Emerging Trends in Scholarly Communication and Impact Measures in the Open Knowledge Environment

777 views
671 views

Published on

Talk presented at the National Institute of Interdisciplinary Science & Technology (NIIST)(CSIR), Pappanamcode, Trivandrum, Dec. 17, 2012

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
777
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
197
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Open access models are proliferating, not only for sharing traditional forms of scholarly production (peer-reviewed papers), but also among new forms of content, especially databases and media archives.Data are increasingly born digital
  • Open access models are proliferating, not only for sharing traditional forms of scholarly production (peer-reviewed papers), but also among new forms of content, especially databases and media archives.Data are increasingly born digital
  • Emerging Trends in Scholarly Communication and Impact Measures in the Open Knowledge Environment

    1. 1. Emerging Trends in Scholarly Communication and Impact Measures in the Open Knowledge EnvironmentNational Institute of Interdisciplinary Science & Leslie ChanTechnology Center for Critical Development Studies(NIIST)(CSIR), Pappanamcode, Trivandrum, Dec Bioline International. 17, 2012 University of Toronto Scarborough
    2. 2. Key issues• Changing contexts of research discovery and dissemination in the digital environment• Why greater openness is good for science• Tensions between openness, quality measures, impact, and policies• Collaboration and competition• Interdisciplinary research• Deluge of research data• Interdisciplinary research
    3. 3. Problems• Current Scholarly Communication system is broken• Emerging tools are not being used effectively to serve scholarship• Need to Re-design Scholarly Communications and Impact Measures
    4. 4. The Dysfunctional Economy of Scholarly Communications • Commodification of public knowledge Bundling • Oligopoly • Artificial scarcity • Homogeneity of forms and functions • Reputation management
    5. 5. Hacking the bundleExplore ways by which new practices can be coded(codified) so that the key functions of scholarlycommunication – authoring, certification, qualitycontrol, archiving, and rewarding - can be decoupledand better served by emerging tools for collaborativeauthoring, sharing, and reputation management.
    6. 6. This is not just a technology issue, but a socio-political problem.
    7. 7. “Is the scientific paper a fraud?” “I mean the scientific paper may be a fraud because it misrepresents the processes of thought that accompanied or give rise to the work that is described in the paper. That is the question and I will say right away that my answer to it is ‘yes’. The scientific paper in its orthodox form does embody a totally mistaken conception, even a travesty, of the nature of scientific though”. Sir Peter Medawar (From a BBC talk, 1964)http://contanatura-hemeroteca.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/medawar_paper_fraud.pdf
    8. 8. But Open Access is only the Substrate of the Research Life Cycle Share Discover Create Gather
    9. 9. Scholarly Primitives Discovering Annotating Comparing Referring Sampling Illustrating “…basic functions common Representing to scholarly activity across disciplines, over time, and independent of theoreticalJohn Unsworth. "Scholarly Primitives: What Methods Do HumanitiesResearchers Have in Common and How Might Our Tools Reflect This?" orientation.”"Humanities Computing, Formal Methods, Experimental Practice"Symposium, Kings College, London, May 13, 2000.http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~jmu2m/Kings.5-00/primitives.html
    10. 10. The JIF is appallingly open to manipulation; mature alt-metricssystems could be more robust, leveraging the diversity of of alt-metrics and statistical power of big data to algorithmically detectand correct for fraudulent activity. This approach already worksfor online advertisers, social news sites, Wikipedia, and searchengines. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
    11. 11. http://impactstory.org/
    12. 12. Opportunities for Digital Scholarship Public outreach and engagement New forms of Service “impact”Student training Data sharing New scholarlyCuration practices Personalization Experimentations Interdisciplinary and Professional Collaborative development research
    13. 13. Scholarly Primitives and Reputation? Discovering Annotating Comparing Referring Sampling Illustrating RepresentingJohn Unsworth. "Scholarly Primitives: What Methods Do HumanitiesResearchers Have in Common and How Might Our Tools Reflect This?""Humanities Computing, Formal Methods, Experimental Practice"Symposium, Kings College, London, May 13, 2000.http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~jmu2m/Kings.5-00/primitives.html
