  streamline  the  process  by  which  content   providers  work  with  discovery  service  vendors   •  Define  models  for  “fair”  linking  from  discovery   services  to  publishers’  content   •  Determine  what  usage  sta>s>cs  should  be  collected   for  libraries  and  for  content     providers   18April 24, 2014
    • Balance  of  Cons>tuents   Libraries   Publishers   Service  Providers   19 Marshall Breeding, Independent Consultant Jamene Brooks-Kieffer, Kansas State University Laura Morse, Harvard University Ken Varnum, University of Michigan Sara Brownmiller, University of Oregon Lucy Harrison, Florida Virtual Campus (D2D liaison/observer) Michele Newberry, Independent Lettie Conrad, SAGE Publications Jeff Lang, Thomson Reuters Linda Beebe, American Psychological Assoc Aaron Wood, Alexander Street Press Roger Schonfeld, JSTOR, Ithaka Jenny Walker, Independent Consultant John Law, Proquest Michael Gorrell, EBSCO Information Services David Lindahl, University of Rochester (XC) Jeff Penka, OCLC (D2D liaison/observer) April 24, 2014
    • Subgroups   •  Technical  recommenda>ons  for  data  format   and  data  transfer   •  Communica>on  of  library’s  rights/descriptors   regarding  level  of  indexing   •  Defini>on  of  fair  linking   •  Exchange  of  usage  data   20April 24, 2014
    • Deliverables   •  Vocabulary   •  NISO  Recommended  Prac>ce   –  Data  format  and  data  transfer   –  Library  rights  to  specific  content   –  Level  of  indexing   –  Fair  linking   –  Usage  sta>s>cs   •  Mechanisms  to  evaluate  conformance  with   recommended  prac>ce   21April 24, 2014
    • Current  steps   •  30-­‐day  public  comment  period  October  18-­‐ November  18,  2013   •  Working  Group  evalua>on  of  comments,  edits   to  RP,  responses   •  Working  Group  approval  (spring)   •  Discovery  to  Delivery  Topic  CommiNee   approval  (summer)   •  NISO  Publica4on  (summer)   22April 24, 2014
    • Demand-­‐Driven  Acquisi>on  (DDA)   of  Monographs  
    • Barbara  Fister’s  take  on  the     Five  Laws  of  Library  Science     http://www.slideshare.net/bfister/erl-slides-fister
    • If  you’re  not  ac>vely  involved  in   geong  what  you  want,  you  don’t   really  want  it.     Peter  McWilliams   from  "You  Can't  Afford  the  Luxury  of  a  Nega8ve  Thought"  
    • Goals  of  NISO  DDA  Ini>a>ve   •  Create  a  recommended  prac>ce  to  address   the  complex  issues  around  Demand  Driven   Acquisi>on  of  Monographs   •  Develop  a  flexible  model  for  DDA  that  works   for  publishers,  vendors,  aggregators,  and   libraries.   – Flexible,  but  addresses  budget,  consor>al  buying,   aggrega>on  and  data  management  needs   April 24, 2014 26
    • Timeline   •  Appointment  of  working  group   •  Informa>on  gathering   –  Main  survey  completed   –  Interviews   –  Addi8onal  surveys   •  Public  libraries   •  consor8a   –  Informa8on  gathering  completed   •  Comple8on  of  ini8al  draD   •  Gathering  of  public  comments   •  Comple8on  of  final  report       Aug  2012     Aug  2013           Nov  2013   Mar  2014   Mar-­‐Apr  2014   May  2014   April 24, 2014 27
    • Commiqee  members   •  Lenny  Allen    Oxford  University  Press   •  Stephen  Bosch      University  of  Arizona   •  Scoq  Bourns      JSTOR   •  Karin  Byström      Uppsala  University   •  Terry  Ehling      Project  Muse   •  Barbara  Kawecki      YBP  Library  Services   •  Lorraine  Keelan      Palgrave  Macmillan   •  Michael  Levine-­‐Clark      University  of  Denver   •  Rochelle  Logan      Douglas  County  Libraries   •  Lisa  Mackinder      University  of  California,  Irvine   •  Norm  Medeiros      Haverford  College   •  Lisa  Nach>gall      Wiley   •  Kari  Paulson      ProQuest   •  Cory  Polonetsky      Elsevier   •  Jason  Price      SCELC   •  Dana  Sharvit      Ex  Libris   •  David  Whitehair      OCLC   April 24, 2014 28
    • NISO  DDA   RECOMMENDATIONS  (DRAFT)   April 24, 2014
    • Outline  of  DDA  Recommenda>ons   •  Goals  for  DDA   •  Choosing  content  to  make  available   •  Choosing  a  DDA  model   •  Profiling  content  to  include   •  Loading  records   •  Removing  records   •  Assessment   •  Preserva>on   •  Consor>a  &  DDA   •  Public  Libraries  &  DDA   April 24, 2014 30
