On scholarly communication (report of a Dagstuhl workshop)

638 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
638
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
18
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

On scholarly communication (report of a Dagstuhl workshop)

  1. 1. Ivan Herman and the other workshop co-chairs:Tim Clark, Eduard Hovy, and Anita de Waard
  2. 2. (2)
  3. 3. (3)
  4. 4. (4)
  5. 5. (5)
  6. 6. (6)
  7. 7. (7)
  8. 8. (8)
  9. 9. (9)
  10. 10. (10)
  11. 11. (11)
  12. 12. (12)
  13. 13. (13)
  14. 14. (14)
  15. 15. (15)
  16. 16. (16)
  17. 17. (17)
  18. 18. (18)
  19. 19. (19)
  20. 20.  Experts find one another’s result  They engage into private or public conversations, discussions  They may lead to  new results  new, possibly common actions (that did happen in our case)  They get to know and possibly influence one another’s view  Etc.(20)
  21. 21. (21)
  22. 22.  I found out about the paper on a social site  not through a formal bibliography  I could not get to the paper directly  though my Institute’s library has a subscription to Elsevier’s Web site…  I was not there! I.e., I had no access  I had to know (because I am part of the community) that there is a preprint server(22)
  23. 23.  I had access to PDF: like a paper printout, but on the screen  no access to higher resolution images  no access to the underlying data, so that I could check some of the statements  no access to the algorithm to really try it out (have you ever tried to read a complex computing algorithm?)  no direct link to all the other papers via the references • if I want to read them: for each paper the whole story starts all over again!(23)
  24. 24.  My blog led to  additional insights, possibly to both of us  maybe some practical results • submission of a specification to a standard body in this case  the paper certainly had an impact on me …  But… the whole series of communication, of references, etc., go unnoticed on the authors’ official impact factors  and that is almost the only thing that counts for career advancement…(24)
  25. 25.  Web sites can offer you lively experiences on  images, interactive diagrams, video, audio  possibly illustrated algorithms running real time on demand  interactive control over remote program execution  Hyperlinks are the norm: getting from one page to another is normal and expected(25)
  26. 26.  Storage is cheap: publishing data or images beyond pure text is common place  Data mining is real: cross references, relationships, etc., become possible if the underlying content is “software friendly”(26)
  27. 27.  Experts communicate through emails, Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc.  possibly more knowledge and information flows through these channels than through “official” scientific communications  this flow is not measured for scientific career purposes  Pace of information exchange is higher, a publication must be made available almost instantaneously  compare it to the long publication delays through official channels(27)
  28. 28.  There is an information overload; people expect technical help in managing it  Collaborative platforms come to the fore where scientific discourse may happen through common development and discussion  etc.(28)
  29. 29. (29)
  30. 30.  Took place on 15-18 August, 2011  Large participation of people with very different scientific backgrounds  biologists  computer scientists  librarians  publishers  astrophysicists  …(31)
  31. 31.  Solve all the issues  Come up with ready solution  Develop new software  Define full-blown new business models  …(32)
  32. 32.  Experiences were exchanged among communities  A high level synthesis of the issues was provided  A “Dagstuhl Manifesto” http://dx.doi.org/10.4230/DagMan.1.1.41  A separate Dagstuhl report: http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2011/3315/  A shorter version in the “Force11 Manifesto”: http://force11.org/white_paper  Build a community around the common goal(33)
  33. 33. (34)
  34. 34.  Three major areas were explored 1. Mechanisms and methodologies of publication 2. Finances: business models for the future 3. Re-evaluate quality assessment of researchers(35)
  35. 35.  What does “publication” mean?  Text, but increasingly together with:  associated datasets, video, images, software, workflow plans—anything used in research  related papers, possibly reflecting the evolution of the paper’s thoughts  social network of related researchers  possibly earlier versions of the paper, with commentaries  metadata (publication date, exact references, quality verification results,…)(36)
  36. 36.  Associated information should be stored, like  datasets, mathematical models, etc.  software/algorithms in downloadable and runnable form  images, video, audio, etc., in indexable formats  All these should be stored and made available using public standards  storage and encoding formats for the data components  metadata standards for the additional information  etc.(37)
  37. 37.  New procedures, systems, services, etc., are needed  manage information, extract relationships, help collaboration  link research data to other research data on the Web  help in gaining further insights, finding trends  etc.  Some of this work is hard and require funding, new business models(38)
  38. 38.  Role of publishers should change  current subscription models, closed information storage, stringent copyright policies, etc., may not work for long  no longer in charge of textual content only; manage storage and systematization of all the data, including the text  focus on long term archiving, preservation  provide extra valuable services on the research data; that should be the major source of future income(39)
  39. 39.  Role of libraries also change  focus not on preservation but on access to information on the Web at large  user services of all kinds become more important  New players (e.g., Google) appear on the market  their presence changes the role of both publishers and libraries(40)
  40. 40.  New impact measurement should be developed  assess usage of publication (including ancillary material)  assess on-line discussions, cross-references, additional data, impact via Social Web  Extended notion of “publication” brings new forms of contributions:  data collection creation, statistical processing of others’ results  creation of software that users others’ data  production of new type of software and assess its usage by the community(41)
  41. 41.  Produced the separate white paper (beyond the Dagstuhl report)  Provided inputs to different governmental initiatives on scholarly communications  Set up a separate Web Site  Maintain a separate mailing list  seeded with the workshop participants’ list  Try to get extra funding to develop the ideas, software, web site, etc., further  Spread the word…(42)
  42. 42.  This workshop was part of a series of similar events  Everybody was charmed by the facilities of Dagstuhl!(44)
  43. 43. These slides are also available on the Web: http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/0319-Dagstuhl-IH/(45)

×