    14. 14. “Ten years of experience lead us to reaffirm the definition ofOA introduced in the original BOAI:By “open access” to [peer-reviewed research literature], wemean its free availability on the public internet, permittingany users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, orlink to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing,pass them as data to software, or use them for any otherlawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriersother than those inseparable from gaining access to theinternet itself. The only constraint on reproduction anddistribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain,should be to give authors control over the integrity of theirwork and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.”
    15. 15. • OA benefits research and researchers, and the lack of OA impedes them.• OA for publicly-funded research benefits taxpayers and increases the return on their investment in research. It has economic benefits as well as academic or scholarly benefits.• OA amplifies the social value of research, and OA policies amplify the social value of funding agencies and research institutions.• The costs of OA can be recovered without adding more money to the current system of scholarly communication.• OA is consistent with copyright law everywhere in the world, and gives both authors and readers more rights than they have under conventional publishing agreements.• OA is consistent with the highest standards of quality.
    16. 16. • 1.5. We discourage the use of journal impact factors as surrogates for the quality of journals, articles, or authors. We encourage the development of alternative metrics for impact and quality which are less simplistic, more reliable, and entirely open for use and reuse.• We encourage research on the accuracy of the new metrics. As the research shows them to be useful and trustworthy, we encourage their use by universities (when evaluating faculty for promotion and tenure), funding agencies (when evaluating applicants for funding), research assessment programs (when assessing research impact), and publishers (when promoting their publications). http://www.soros.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations
    17. 17. • 3.14. We encourage experiments with new forms of the scholarly research “article” and “book” in which texts are integrated in useful ways with underlying data, multimedia elements, executable code, related literature, and user commentary.• We encourage experiments to take better advantage of the digital medium, and digital networks, for the benefit of research. http://www.soros.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations
    18. 18. The IF is negotiable and doesn’t reflectactual citation countshttp://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291
    19. 19. The IF cannot be reproduced, even if itreflected actual citations http://jcb.rupress.org/content /179/6/1091.full
    20. 20. The IF is not statistically sound, even if it were reproducible and reflected actual citations http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf
    21. 21. The IF are more effhttp://iai.asm.org/content/early/2011/08/08/IAI.05661-11.full.pdf+html?view=long&pmid=21825063
    22. 22. http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4328
    23. 23. http://total-impact.org/
    24. 24. http://impactstory.org/
    25. 25. Reputation is nested insocial networkUnderstanding influenceand engagement
    26. 26. Scholarly Primitives and the Research Life Cycle Share Discover Create Gather
    27. 27. Scholarly Primitives and Reputation? Discovering Annotating Comparing Referring Sampling Illustrating Representing “…basic functions common to scholarly activity across disciplines, over time, andJohn Unsworth. "Scholarly Primitives: What Methods Do HumanitiesResearchers Have in Common and How Might Our Tools Reflect This?" independent of theoretical"Humanities Computing, Formal Methods, Experimental Practice"Symposium, Kings College, London, May 13, 2000. orientation.”http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~jmu2m/Kings.5-00/primitives.html
    28. 28. Boyer’s Scholarship ofPUBLIC Discovery Engagement Teaching Integration Application
    29. 29. "The scholarship of engagement means connecting the rich resources of the university to our most pressing social, civic and ethical problems, to our children, to our schools, to our teachers and to our cities..."Ernest Boyer in The Scholarship of Engagement (1996)
    30. 30. Opportunities for Digital Scholarship Public outreach and engagement New forms of Service “impact”Student training Data sharing New scholarlyCuration practices Personalization Experimentations Interdisciplinary and Professional Collaborative development research
    31. 31. Conclusions• Open access is only the substrate for digital scholarship, but an essential one• The academic reward system (citations) will slowly evolve to include data citations and software citations, as soon as they become as easy to handle as todays paper citations• Collaboration will be the norm, and apportionment of credit will be key• Participation in scholarly exchanges will be far more inclusive and democratic

    ×