Scholarly Publishing 2.0 Squared


Published on

Slides from an Arcadia Seminar at Wolfson College, Cambridge on 1 December 2009.

How is Web 2.0 – and now Web Squared – changing scholarly publishing?

There are dramatic changes underway in the world of publishing, which have profound implications for scholarly activity. These changes are in essence quantitative (more, faster, cheaper) rather than fundamental ones of type, but the quantitative shift on this scale is in itself qualitative and transformatory. The proliferation of information and information sources make the assessment of quality and importance ever more important, and to more people. New forms of scholarly publishing have emerged, and are developing rapidly, including academics’ use of social networks and blogs, the Open Access movement, and Open Educational Resources (OER).

In this seminar, Doug Clow will explore these issues, and sketch out an organising vision of this rapidly-changing landscape, discussing the implications for authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, librarians, funders, readers, and all those with an interest in what scholars do.

Slides CC:BY - Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales.

Published in: Education, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 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.
  • Scholarly Publishing 2.0 Squared

    1. 1. Doug Clow Arcadia Seminar, Wolfson College 1 December 2009
    2. 2. Quick Quiz <ul><li>I could knock you up an n-tier authentication service architecture from scratch this evening </li></ul><ul><li>I know about Shibboleth (or, I probably ought to) </li></ul><ul><li>Isn’t that the new word for Athens? </li></ul><ul><li>I have no idea what any of these things are </li></ul><ul><li>… and I don’t care. </li></ul>
    3. 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
    4. 4. <ul><li>Big changes </li></ul><ul><li>Conflict </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Incentive incongruence </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Model of scholarly publishing </li></ul><ul><li>New forms </li></ul><ul><li>What really counts? </li></ul>
    5. 5. What is scholarly publishing?
    6. 6. <ul><li>What scholars publish! </li></ul><ul><li>A distinctive sort of conversation by researchers </li></ul><ul><li>Quality – peer review </li></ul>
    7. 7. big changes
    8. 8. Copyright © 2005 Intel Corporation Moore’s Law
    9. 9. Internet hostnames
    10. 10. More scholars More publications per scholar
    11. 13. scholarly information explosion
    12. 14. <ul><li>More scholars </li></ul><ul><li>More publications </li></ul><ul><li>More and better filters </li></ul>There is no such thing as information overload, only filter failure (Clay Shirky)
    13. 15. <ul><li>eJournals (all e collections) </li></ul><ul><li>electronic document delivery </li></ul><ul><li>CiteSeer, Zotero, Mendeley </li></ul><ul><li>Google Scholar </li></ul><ul><li>Federated search </li></ul><ul><li>TicTOCs (RSS) </li></ul>
    14. 16. no-one will thank you for implementing Shibboleth
    15. 20. incentive incongruence
    16. 21. <ul><li>Marginal cost of publishing is now nearly zero </li></ul>
    17. 22. eJournals double-digit inflation year-on-year Bundling Permissions Subscribe October Invoice January
    18. 24. <ul><li>“ It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.” </li></ul>Michael Hansen, CEO of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division, 7 May 2009
    19. 25. Open Access Gold: no barriers Green: self-archive 90%
    20. 26. Per-article costs <ul><li>£5300 Writing </li></ul><ul><li>£2900 Publisher </li></ul><ul><li>£1400 Peer review </li></ul><ul><li>(source: JISC 2009) </li></ul>
    21. 27. a simple model of scholarly publishing
    22. 29. Scaled for cost – traditional model (rough!)
    23. 30. Scaled for cost – new technology
    24. 31. Who pays? Top-rank mass market journal
    25. 32. Who pays? Low circulation journal
    26. 33. Who pays? JIME
    27. 36. <ul><li>Commercial publishers (= Libraries) </li></ul><ul><li>Universities </li></ul><ul><li>Learned societies </li></ul><ul><li>Research funders </li></ul><ul><li>Other funders </li></ul>
    28. 37. It’s not that big a deal for most scholars
    29. 38. new forms
    30. 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
    31. 43. <ul><li>Twitter, IM </li></ul><ul><li>Blogs, podcasts (iTunesU), SlideShare, YouTube </li></ul><ul><li>Open Educational Resources </li></ul><ul><li>Conference presentations/papers </li></ul><ul><li>Data repositories </li></ul><ul><li>Journal articles </li></ul><ul><li>Books </li></ul>
    32. 45. Journal of Interactive Media in Education (JIME) <ul><li>Radical open publishing – with quality </li></ul><ul><li>Author blogs submission draft </li></ul><ul><li>Editors first filter </li></ul><ul><li>Referees blog reviews </li></ul><ul><li>Author blogs revised draft </li></ul><ul><li>Editors review </li></ul><ul><li>Formal publication </li></ul>
    33. 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
    34. 47. What really counts?
    35. 48. <ul><li>Metrics – REF </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Citation counts, impact factors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>h-index (N papers with N citations) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data quality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gaming the system </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Quality, impact – Peer review </li></ul>
    36. 49. <ul><li>Reads / downloads </li></ul><ul><li>Citations / links / comments </li></ul><ul><li>Ratings </li></ul>New ways to count what counts as good
    37. 50. The Britney Spears problem
    38. 51. peer review 2.0
    39. 52. So what?
    40. 53. <ul><li>Quantitative change (more, faster, easier) </li></ul><ul><li>Explosion of scholarly publishing </li></ul><ul><li>Peer review ever more important </li></ul><ul><li>New ways to engage beyond Academy </li></ul>
    41. 54. <ul><li>Photo credits: </li></ul><ul><li>Beautiful background photos not otherwise credited: Erica Marshall of </li></ul><ul><li>Keyboard soup: </li></ul><ul><li>• Antonello da Messina, Saint Jerome in his Study, about 1475. Photo © The National Gallery, London </li></ul><ul><li>• Car dash view: Paul Stevenson </li></ul><ul><li>• Internet hosts: © Netcraft Ltd 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>• Bees: Todd Huffman </li></ul><ul><li>• Old printing press: </li></ul><ul><li>• Modern printing press: </li></ul><ul><li>• Espresso Book Machine image: On Demand Books ( ) </li></ul><ul><li>• Tools: </li></ul><ul><li>• Lego Star Wars: </li></ul><ul><li>• E-Learning and Disability in HE book: © Routledge 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>• Counterfeit pound coin: Steve Parker </li></ul><ul><li>• Neon Green with a Lightning Bolt of Gold: </li></ul><ul><li>• Long Tail graphic: Chris Anderson </li></ul><ul><li>• Easter Eggs: Sister72 </li></ul><ul><li>Various OU websites: The Open University </li></ul><ul><li>• OpenCourseWare Consortium </li></ul><ul><li>• OER Logic: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation </li></ul><ul><li>• Open Book Publishers </li></ul><ul><li>• Clownfish: Jenny Huang </li></ul><ul><li>• Britney Spears: </li></ul>(CC) Some rights reserved Attributionare Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales <ul><li>Sources/comments </li></ul><ul><li>Houghton et al, “Economic implications of alternative scholarly publishing models: Exploring the costs and benefits”, JISC, 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Clay Shirky </li></ul><ul><li>Twitter: @ciphergoth @mweller @andrew_x @jvvw @Marmara @francesbell @agneskh @KarenK @rjconnelly </li></ul>This work (cc) Some Rights Reserved Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales