I understand from Jane that you are interested in the issue of academic integrity in this changing online world of social media and web 2.0 tools. This session will be informal so please ask questions and comment. There will be a lot of show and tell so that I can demonstrate various web 2.0 tools that physicians and researchers are currently using.I must say up front that I am not a copyright expert, however if you have questions that I can’t answer I know who Uvic’s Copyright Officer is and we can contact her.First go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hPCFI1-LWY to see the 4 minute video called “Gatekeepers of Knowledge” which gives a history of scholarly publishing.
Traditionally research info is disseminated via conferences, discussions at the water cooler. Peer review validates the information which enables it to get published. But now info dissemination occurs on web 2.0 tools via ‘crowd sourcing’ (wisdom of crowds via comments, tweets, links, ratings) and is more easily and quickly shared. And it can now be recreated (if permitted by license) via mashups, etc. Example: H1N1 flu outbreak map using google maps and data from uncited sourcesWhile the information cycle (the process whereby information is produced, validated, shared and re-created in other forms) has more or less stayed the same, it's the way each process is carried out that has drastically changed across time.Thanks to technology improvements, producing information is now a whole lot easier. Blogs, podcasts, videos allow everyone to create content with minimum effort. And to validate and share information there are plenty of social media tools to have others consume, re-distribute and even remix your stuff to add additional value.George Siemens says that “What seems to be very important then, is not to focus on transient tools that produce information (as they will change frequently), but rather on the information process itself, which should be the real concern of those wanting to share knowledge and reform education paradigms.”
It’s all about sharing and building on information without needing IT knowledgeTechnology has greatly increased and made easier and cheaper and faster the ability to copy, distribute, control and publish infoIn Feb 2009 Nature said that there are over 1000 medical bloggers and that “more researchers should engage with the blogosphere.” “It's good to blog” Nature 457, 1058-1058 (25 February 2009) doi:10.1038/4571058a Editorial .So what do you think? “Is blogging apart of science, journalism or public discourse? In fact, it might be all of these-an ambiguity that can sometimes leave scientists feeling uncertain about the rules of the game”. “It's good to blog” Nature 457, 1058-1058 (25 February 2009) doi:10.1038/4571058a Editorial . Web 2.0: Open, conversational, networked, decentralized, remixed, chaotic, dynamic. This way we can’t control the message but we can influence it (e.g. ratemyprofessor)RSS feed push content (e.g. tables of content) to you, you don’t have to go to it
Change is the only constantInformation has gone from single manuscripts to printed books and journals, to microfiche to CD-ROMs to diverse online formats (text, podcasts, YouTube). What used to require publishers as intermediaries no longer necessarily does. More than 53% of faculty refer to websites in scholarly papers (Survey of higher education faculty: evaluation of library efforts to index…http://www.primaryresearch.com/publications-The-Survey-of-Higher-Education-Faculty.html)We live in the most information rich, user-engaged environment ever. Now information isn’t static once it’s created. It can be commented on and changed by others. It can be easily cut and pasted, burned, shared… but is this appropriate and proper form for academia?Rise of openness, sharing, collaboration…So what do you think academic integrity is? is “a commitment, even in the face of adversity, to five fundamental values: intellectual and personal honesty, mutual trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility.” Center for Academic Integrity (1999)-We cite our sources -peer review for quality and reliability-intellectual property-Archiving (generally only subscribers can access articles)-takes a lot of time to get an article published-publications used for merit
Plagiarism and copyright infringement are illegal whether or not the original source is available for free.
Prestigious journals are getting into web 2.0 media:Keep up to date with science news by following this blog(For basic information on RSS feeds see http://www.commoncraft.com/rss_plain_english ; for basic information on blogs see http://www.commoncraft.com/blogs
BMJ has podcasts
With personalized medical web 2.0 guidance collections, step-by-step tutorials, webinars and online image building solutions. Webicina was designed to help physicians from all the medical specialties and patients with any kind of medical conditions get closer to the web 2.0 based world.
An excellent blog by VesDimov that ‘presurfs’ material for physicians, & is interactive. It includes clinical images via Flickr
The free medical knowledge base that anyone can read and any registered medical practitioner may edit. Ganfyd is a collaborative medical reference by medical professionals and invited non-medical experts. The site is based around the wiki format, enabling true sharing of knowledge.