    • 1.  Establishing  Goals   •  Four  Broad  Goals  for  DDA   – Saving  Money   – Spending  The  Same  Amount  of  Money  More   Wisely   – Providing  Broader  Access   – Building  a  Permanent  Collec>on  via  Patron  Input   April 24, 2014 31
    • 2.  Choosing  Content  to  Make  Available   •  Important  Issues     – Not  all  p-­‐books  available  as  e-­‐books   – No  single  supplier  provides  all  e-­‐books   – Not  all  e-­‐books  available  via  DDA  or  under  same  models   •  Therefore   – More  comprehensive  coverage  requires  more  suppliers   and  more  models   – Broadest  coverage  possible  =  include  print   – Approval  vendors  can  help  manage  DDA  across  mul>ple   suppliers   •  Publishers  should  recognize  that  libraries  may  wish   to  limit  number  of  suppliers,  and  plan  accordingly   April 24, 2014 32
    • 3.  Choosing  DDA  Models   Mix  of  auto-­‐purchase  and  Short  Term  Loans  based  on   goals  of  program   •  Auto-­‐Purchase   –  Purchase  triggered  on  the  first  use  longer  than  free  browse   –  Purchase  triggered  awer  set  number  of  uses   –  Purchase  triggered  awer  set  number  of  STLs   •  Short  Term  Loans  (short  term  rental)     –  A  set  number  of  STLs  prior  to  auto-­‐purchase   –  Only  STLs,  with  no  auto-­‐purchase   April 24, 2014 33
    • 3.  Choosing  DDA  Models  (cont)   •  Evidence-­‐based  acquisi>on   – Some>mes  only  op>on  based  on  plaxorm   capabili>es   – Library  and  publisher  should  develop  expecta>ons   based  on  analysis  of  past  usage   •  Publishers  may  wish  to  par>cipate  in  some  or   all  models.     •  Some  concern  by  publishers  about   sustainability  of  STL   April 24, 2014 34
    • 4.  Profiling   •  DDA  profiles  should  be  based  on  the  broadest   defini>ons  possible  within  these  areas,  and  rela>ve   to  goals  of  the  program   – Subject  coverage  should  provide  access  to  a  wide  range   of  content,  even  in  subjects  that  may  not  be  core   – Retrospec>ve  coverage  for  cri>cal  mass   •  Especially  in  programs  that  otherwise  limit  coverage   •  May  or  may  not  overlap  with  print  holdings,  depending  on   library  preference   April 24, 2014 35
    • 5.  Loading  Records   •  Libraries  should   – Load  records  regularly  and  as  soon  awer  receipt  as   possible   – Load  records  into  as  many  discovery  tools  as   possible   – Code  records  for  easy  suppression  or  removal   – Enrich  metadata  to  increase  discoverability   – Load  point-­‐of-­‐purchase  records  awer  purchase  to   ease  acquisi>ons  workflow/payment   April 24, 2014 36
    • 6.  Removing  Content   •  Libraries  should:   – Remove  records  from  all  discovery  tools  as  soon   as  feasible,  owen  using  supplier’s  delete  file   – Establish  regular  cycle  for  removal   – Maintain  a  record  of  >tles  removed  for   assessment   April 24, 2014 37
    • 7.  Assessment   •  There  are  mul>ple  reasons  for  assessment,  so   this  should  be  planned  from  the  start   – Measuring  overall  effec>veness  of  the  program   – Measuring  success  at  cost  reduc>on   – Measuring  usage   – Predic>ng  future  spending   – Managing  the  considera>on  pool   •  Data  sources  might  include   – COUNTER  reports   – Vendor/publisher  supplied  reports   – ILS  or  other  local  data   April 24, 2014 38
    • 8.  Preserva>on     Libraries  and  publishers  should  work  together  to   ensure  that  un-­‐owned  content  remains   available,  perhaps  in  partnership  with  third-­‐ party  solu>ons  such  as  LOCKSS  and  Por>co.   April 24, 2014 39
    • How  DDA  impacts  specific  groups   9.  Consor4a  DDA    Three  basic  models   –  Mul>plier  (a  mul>ple  of  list  price  allows  shared   ownership)   –  Limited  Use  (shared  ownership,  but  with  a  cap  on  use   before  a  second  copy  purchased)   –  Buying  Club  (shared  access  to  considera>on  pool,  but   individual  ownership)     10.  Public  Library  DDA   –  Mediated  for  greater  control  (fewer  resources)   –  Wish  lists   –  Owen  not  through  the  catalog   April 24, 2014 40
    • Reading  can  be   a  social  ac>vity  
    • Is  this  what  you  thought  we  meant?  
