The Promise of Authority in Social Scholarship Laura B. Cohen The Charleston Conference November 8, 2007

Evaluating content in The Good Old Days Simple Web sites were the targets of evaluation All were basically the same phenomenon Librarians developed a standard set of criteria to evaluate quality – source , authority , timeliness , comprehensiveness , bias , etc. Quaint! “Authoritative bias”

Simple Web sites were the targets of evaluation

All were basically the same phenomenon

Librarians developed a standard set of criteria to evaluate quality – source , authority , timeliness , comprehensiveness , bias , etc.

Quaint! “Authoritative bias”

Toward a notion of authority Today’s Web is far more varied Extremely participatory We first need to consider two small questions: What constitutes scholarly publishing? What constitutes reviewing? The two questions are intertwined, increasingly social and technological  social scholarship

Today’s Web is far more varied

Extremely participatory

We first need to consider two small questions:

What constitutes scholarly publishing?

What constitutes reviewing?

The two questions are intertwined, increasingly social and technological

 social scholarship

Social scholarship: a definition Social scholarship is the use of networked social tools to publish and interact with scholarly output.

Sample parameters of social scholarship Content Metadata Books, articles, etc. openly accessible Wiki pages, edits Blog postings Comments, discussions Annotations Reviews Quoted excerpts Social bookmarks Semantic labels (tags) Links Downloads Votes, rankings Prestige of authors, commenters, reviewers, bookmarkers, etc.

Content

Metadata

Books, articles, etc. openly accessible

Wiki pages, edits

Blog postings

Comments, discussions

Annotations

Reviews

Quoted excerpts

Social bookmarks

Semantic labels (tags)

Links

Downloads

Votes, rankings

Prestige of authors, commenters, reviewers, bookmarkers, etc.

CommentPress plug-in for WordPress

“ Soft Peer Review” Explicit: annotating, commenting, voting, ranking Implicit : tagging, bookmarking, downloading, viewing All of this can build a case for quality  authority Dario Taraborelli, “ Soft peer review? Social software and distributed scientific evaluation ” (University College London)

Explicit: annotating, commenting, voting, ranking

Implicit : tagging, bookmarking, downloading, viewing

All of this can build a case for quality  authority

Dario Taraborelli, “ Soft peer review? Social software and distributed scientific evaluation ” (University College London)

For example … You’ve published an article and It get lots of positive (or negative) blog postings from academic peers, lots of excerpts Readers discuss, debate It’s bookmarked and tagged like crazy on Del.icio.us, CiteULike, Connotea It’s linked to and viewed umpteen times online Confers a verdict = new metrics of authority

You’ve published an article and

It get lots of positive (or negative) blog postings from academic peers, lots of excerpts

Readers discuss, debate

It’s bookmarked and tagged like crazy on Del.icio.us, CiteULike, Connotea

It’s linked to and viewed umpteen times online

Confers a verdict = new metrics of authority

Social Scholarship Text + conversation + metadata Conversation demonstrates the value of chatter Metadata demonstrates the value of use Put these together, and you begin to create a matrix of authority

Text + conversation + metadata

Conversation demonstrates the value of chatter

Metadata demonstrates the value of use

Put these together, and you begin to create a matrix of authority

A journal community model George Siemens, “ Scholarship in an age of participation ” (University of Manitoba) New open source e-journal in the works on emerging trends in educational technology and pedagogy Collaboration of North American and European academics

George Siemens, “ Scholarship in an age of participation ” (University of Manitoba)

New open source e-journal in the works on emerging trends in educational technology and pedagogy

Collaboration of North American and European academics

Hybrid publication process Blending of traditional peer review with an informal, open review process Article can move between the two paths All articles that pass the formal review track and are published enter the social review process for annotation, rating, and discussion

Blending of traditional peer review with an informal, open review process

Article can move between the two paths

All articles that pass the formal review track and are published enter the social review process for annotation, rating, and discussion

“ A journal is an opportunity to move beyond content or information consumption. While ‘community’ and ‘journal’ may not appear to fit together well, journals typically bring together the prominent thinkers and interested stakeholders of a discipline. Enlarging the conversation of journals to include deep discourse on articles and annotation throughout, sets the basis for a democratic, social model of scholarship.“ George Siemens

“ Authority 3.0” Michael Jensen, “ The New Metrics of Scholarly Authority ” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 6/2007 (National Academies) Identifies 17 computer-processed metrics that add up to authority Relies on open digital publishing and its accompanying metadata In 10-15 years, Authority 3.0 will dominate scholarly publishing

Michael Jensen, “ The New Metrics of Scholarly Authority ” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 6/2007 (National Academies)

Identifies 17 computer-processed metrics that add up to authority

Relies on open digital publishing and its accompanying metadata

In 10-15 years, Authority 3.0 will dominate scholarly publishing

Challenges of Authority 3.0 Identifying the metrics Dealing with the huge potential variety and scale of these metrics Figuring out how to gather and interpret this data to derive measures of authority

Identifying the metrics

Dealing with the huge potential variety and scale of these metrics

Figuring out how to gather and interpret this data to derive measures of authority

One example UC Santa Cruz Wiki Lab Wikipedia Trust Coloring Demo “ Content-driven reputation” of authors computed by text analysis Compute a “text trust” based on authors whose contributions are preserved or built-upon vs. revised

UC Santa Cruz Wiki Lab

Wikipedia Trust Coloring Demo

“ Content-driven reputation” of authors computed by text analysis

Compute a “text trust” based on authors whose contributions are preserved or built-upon vs. revised

What librarians can do See ourselves in the forefront of new publishing models that are shaping the future of scholarly communication Track developments in social scholarship Practice social scholarship ourselves Adjust our pedagogy

See ourselves in the forefront of new publishing models that are shaping the future of scholarly communication

Track developments in social scholarship

Practice social scholarship ourselves

Adjust our pedagogy

What librarians can do Train faculty and students to practice social scholarship, as producers and consumers Host, promote social scholarship platforms for our faculty and students Control, quality, stability, preservation

Train faculty and students to practice social scholarship, as producers and consumers

Host, promote social scholarship platforms for our faculty and students

Control, quality, stability, preservation

What librarians can do Dialog with publishers Ask publishers to host publishing models that support social scholarship Ask publishers to do R&D – cooperatively with other publishers and academic institutions

Dialog with publishers

Ask publishers to host publishing models that support social scholarship

Ask publishers to do R&D – cooperatively with other publishers and academic institutions

http://www.slideshare.net/lcohen/ the-promise-of-authority-in-social-scholarship/ [email_address]