Not only the fields of academic science and medicine use web 2.0 tools. So too do higher education communitiesShow how cited “flicr image by courosa” and on right hand side ‘credits’
Slideshare is like ppt only free and anyone can post or view presentations there.BertalanMesko is a great physician who uses lots of web 2.0 tools. Check out his presentations on slideshare!
Twitter lets you send and receive short messages. Sort of like chatting at a conference about a talk or poster. Excellent way of keeping up with the literature (retweet links/points to interesting articles)Attributionin twitter is via Retweets
Definition: As Peter Suber says in his Open Access Overview, “open access is literature that is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions”. Open Medicine is published on a wiki and doesn’t limit contributions to medical professionals.Attribution is still relevant and necessary3 main definitional statements about open access: Budapest Open Access Initiative; Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing; Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and HumanitiesBenefits of OA: expanded access to researchers and public all over the world, no price barriers, instant & wider access; improved collaboration, citation impact advantage, scientists gain speedier results, immediate access, greater usage and impact, no restrictions of usage of research papers for teaching, greater visibilityFunding agency OA policies: CIHR - http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/32005.html; NIH - http://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm“Open AccessOpen Medicine is part of a social movement ensuring scientific knowledge is widely disseminated and influences the way we care for patients. Published medical research shapes clinical practice and health policy: it should be freely available to all.All content published in Open Medicine is freely available for others to read, download, copy, distribute, make derivative works ("re-mix") and use with attribution.As per the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, Open Medicine archives a complete version of published works and supplementary materials in a freely accessible repository.”Open Medicine articles have an open license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/deed.en_CAIssues: credit if you put preliminary findings online others may exploit your work and get patents/credit; usage metricsNIH and CIHR make it a requirement for authors to make their publications open access within 6 months of publication (via open access journal or digital repository)
CC gives us access and gives us the power to choose how/what we share
Open access raises questions of authority and verity of materials therefore attribution and links are essential
Flickr & Google Images – both allow you to limit your search based on usage rights - search their “advanced search” boxesWikipedia CommonsGoogle Images (use advanced search to limit to images with specific usage rights)Creative commons searchPay for stock photos (e.g. Photos.com)
Scholarly communication is not the only thing in academia changing. So are our students! Millennialstend to prefer:experiential/hands-on learning working in teams & collaboratingsocial networkingThey tend to be creativeMost do not think of technology as technology – it is just a part of life.They can shift attention rapidly to pay attention, or not, andrespond quickly.They want the curriculum to be entertainingThey want to learn ‘on demand‘They don’t want to go to a physical location for information; they want information to come straight to them (smartphones…)
Social media has also entered the realm of higher educationThis fall, UBC joined Apple's iTunes U program , wherein school content is made available for free download through their own section of the iTunes Store . Files can be restricted to enrolled students-only, but the majority is available free to all. There are now over 200 universities usuingiTunesUIt's great to see schools embracing new technologies, and that they can be presented in a way that's accessible to both instructor and student. Students get learning materials through the media player that they probably already have installed. Instructors are given an easy platform on which to host their content; UBC's page provides basic audio recording and editing instructions using free software. And everyone gets the benefit of all the free educational content available through iTunes U.What’s great about these 2.0 tools is that they help engage our millenial users and users with different learning styles (auditory – podcasts; visual – vodcasts…)-can be accessed anytime, anywhere-allow students to discuss topics with each other, question & make suggestions to their instructors, on line
There are also medical curriculum sites that allow you to use online curriculumHEAL is a medical image siteShow medbiquitous ‘intellectual property’ statement at http://www.medbiq.org/join_us/intellectual/index.html Who owns the intellectual property published on the MIT OpenCourseWare Web site?The intellectual property policies created for MIT OpenCourseWare are clear and consistent with other policies for scholarly materials used in education. Faculty retain ownership of most materials prepared for MIT OpenCourseWare, following the MIT policy on textbook authorship. MIT retains ownership only when significant use has been made of the Institute's resources. If student course work is placed on the MIT OpenCourseWare site, then copyright in the work remains with the student. Prior to making any course materials publicly available, the MIT OpenCourseWare team has reviewed all material extensively to determine the correct ownership of the material and obtain the appropriate licenses to make the material openly available on the Web. We will promptly remove any material that is determined to be infringing on the rights of others. If you believe that a portion of MIT OpenCourseWare materials infringes another's copyright, please notify MIT OpenCourseWare. there are three requirements that an MIT OpenCourseWare user must meet to use the materials:Non-commercial: Use of MIT OpenCourseWare materials is open to all except for profit-making entities who charge a fee for access to educational materials.Attribution: Any and all use or reuse of the material, including use of derivative works (new materials that incorporate or draw on the original materials), must be attributed to MIT and, if a faculty member's name is associated with the material, to that person as well.Share alike (aka "copyleft"): Any publication or distribution of original or derivative works, including production of electronic or printed class materials or placement of materials on a Web site, must offer the works freely and openly to others under the same terms that MIT OpenCourseWare first made the works available to the user.MedEdPortal – users can download materials directly from the websites. Published authors retain their original copyrights and indicate on the MedEdPortal website how others may use the materials.
