Scholarly communication: Not just for scholars anymore
Scholarly Communication: Not Just for Scholars Anymore Joseph R. Kraus University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA Penrose Library Joseph.email@example.com @jokrausdu October 30, 2012 Presented at Internet Librarian International
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ariels_photos/4523186447/in/photostream/CC By‐SA from Ariel Waldman.
Table of Contents• Push by various organizations and individuals for Open Access (OA) to research• Misunderstandings of Open Access – Scientists, researchers, publishers, librarians, etc.• Behavior of scientists and researchers• The role of trust in information dissemination has implications on the Green vs Gold debate.
Push from various organizations and individuals• Who – Finch Report – Wellcome Trust – World Bank – Academic mathematicians, Dr. Gowers – Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)
Culture is slow to change• From Collaborative Yet Independent: Information Practices in the Physical Sciences• Scientists can “be enthusiastic supporters of open access. But it is important not to underestimate the value of gatekeepers [ie. publishers] in science; these roles have been built up over the centuries to ensure that good science is propagated while bad science is not.” (Page 93.)
Misunderstandings & Misconceptions• JISC Report, Researchers of Tomorrow: The Research Behaviour of Generation Y Doctoral Students – “Among doctoral students of all ages there is widespread lack of understanding and uncertainty about open access and self‐archived resources. (Page 6.)
Two misunderstandings 1. Some scientists, researchers and publishers argue that Open Access is not needed because the researchers who need to read the articles already work at institutions that subscribe to the journals they need. 2. The general public would not be able to understand or benefit from Open Access research.
Could counter this argument with• Peter Suber wrote in his book, Open Access – “OA isn’t primarily about bringing access to lay readers.” – “The publishing lobby sometimes argues that the primary beneficiaries of OA are lay readers, perhaps to avoid acknowledging how many professional researchers lack access, or perhaps to set up the patronizing counter‐argument that lay people don’t care to read research literature and wouldn’t understand it if they tried.” (Page 25.)
Misunderstanding the audience 1• In this Scholarly Kitchen blog post, Kent Anderson (an editor for an Elsevier medical journal) wrote that “despite accessibility, the information remains inaccessible in any functional sense—they can’t apply it, understand it competently, or put it into context.”
Misunderstanding the audience 2• Lord Robert Winston noted in this panel discussion that “Open Access isn’t going to solve the world’s problems at all. I don’t believe it really contributes greatly to public engage‐ ment.” (at 47 minutes.) • “One of the key problems in science… is that we are increasingly involved with more and more detail, and less of a broad picture, and it is ridiculous to expect people to understand the detail.” (at 51 minutes.)
Misunderstanding the audience 3• Phillip Broadwith wrote in Chemistry World “The vast majority of people who need regular access to journals ‐ primarily researchers ‐ belong to institutions or companies with subscriptions to the journals they want to read. How much would the general public actually gain from access to complex, technically written and jargon‐heavy articles?”
Another counter• Collaborative Yet Independent, RIN & IOP.• Lack of access is an issue. And, it “is often an issue, even for scientists at research‐intensive universities.” (Page 92.)
Misunderstandings about peer‐review • From JISC Report, Researchers of Tomorrow – The “lack of understanding and uncertainty about the nature of open access remains a constraint on disseminating their research findings; typically their reservations include lack of impact factor or credibility of open access journals and strong preference for peer‐reviewed journals, with a general assumption that open access journals are not peer reviewed.” (Page 7.)
Misunderstandings about author rights• Rights to deposit pre‐prints or post‐prints (or PDF documents or data or slides or videos…) to an institutional or subject‐based repository.• Check http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/
Misunderstanding the advantages of social networking tools• JISC Report, Researchers of Tomorrow – Generation Y doctoral students feel that “social media and online forums in research” do not have legitimacy. (Page 69.) – These tools “challenge their traditional and conservative research working practices.” (Page 6.)
Could be countered with• Melissa Terras at UCL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMXkmClYKbw• “Using social media to disseminate research outputs”• “Twitter is not a waste of time.”• Altmetrics can help researchers determine article specific use.
These misunderstandings lead tohttp://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielizalo/5214170331/ CC By from Gabriel Porras
Behavior of scientists and researchers• From Research Support Services for Scholars: Chemistry Project (Ithaka S+R report & JISC.)• “On the one hand, some chemists are pushing issues like open access, data management…”• “some chemists continue to work in traditional ways. … Some felt that the departmental culture tended towards the ‘traditional’ when it comes to new modes of scholarship.” (Page 19‐20)
Behavior of scientists and researchers• And “Challenges relating to sharing data on this level were also discussed, namely the perceived risks of sharing data that has potential commercial value. Chemists are thought to keep data close in a competitive environment.”(Page 20.)
Evidence of Green OA deposit• Data from article submitted to Library Philosophy and Practice by Mandy Taha and I. (Preprint) • For Elsevier articles, “only 9 of the 266 references were freely available outside of the Elsevier ScienceDirect server. Only 6 of those 9 references were posted by the authors on a locally controlled server, and none of those were to author submitted manuscripts.”• Even though Elsevier is Green OA compliant “it did not appear that the researchers were taking advantage of the opportunity to post manuscripts of their articles.”
Trust• From Collaborative Yet Independent• “Chemistry students displayed a high degree of trust in peer‐reviewed publications, and they and their groups largely did not use preprints, as: ‘ultimately the source will not be trusted or referenced unless it’s been published in an established peer‐reviewed journal.’” (Page 48.)
Trust• Preprints and post‐prints can be different from the final published version• Here is an example from the arXiv – The Grand Cosmic Web of the First Stars (version 1 & 2) – The signature of the first stars in atomic hydrogen at redshift 20 (version 3)• Nature article• Title, abstract and much of the text of the article was significantly different for about a week.• Version 3 does not say where it was published.
Trust• With green OA deposits, the version of the article could be moved or deleted – Publishers can change policies. For example, IEEE no longer allows PDFs to be deposited
Advantages of Gold OA• Greater trust of the information, since it is from the publishing source• From the Library Philosophy and Practice preprint – We found that of 641 citations, there were 58 OA citations from researchers in corrosion chemistry, 59% were to Gold OA, and 41% were to Green OA – African researchers cited twice as much OA material (over 12%) as those who were not from Africa (5.5%)
Response from Librarians• From Research Support Services for Scholars: Chemistry Project • “Libraries are beginning to address issues of data management, open access publishing, journal impact factors, data preservation, and copyright with graduate students in chemistry.” (Page 20)
How should information professionals proceed? • Continue to observe the actions and behaviors of scientists in the wild.• Provide carrots to researchers so that they have an incentive to change their behavior for the greater good.• Demonstrate the citation advantage of Open Access.
For the new scholar1. Open Access can increase citations, since many other researchers can read your articles.2. Open Access journals are peer‐reviewed.3. New measurements of article impact are coming, such as Altmetrics.4. Let the researchers know about their rights as authors to post green versions of OA articles if gold OA publications are not used.
Further Reading• http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications /research/briefing‐papers/POST‐PN‐397 – Good short overview of “Open Access to Scientific Information”• “Field Guide to Misunderstandings about Open Access” by Peter Suber• Two Open Access Books – Open Access by Peter Suber – Open Access: What You Need to Know Now By Walt Crawford
Further Reading• Collaborative Yet Independent: Information Practices in the Physical Sciences (IOP, RIN, and the RAS)• Researchers of Tomorrow: The Research Behaviour of Generation Y Doctoral Students (JISC)• Research Support Services for Scholars: Chemistry Project (Ithaka S+R & JISC)