    • Reading isn’t necessarily anti-social
    • Reading can be very social
    • “Books  have  been  held  hostage  offline  for  far  too  long.   Taking  them  digital  will  unlock     their  real  hidden  value:  the  readers.”   –  Clive  Thompson     The  Future  of  Reading  in  a  Digital  World  in  Wired  Magazine  17.06  (2009)  
    • What’s  so  hard  about   sharing  annota>ons?  
    • How  do  we  find  what     we  want  to  share?  
    • What  does  page  “147”   mean  in  a  re-­‐flowable  text?  
    • Version  control    and     Edi>on  varia>ons  
    • Sharing  between  walled   gardens  
    • Chapter  &  verse?     Character  count?   X-­‐Path?   Pre/post  mark  hashing?   Some  (imperfect)  loca8on  methods  
    • Who’s  done  &  doing  what?   •  NISO  hosted  a  series  of  thought  leader   mee>ngs  in  2012   •  Recommended  focus  on  loca>on   determina>on  (started  group,  now  disbanded)   •  Open  Annota>ons  model  based  on  work  with   Open  Annota>on  Collabora>on   •  W3C  Annota>ons  mee>ng  last  month   – New  W3C  working  group  forming  as  part  of  their   Digital  Publishing  ini>a>ve.   April 24, 2014 52
    • What are the infrastructure elements of alternative assessments?  
    • Basic Definitions  (So we are all talking about the same thing)  
    • Comparison across providers Source:  Scott  Chamberlain,  Consuming  Article-­‐Level  Metrics: Observations  And  Lessons  From  Comparing  Aggregator  Provider  Data,  Information   Standards  Quarterly,  Summer  2013,  Vol  25,  Issue  2.
    • Element Identification  
    • Open exchange of component data  
    • TRUST   =
    • What is NISO working toward?  
    • Steering  Commiqee     •  Euan  Adie,  Altmetric   •  Amy  Brand,  Harvard  University   •  Mike  Buschman,  Plum  Analy>cs   •  Todd  Carpenter,  NISO   •  Mar>n  Fenner,  Public  Library  of  Science  (PLoS)  (Chair)   •  Michael  Habib,  Reed  Elsevier   •  Gregg  Gordon,  Social  Science  Research  Network  (SSRN)   •  William  Gunn,  Mendeley   •  Neoe  Lagace,  NISO   •  Jamie  Liu,  American  Chemical  Society  (ACS)   •  Heather  Piwowar,  ImpactStory   •  John  Sack,  HighWire  Press   •  Peter  Shepherd,  Project  Counter   •  Chris>ne  Stohn,  Ex  Libris   •  Greg  Tananbaum,  SPARC  (Scholarly  Publishing  &  Academic  Resources  Coali>on)   April 24, 2014 64
    • Alterna4ve  Assessment   Ini4a4ve       Phase  1  Mee4ngs   October  9,  2013    -­‐  San  Francisco,  CA   December  11,  2013  -­‐  Washington,  DC   January  23-­‐24  -­‐  Philadelphia,  PA   Round  of  1-­‐on-­‐1  interviews  –  March/Apr     Phase  1  report  expected  in  May  2014
    • Mee>ngs’  General  Format   •  Collocated  with  other  industry  mee>ng   •  Morning:  lightning  talks,  post-­‐it  brainstorming   •  Awernoon:  discussion  groups     – X   – Y   – Z     – Report  back/react   •  Live  streamed  (video  recordings  are  available)   April 24, 2014 66
    • Mee>ng  Lightning  Talks   •  Expecta>ons  of  researchers   •  Exploring  disciplinary  differences  in  the  use  of  social  media  in   scholarly  communica>on   •  Altmetrics  as  part  of  the  services  of  a  large  university  library   system   •  Deriving  altmetrics  from  annota>on  ac>vity   •  Altmetrics  for  Ins>tu>onal  Repositories:  Are  the  metadata   ready?   •  Snowball  Metrics:  Global  Standards  for  Ins>tu>onal   Benchmarking   •  Interna>onal  Standard  Name  Iden>fier   •  Altmetric.com,  Plum  Analy>cs,  Mendeley  reader  survey   •  Twiqer  Inconsistency   “Lightning" by snowpeak is licensed under April 24, 2014 67
    • April 24, 2014 68