How do I know what I can trust on the Internet?
One method is to look for the HON code
Even prestigious, traditional journals/publishers are experimenting with social media
http://beta.cell.comTabbed presentation of summary, intro, results, discussion, data, etc.)Integrated presentation of resultsAccompanying videosExperimental procedures in 3 formats for different users
Mashups/remixes Issues:Attribution, CopyrightRise of culture of openness, collaboration, remixing – affects our views of academic integrity Dichotomy between intellectual property being owned (traditional view) and being shared (modern view)A mashup is a visual remix, commonly a video or website which remixes and combines content from a number of different sources to produce something new and creative. A mashup combines web applications so that several can be integrated and viewed at the same time. Typical mashups import data that somehow relates to each other. For example there public health uses of google maps such as tracking the spread of H1N1 around the worldThe challenge for creativity and the economy of digital content production is the extent to which mashupand remix artists should be allowed to borrow – in a seamless manner – from the past to create the future?If I can see the content and can technically reuse it, should the current law (copyright) and business models (property; patents) prevent such capacity or should they change to prosper a culture of creativity and innovation?
Mashups take info from different sources and combine them to create new content
Allows for collaborative research and distributed participation (Hadron collider)Many scientists today work in relative isolation, left to follow blind alleys and duplicate existing research. Data are balkanized — trapped behind firewalls, locked up by contracts or lost in databases that can’t be accessed or integrated. Materials are hard to get — universities are overwhelmed with transfer requests that ought to be routine, while grant cycles pass and windows of opportunity close. It’s not uncommon for research sponsors to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in critically important efforts like drug discovery, only to see them fail.Now, some research funders require researchers to deposit a copy of the data into an open repository as a condition of funding (CIHR will now require grant recipients to deposit bioinformatics, atomic, and molecular coordinate data into the appropriate public database, as already required by most journals, immediately upon publication of research results (e.g., deposition of nucleic acid sequences into GenBank).)Data interoperability and reuse - therefore standards are important
What is Health Commons?Health Commons is a coalition of parties interested in changing the way basic science is translated into the understanding and improvement of human health. Coalition members agree to share data, knowledge, and services under standardized terms and conditions by committing to a set of common technologies, digital information standards, research materials, contracts, workflows, and software. These commitments ensure that knowledge, data, materials and tools can move seamlessly from partner to partner across the entire drug discovery chain. They enable participants to offer standardized services, ranging from simple molecular assays to complex drug synthesis solutions, that others can discover in directories and integrate into their own processes to expedite development — or assemble like LEGO blocks to create new services.The Health Commons is too complex for any one organization or company to create. It requires a coalition of partners across the spectrum. It is also too complex for public, private, or non-profit organizations alone – reinventing therapy development for the networked world requires, from the beginning, a commitment to public-private partnership. Only through a public-private partnership can the key infrastructure of the Commons be created: the investments in the public domain of information and materials will only be realized if that public domain is served by a private set of systems integrators and materials, tools and service providers motivated by profit. And in turn, the long-term success of the private sector depends on a growing, robust, and self-replenishing public domain of data, research tools, and open source software.
