Scholarly Publishing Revolution
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•546 views
The document discusses the changing landscape of scholarly publishing. It notes the explosion in the amount of scholarly information published as well as new forms of scholarly communication emerging, such as blogs and social media. However, it argues that peer review will remain important for maintaining quality. Finally, it suggests that new metrics are needed to assess impact and value in addition to traditional citation counts.
![Quick Quiz ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Scholarly Publishing Revolution
Similar to Scholarly Publishing Revolution (20)
More from Doug Clow
More from Doug Clow (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Scholarly Publishing Revolution
- 1. Doug Clow Arcadia Seminar, Wolfson College 1 December 2009
- 3. … but you must remember that the last 250 years have been exceptional. Commercial companies have played a vital role in scholarly publishing over the last 250 years
- 5. What is scholarly publishing?
- 7. big changes
- 8. Copyright © 2005 Intel Corporation Moore’s Law
- 10. More scholars More publications per scholar
- 16. no-one will thank you for implementing Shibboleth
- 22. eJournals double-digit inflation year-on-year Bundling Permissions Subscribe October Invoice January
- 25. Open Access Gold: no barriers Green: self-archive 90%
- 27. a simple model of scholarly publishing
- 29. Scaled for cost – traditional model (rough!)
- 30. Scaled for cost – new technology
- 31. Who pays? Top-rank mass market journal
- 32. Who pays? Low circulation journal
- 33. Who pays? JIME
- 37. It’s not that big a deal for most scholars
- 38. new forms
- 39. Today programme (6.5m) BBC News Online (14m) Regional BBC news Tx @stephenfry (0.36m followers) 2400 visitors 52,500 visitors A tale of two websites
- 46. Use keys from iSpot to identify your finds Start with some casual observations & create an album of your own or stock photos Spider Beetle bluebottle Stag beetle Mountain goat Swan Yes Cotoneaster Owl Get your IDs checked ID correct ! See who else has mapped your species and what they say about them Take OU Course Neighbourhood Nature to learn more Take OU Course Biodiversity to learn more Become a recognized expert
- 47. What really counts?
- 50. The Britney Spears problem
- 51. peer review 2.0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY
- 52. So what?
Editor's Notes
- Who am I – IET, OU, educational technology, web, projects, CALRG, Researcher 2.0 Web 2.0, web squared – social, semantic, localised, Internet of things, social web gets real Audio being recorded, will be available. Slides will be on Slideshare under dougclow when I’ve stopped fiddling
- Things are changing. But scholarly publishing is an old activity. New scholarly practices, reliance on new technology, leading to skimming, lack of depth of understanding, and a weakening of the power of the mind - people using these new scholarly tools might at first brush appear clever, but they aren't. Not resistance to John Murray, but Socrates talking at the start of scholarly publishing, trying to put a stop to it. Great scholars critical of innovation in scholarly practice. Often have a very good point, rarely make much difference.
- Ethnographic definition Publish = make public Scholarly is what scholars say is scholarly
- Expansion of higher education Impact of RAE, performance management
- PRINT ON DEMAND Print shop – was factory, then large room, now large photocopier, will be desktop
- More scholars, more people to do peer review
- Lots of new tools, very exciting
- Shibboleth is a federated access management system, implementing aspects of Security Assertion Markup Language in order to provide cross-domain single sign-on. Translation for academics: it makes getting at journal articles your Library has paid handsomely for you to be able to read slightly less annoying.
- 4 minutes
- Why is web so good at this? What Tim Berners-Lee invented it for – first website in 1991 had preprints on it.
- Marginal cost – NB not per-copy costs Nearly zero – not zero
- Not a free market – goods not substitutable. Journal of Obscure Studies is not the same as Proc Nat Obscure Soc Confuse-opoly
- Course set book. eBook. Limit on concurrent access. Paid more. Still limited. Paid for copy of downloadable eBook for each student. Admin hassle. DRMed PDF, can’t cut and paste. Then can, but only a bit. “ Mustn’t cut and paste large amounts of text” – but need to for
- Cloud cuckoo land. Both sides. Why? Peer review happens in all. Argument of degree – scholars/funders pay majority, publishers sometimes cover some costs by charging users Established the nature of the transaction, just arguing about the fee
- LHS few big Js are source of all money, tail is where all the papers are – academic view) – hence whinge about £20k for a desk for an Editor , vs Commercial publishers make money from our efforts
- See? Same graph you saw earlier in the Moore’s Law explosion
- Open access doesn’t save all publisher costs But JISC say £200m, could be £500m. Repositories – institutional, subject, national, lots of ‘em Instl repositories – just put it up, Librarians handle rights. Big plus: open access articles more highly cited (correlation vs causation)
- Except for scholars outside the academy, and outside rich institutions But not insuperable – special pricing, philanthropic donations. Whole DRM business – Shibboleth and all that – waste of very clever people’s time, though.
- Mass market media isn’t, any more
- But you can get big mass: 6 million downloads on iTunesU; 20,000 fans on Facebook (Facebook apps used more); YouTube channel
- Learning resources available for use, reuse, remix, adapting, improving! MIT OpenCourseWare, Hewlett Foundation Not just course synopses, reading lists and lecture PowerPoints
- OpenLearn – 3m users. 6000-8000 hours of OU study material. OU unique – new publishing.
- Ecology of different forms. Always been multiple channels: common room Now easier, faster, more. Data too.
- Was radical in the mid-90s, broken now. Draw in people to conversation from author/referees blogs Wide-open peer review vs secret Not quite a bowl of cherries – need system up And full editorial board
- Who is a scholar? Anyone. Citizen science. Social networking for natural history. Learning journey – publications out all over the place.
- Metrics is proxy measure of quality h-index: highest n for n papers with n citations Quality again, what scholars say is (and funders)
- Reads – SSRN, popularity, analytics. Crude but effective Citations / links / comments – Ok, but no sign of quality. Technorati disaster Ratings – valuable but variable
- What’s popular is not the same as what is of excellent quality No substitute for peer review
- Can’t get round peer review Der Untergang. Landmark German film, 2004. Set in 1945. Eastern and Western fronts closing in on Hitler’s bunker. Hitler told Steiner insufficient force to repel. So the Internet remixes it – probably illegally – with silly captions. Here, he has just got the reviews back on his manuscript.