    • SF  Mee>ng  –  General  outputs   •  The  importance  of  best  prac>ces  for  media   coverage  of  science  (using  DOIs,  etc.)   •  More  Altmetrics  research  is  needed  and  could   be  promoted  through  this  group   •  Providing  a  standard  set  of  research  outputs   that  we  can  use  to  compare  different  services   •  The  importance  of  use  cases  for  specific   stakeholder  groups  in  driving  the  discussion   forward   April 24, 2014 69
    • SF  Mee>ng  Discussions   •  Business  &  Use  cases   –  Publishers  want  to  serve  authors,  make  money   –  People  don’t  value  a  standard,  they  value  something  that  helps  them   –  …  Couldn’t  iden>fy  a  logical  standard  need  that  actors  in  the  space  would  value,   and  best  prac>ces  are  of  interest   •  Quality  &  Data  science   –  Themes:  context,  valida>on,  provenance,  quality,  descrip>on  &  metadata   –  We'll  never  get  to  the  point  where  assessment  can  be  done  without  a  human   in  the  loop,  but  discovery  and  recommenda>on  can   •  Defini>ons   –  Define  “ALM”  and  “Altmetrics”   –  Map  the  landscape   –  We'll  never  get  to  the  point  where  assessment  can  be  done  without  a  human  in   the  loop,  but  discovery  and  recommenda>on  can   April 24, 2014 70
    • DC  Mee>ng  Discussions   •  Business  and  Use  Cases   •  Discovery   –  metrics  only  get  generated  if  material  is  discovered   •  Qualita>ve  vs.  Quan>ta>ve   •  Iden>fying  Stakeholders  and  their  Values   –  stakeholders  in  outcomes  /  stakeholders  in  process  of  crea>ng  metrics   –  shared  values  but  tensions   –  branding   •  Defini>ons/Defining  Impact   –  metrics  and  analyses   –  what  led  to  success  of  cita>on?   –  how  to  be  certain  we  are  measuring  the  right  things   •  Future  Proofing   –  what  won't  change   –  impact  -­‐  hard  to  establish  across  disciplines   April 24, 2014 71
    • Philly  Mee>ng  Discussions   •  Defini>ons   –  Define  life  cycle  of  scholarly  output  and  associated  metrics   –  Qualita>ve  versus  Quan>ta>ve  aspects  -­‐  what  is  possible  to  define  here   –  Consider  other  aspects  of  these  data  collec>ons   •  Standards   –  Develop  defini>ons  (what  is  a  download?  what  is  a  view?)   –  Differen>ate  between  scholarly  impact  versus  popular/social  use   –  Define  sources/characteris>cs  for  metrics  (social,  commercial,  scholarly)   •  Data  Integrity   –  Counter  biases/gaming   –  Associa>on  with  credible  en>>es  -­‐  e.g.  ORCID  ID  v.  gmail  account   –  Reproduceability  is  key   –  Everyone  needs  to  be  at  the  table  to  establish  overall  credibility   •  Use  cases  (3X)   April 24, 2014 72
    • Alterna4ve  Assessment   Ini4a4ve       Phase  2   Presenta4ons  of  report  (June  2014)   Priori4za4on  Effort  (June  -­‐  Aug,  2014)   Project  approval  (Sept  2014)   Working  group  forma4on  (Oct  2014)   Consensus  Development  (Nov  2014  -­‐  Dec  2015)   Trial  Use  Period  (Dec  15  -­‐  Mar  16)   Publica4on  of  final  recommenda4ons  (Jun  16)  
    • Other  work  underway     •  Open  Access  Metadata  &  Indicators   •  Bibliographic  data  exchange   •  SUSHI-­‐lite  profile     •  Project  Transfer  formaliza>on   •  Book  Interchange  Tag  Suite  (BITS)  -­‐  Poten>al   •  Data  transforma>on  -­‐  Poten>al   •  Scholarly  data  cita>on  -­‐  Poten>al   •  E-­‐book  circula>on  data  exchange  -­‐  Poten>al   April 24, 2014 74
    • We  all  want  our  own   May 15, 2013 75
    • For regular updates from NISO April 24, 2014 76
    • Questions? Todd Carpenter Executive Director tcarpenter@niso.org National Information Standards Organization (NISO) 3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 302 Baltimore, MD 21211 USA +1 (301) 654-2512 www.niso.org April 24, 2014 77