-is a cable-linked seafloorobservatory that is sharing data
Dr. Ray Siemens, Canada Research Chair in Humanities Computing at the University of Victoria, the ETCL develops reading environments for electronic scholarly texts that will facilitate activities central to humanities research. At the Electronic Textual Cultures Laboratory we conduct original research, develop new ways of disseminating information, and foster the innovative adaptation of existing tools. Our cross-disciplinary work in the areas of data-harvesting, textual content analysis, and document encoding puts us at the forefront of a global conversation about the future of communication.
Eysenbach, in the article noted above defines “Medicine 2.0” applications, services, and tools are defined as Web-based services for health care consumers, caregivers, patients, health professionals, and biomedical researchers, that use Web 2.0 technologies and/or semantic web and virtual reality approaches to enable and facilitate specifically 1) social networking, 2) participation, 3) apomediation, 4) openness, and 5) collaboration, within and between these user groups. Apomediation is a new socio-technological term that was coined to avoid the term “Web 2.0” in the scholarly debate [16,17]. It characterizes the “third way” for users to identify trustworthy and credible information and services. First way – use intermediaries such as physicians to get reliable health info; second way – to straight to the internet/book without mediation; third way, be guided to reliable information by network collaborating filters (noone standing directly between you and the info, but still you are guided to quality information)
Authority: how will unethical manipulation affect information found on web 2.0 sources?Attribution:how can it be done when content is constantly changingReview process: how will the peer review process change to accommodate group and ongoing review?As the reports from the American Council of Learned Societies, the Modern Language Association, and the University of Maine recommend, promotion and tenure guidelines must be revised to encourage the creative and innovative use of technology if universities are to remain competitive in the 21st century.How do you keep up to date with ever-changing technologies?“Here's the legal issue in a nutshell: Just about everybody agrees that people who create original content should be able to protect their work. They are the copyright holders. Also, just about everyone agrees that the free flow of information is necessary for a knowledgeable and engaged society. Thus, information needs to spread easily. It's not hard to see that there is a natural tension between these two premises. The law attempts to resolve the conflict using the doctrine of "Fair Use." Under this doctrine, it's okay to use other people's content in limited ways and at limited times. Whether you're stealing content or just making 'fair use' of someone else's content is often not an easy call. Reasonable minds can and do disagree on this topic.” http://www.seomoz.org/blog/blurring-the-boundaries-between-fair-use-and-copyright-violation-nytimes-suit-with-gatehouse-media
If your scholarly work is digital it can be indexed, linked to, identified by metadata, categorized by tags, enriched by others comments…it will be read and cited more often, it will be enriched by othersRecognize others’ works by linking to them, quoting from them, commenting online about them…Only use a small piece of text and link to rest of articleUse a trackback to notify someone you’re using their materialFor images attribute with a link to original and let copyright owner know that you’ve linked itIf copyright owner asks you to take down something, do it
Copyright is evolving to address social mediaScholarly communication makes use of social media yet social media activities don’t usually count towards meritCell Press and Elsevier have launched a project called Article of the Future that is an ongoing collaboration with the scientific community to redefine how the scientific article is presented online. The project’s goal is to take full advantage of online capabilities, allowing readers individualized entry points and routes through the content, while using the latest advances in visualization techniques.
