The Changing nature of scholarly communication: what does this mean for researchers?

842 views

Published on

The Changing nature of scholarly communication: what does this mean for researchers?
A paper given by Branwen Hide, Liaison and Partnership Officer at the (Research Information Network).

  • Be the first to comment

The Changing nature of scholarly communication: what does this mean for researchers?

  1. 1. The changing nature of scholarly communication What does this mean for researchers? Dr. Branwen Hide August 3rd, 2010
  2. 2. Outline Introduction Current research practices Researcher publishing practices Factors influencing researcher behaviours Changes in scholarly communications Conclusions Recommendations for librarians Food for thought
  3. 3. Basic research life cycle Development of research idea Literature reviews, archival material, e-mails, Post-publication face-face meetings, Research distribution conferences, networking Production Conferences, seminars, Bench research, field Personal communications, research, technical reports, grey conceptualizingliterature, popular literature, newspapers, grant applications, networking Pre-publication Publication dissemination Conferences, meetings, Peer reviewed high departmental seminars, impact publications personal communications, (journals or monographs) emails
  4. 4. Publication and Dissemination:Why do researchers publish? To maximize dissemination to the target audience Gain peer esteem Career rewardsHow do researchers publish? Formal and informal means  Related to disciplinary norms  Including: monographs, journals, conference proceedings etc.
  5. 5. What influences the way researchers publish?
  6. 6. 1. The research landscape  significant increase in research expenditure  increasing emphasis on the demonstration, and maximization of social and economic returns from that investment“the journal article is the currency of research…” RIN (2010), E-journals and Researchers
  7. 7. 100% Other90% Meeting80% abstract70% Editorial60% Book review50%40% Proceedings30% Book chapter20% Book10% Article 0% Article 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 Bio-medicine Sciences Engineering Social Humanities Education Total inc. studies Arts The raise in the importance of journal articles RIN (2009), Communicating knowledge: how and why researchers publish and disseminate their findings
  8. 8. 2. Technological developments
  9. 9. Web 2.0 tools and resourcesweb based tools and resources which encourage widescale informal dissemination, sharing, collaboration, and re-purposing of content and innovative ways to interact with and use these web based platforms. Ware, M (2003). Web 2.0 and Scholarly Communication
  10. 10. Who uses the web and why A strong belief that web 2.0 tools will:  enable and encourage new forms of research  promote new forms of scholarly communications  drive innovation Web based tools and resources have been developed to todate support these ideas Wide scale usage ?
  11. 11. Researchers as generators of knowledge Using web 2.0 tools to producing, commenting on, and share scholarly contentType of ScholarlyCommunications Activity PhD Research Lecturer Student Assistant RIN (2010), If they buid it will they come. Researchers us of web 2.0 tools and resources
  12. 12. Researcher as a user of knowledge:Digital resources as a research tool Electronic publications Online databases Using aggregated Google search data Using social media to distribute large population- based surveys Text mining of existing data bases and social networking sites Data mashups New research areas http://cyberbrethren.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/web-applications-desktop-software.jpg
  13. 13. 3. Policy developmentsGrand Challenges Funding cuts dissemination Research Assessment Library budget constraints Public engagement Knowledge Transfer Impact Open access publishing Quality Assurance Data management plans Internationalization Innovation Data sharing mandates
  14. 14. Changes to publication practices electronic and open access publishing posting text, slides and images online add value to publications – dynamic links new and innovative publishing platforms data as a publication social media for the dissemination of research outputs
  15. 15. UKPMC, UKDA, Mendeley, Connotea, Times Research 2.0 Archives EMBL,H-net.org, Economists online, Researchgate, Friend Feed Development of research idea Ensembl , myExperiment,Mendeley, Conneta, citeUlike, Literature reviews, online EBI, UKDAConnotea, Twitter, Omeka, data bases, online archivalScholarPress, academia.edu, material, online discussions ResearchFriendfeed, open humanities Productionpress, Researchgate,EBI, UKDA, UKPMC Text mining, virtual lab equipment, online- Publication and analysis, reuse of existing distribution data Peer reviewed outputs (E- journals, e-books, open access publications), subject specific Friendfeed, Researchgate, UKDA repositories, Blogs, wikis, academia.edu, arXiv, H-net.org, online-forums, networking sites, slideshare, Flicker, Pre-publication YouTube, institutional dissemination repositories, reference sharing sites, subject specific Blogs, wikis, networking sites, repositories, Society web on-line forums, databases pages
  16. 16. Conclusion Scholarly communications can not be seen in isolation Developments must support technological and policy initiatives Developing practises must improve upon existing research practises Disciplinary differences Local support and encouragement is increasingly important
  17. 17. Recommendations for libraries Maintain and improve access to e-content  Especially for those not working on site Provide guidance and advice on the different communication channels Skills training:  Data management (preservation & curation), IP, copyright and FoI etc. Help set standards for curation and preservation Raise awareness of web 2.0 tools and services  Provide advice, training and encouragement  Publicise examples of successful use and good practice  Both as a vehicle for dissemination but also as a research tool
  18. 18. Food for thought Can social media/web 2.0 tools help researchers meet policy objectives? Is everything we need really online? Is traditional peer review adequate to monitor the quality of less formal/new outputs? Is a new system of quality assessment required for blogs and other social media as well as for data? Does using online resources affect the way we interact with our data/primary resources?
  19. 19. Dr. Branwen HideLiaison and Partnership OfficerResearch Information Network Branwen.hide@rin.ac.uk www.rin.ac.uk

×