Innovations in Scholarly Communication and the Rise of Web 2.0 ScholarshipPresentation Transcript
Innovations in ScholarlyCommunication and the Rise of Web2.0 ScholarshipMichelle WillmersScholarly Communication in Africa ProgrammeCC-BY-SA
Defining Scholarly Communication in the internet era (Thorin, 2003)- Conducting research, developing ideas and informal communications.- Preparing, shaping and communicating what will become formal research outputs.- Disseminating formal outputs.- Managing personal careers, and research teams and programmes.- Communicating scholarly ideas to broader communities.
Traditional Scholarly Communication Literature reviewsStudent Conceptual frameworks Bibliographies Proposals Conceptualisation Notes Interview transcripts Lectures Translation Data sets Data Collection Presentations Engagement Data Analysis Images Reports Audio recordings InterviewsCommunity Findings Books Conference papers Journal articles Technical papers Scholar Image CC-BY-SA Laura Czerniewicz
Traditional Scholarship• Relatively contained disciplinary context.• Relatively clear scholarly community.• Relatively clear boundaries.• Particular points of engagement.
Some things have stayed the same …- Need for academic rigour > quality assurance/peer review.- Need to build reputation and collaborative partnerships.>>> Journals and monographs remain the central currency(RIN 2010)
But certain things are very different…• Collaborative focus• Interdisciplinary push• Granular• Immediacy factor• Suited to addressing socio-economic imperatives and collaborative breakthrough• Openness (process, findings, outputs)
Web 2.0 scholarship plays out in multipleenvironments utilising varioustools/platforms.
1. Open AccessGreen Route- Self-archiving of scholarly content prior to, in parallel with, or after publication.- New movement not restricting this content to journal articles – includes ‘grey literature’ (reports, etc.)- 2085 repositories worldwide (DOAR 2011)Gold Route- Primary publication in open-access journals.- 7 070 journals (DOAJ 2011)
2. Open Research• Replicable (transparency - method)• Reusable (results free for re-use and appropriation)• Replayable (tools available for appropriation)• Immediacy (more speedily available)• Granular in approach
3. Open Data
4. Free/Open SourceSoftware
5. Alternative Licensing MechanismsCreative Commons licensing of content in the public domain enables controlover:- Commercialisation by third parties- Right to produce derivatives- Ensuring attribution
“Web 2.0 is widely seen as providing a technicalplatform essential to this ‘re-evolution’ of science.”(Waldrop 2008)But not just about appropriation of newtechnologies. Also changing how weproduce and communicate information.“Web 2.0 services emphasise decentralised andcollective generation, assessment and organisation ofinformation, often with new forms of technologicalintermediation.”(Surowieki 2004)
Scholarship 2.0• New ways of describing content (and looking for it). Metadata as passport to participation.• New ways of tracking usage.• Aggregation crucial.• Blogging and social networking as mechanisms for research and collaboration.• Outputs of social web become part of the scholarly record.• Rise of the global networked scholar.
New Models of Scholarly Communication Literature Reviews Bibliographies Conceptual frameworks Proposals Conceptualisation Notes Interview transcripts Lectures Translation Data sets Data Collection Presentations Engagement Data Analysis Images Reports Audio recordings Interviews Findings Books Conference papers Journal articles Technical papersImage CC-BY-SA Laura Czerniewicz
New questions arise…• What does this mean for peer review and quality control?• What does this mean for how we measure and reward research (and the notion of ‘impact’?)?
Bibliometrics mined impact on the firstscholarly Web.altmetrics mines impact on the next one.(Priem 2012)
The social web and science58k tweets mention scientific articles (with a DOI, PMID or arxiv ID), 1 –31 July 2011.http://buzzdata.com/stew/tweets-linking-to-scientific-papers-jul-2011#!/overviewHighly tweeted articles 11 times more likely to be highly cited than less-tweeted articles.Tweets can predict highly cited articles within the first 3 days of articlepublication. Social media activity either increases citations or reflects theunderlying qualities of the article that also predict citations(Eysenbach 2011)
Hype Cycle of educational Technologies (2010)(Bozalek et al. 2012)
Contours of adoption“Frequency of use of the kinds of web 2.0 tools associated withproducing, sharing and commenting on scholarly content ispositively associated with older age groups, at least up to age65, and more senior positions. The propensity for frequent useis highest among the 35–44 age group and lowest among thoseunder 25.” (RIN 2010)“Those who work in collaboration with different institutionsare significantly more likely to be frequent or occasional usersof web 2.0 services associated with producing, sharing orcommenting on scholarly content.” (RIN 2010)
Exploring utility of web 2.0• Social filtering mechanism to cope with deluge of new information• Keeping in touch with colleagues and fostering collaboration• Helping to manage projects• Aid to dissemination
ReferencesBozalek V, N’gambi D & Gachago D (in press) Emerging Technologies in South African HEIs: Institutionalenables and constraintsEysenbach G (2011) Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlationwith Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13(4). Available at:http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e123Priem J (2012) Toward a Second Revolution: altmetrics, total-impact, and the decoupled journal.Presented at Purdue University, 14 February 2012. Available at:https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=ddfg787c_362f465q2g5RIN (Research Information Network) (2010) If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and useweb 2.0. Available at: http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/use-and-relevance-web-20-researchersSurowieki J (2004) The wisdom of crowds. Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdomshapes business, economies, societies and nations. New York: DoubledayThorin SE (2003) Global changes in scholarly communication. In SC Hsianghoo, PWT Poon and C McNaught(eds) eLearning and Digital Publishing. Dordrecht: Springer. Available athttp://www.springerlink.com/content/w873x131171x2421/Waldrop M (2008) Science 2.0: Great new tool, or great risk? Scientific American. Available at:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-or-great-risk