Copyright infringement (copying or distributing without permission) is often confused with plagiarism (passing off one’s ideas/work as one’s own; not citing)
Copyright is automaticCopyright covers the expression of ideas or facts but not the ideas/facts themselvesIs not absolute it’s a tension between rts of creators and users
Citing using the APA Reference list
Academic Integrity, Fair Dealing & Social Media Feb 4
Accessed from http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/si/Science%20Idol%2009/Katherine_Selkelsky_web.jpg on January 19, 2010.<br />
Anything on the Internet is in the public domain as it’s not owned by anyone<br />It’s so easy to cut and paste. If people don’t want to share they won’t let their material do that<br />As long as I use something for teaching it’s fair dealing<br />
Some rights reserved by delamaza (http://www.flickr.com/photos/delamaza/3741609674/)<br />
in order to accelerate utilization of the NEPTUNE data archive, and so hasten the pace of discovery, NEPTUNE Canada is developing a data access policy aimed at engaging a larger community in the research effort and creating an unprecedented culture of collaboration. The data access policy will make information from instruments deployed on this publicly-funded network available to the entire global research community, and to the general public, in real or near-real time via the Internet, to the maximum extent possible. NEPTUNE Canada must also reconcile this goal with the interests and intellectual property rights of investigators who conceive experiments, secure funding and deploy instruments on the seafloor. In developing the data access policy, we must also take into account the cost and complexity of controlling on-line access to data. The following document explores issues that will become key elements of the NEPTUNE Canada data policy. For some issues, we present draft policy guidelines, for others, we offer alternative points of view that are still being debated. For the present, the document limits itself to scientific use of observational data. Data access for educational and for-profit purposes will be examined in a later paper.<br />What do we mean by 'access to data'?<br />In the context of ocean observatories where data are available on-line, different degrees of access to data and associated meta-data need to be considered. NEPTUNE Canada presently recognizes four levels of data access: <br />on-line viewing of data and data products<br />restricted downloading of data sets and data products<br />unrestricted downloading of data sets, and<br />exploitation of data in scientific publications, education and for-profit enterprises. <br />
Authority<br />Integrity<br />Credit towards tenure, merit<br />Attribution<br />New forms of research<br />Lack of time<br />Lack of incentive (to comment on someone else’s paper)<br />Review process<br />Free access to information<br />
Support Open Access (use I.R.s, use author addenda – see SPARC)<br />Consider using a Creative Commons license (Share/ remix/ spread… and attribute)<br />Terms and conditions of use/reuse should be clearly stated (contract or license)<br />Use public domain material<br />Don’t equate CreativeCommons material with copyright-free<br />Recognize others works via links, quotes, citing…<br />
Open Access data being published and reused (datasets) – e.g. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/dec2008/nhlbi-15.htm (NIH)<br />More collaboration<br />Open access (everyone can access information)<br />Boundaries between data, journals are disappearing <br />Journals are evolving: Journal of Visualized Experiments<br />Articles are evolving: article of the future prototypes<br />Web 2.0 has huge potential but we need to ensure that it enhances current methods of teaching, learning, merit…<br />
Attribution: Images from google images, flickr.com & iStock<br />
If you choose to reuse or repost MIT OpenCourseWare materials you must give proper attribution to the original MIT faculty author(s). Please utilize the following citation:<br />[Name], [Course Title], [Term]. (MIT OpenCourseWare: Massachusetts Institute of Technology), [URL] (Accessed [Date]). License: Creative commons BY-NC-SA<br />Example: Jane Dunphy, 21F.225/21F.226 Advanced Workshop in Writing for Science and Engineering (ELS), Spring 2007. (MIT OpenCourseWare: Massachusetts Institute of Technology), http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Foreign-Languages-and-Literatures/21F-225Spring-2007/CourseHome/index.htm (Accessed March 10, 2008). License: Creative commons BY-NC-SA<br />If you want to use the materials on your Web site, you must also include a copy of the MIT OpenCourseWare Creative Commons license , or clear and reasonable link to its URL with every copy of the MIT materials or the derivative work you create from it<br />
Items on Internet are copyrighted (automatically) by their owner(s)<br />Material licensed for education use in lectures may not be licensed for the Internet (e.g. iTunesU)<br />If uploading content from Internet consider if you’re <br />Exercising one of the owner’s rights? <br />Copy or a derivative work? <br />Distribute or publish a copy? <br />Publicly perform or distribute the work?<br />Purpose for using the creative work?<br />Is use Fair Dealing and therefore exempt?<br />
Blog <br />Wadard. (2009, June 15). Australia's climate bill may be scuttled [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/<br />Wiki <br /> University of Waikato, Law Library. (n.d.). Commentary. Retrieved July 19, 2009, from http://law.waikato.ac.nz:8080/lrs/index.php/Commentaries<br />YouTube Video <br />Leelefever. (2007, May 29). Wiki in plain English [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dnL00TdmLY <br />