The changing nature of scholarly communication  Dr. Branwen Hide August 3rd, 2010 What does this mean for researchers?
Outline <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Current research practices </li></ul><ul><li>Researcher publishing practice...
Basic research life cycle Research  Production Publication Development of research idea Post-publication distribution Pre-...
Publication and Dissemination: <ul><li>To maximize dissemination to the target audience </li></ul><ul><li>Gain peer esteem...
What influences the way researchers publish?
1. The research landscape <ul><li>significant increase in research expenditure  </li></ul><ul><li>increasing emphasis on t...
RIN (2009), Communicating knowledge: how and why researchers publish and disseminate their findings The raise in the impor...
2. Technological developments
Web 2.0 tools and resources web based tools and resources which  encourage wide scale informal   dissemination ,  sharing ...
Who uses the web and why <ul><li>A strong belief that web 2.0 tools will: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>enable and encourage n...
Researchers as generators of knowledge Using web 2.0 tools to producing, commenting on, and share scholarly content Type o...
Researcher as a user of knowledge: Digital resources as a research tool <ul><li>Electronic publications </li></ul><ul><li>...
3. Policy developments Funding cuts Research Assessment Public engagement Impact Knowledge Transfer Data management plans ...
Changes to publication practices <ul><li>electronic and open access publishing  </li></ul><ul><li>posting text, slides and...
Research 2.0 Research  Production Development of research idea Publication and distribution Pre-publication dissemination ...
Conclusion <ul><li>Scholarly communications can not be seen in isolation </li></ul><ul><li>Developments must support  tech...
Recommendations for libraries <ul><li>Maintain and improve access to e-content </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Especially for th...
Food for thought <ul><li>Can social media/web 2.0 tools help researchers meet policy objectives?  </li></ul><ul><li>Is eve...
Dr. Branwen Hide Liaison and Partnership Officer Research Information Network [email_address] www.rin.ac.uk
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The changing nature of scholarly communication. What does this mean for researchers?

3,257 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). at the ALISS 2010 conference Innovations in social policy information and research support. The RIN is a small policy unit funded by the UK higher education councils, the seven research councils and the three national libraries.

Published in: Education
1 Comment
11 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,257
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
23
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
70
Comments
1
Likes
11
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • I have been asked to talk about the changing nature of scholarly communications and the implications this has for researchers But I would like approach this in a slightly different manner and look at current researcher practises and talk about the factors that influence researcher behaviour And then examine what the implications are for those within the scholarly communications landscape I hope that when I finish you will understand why I have chosen to approach the topic in this way. As for personal background – I have been working for the RIN for 2 years as the liaison and partnerships officer and prior to the I completed a PhD at Oxford in Biochemistry.
  • I have just put together a simplified version of a research life cycle to help us identify the basic components of research and to think about how we approach the different steps There is a lot of overlap between the different stages but we tend to still think about and talk about the different stages as discrete steps Might be more accurate in this context to talk about it in simpler terms related to the role of researcher and researchers 1) to generate knowledge 2) to use knowledge Important to bare in mind these 2 different and often conflicting roles when talking about both researcher behaviour and scholarly communications
  • We know that in general the reasons why researchers publish has not changed very much for the past few years And that the types of out puts they publish has not changed that much either – it is more medium in which they are produced that has changed. What I mean is that researchers still produce journal articles – they are just now more likely to be produced electronically; instead of writing a letter to a journal commenting on a paper you might write a blog – but the principle and the reasoning behind them is the same. But we are all well aware the scholarly communications landscape is changing. So the question is what is instigating these changes?
  • The perception, and in many cases, the realty that their work is being monitored and assessed has a major influence on how it is communicated And as a result research outputs are becoming increasingly important commodity
  • As a result starting to see an increase in journal article production in areas that didn’t traditional publish in journals. Such as humanities and education
  • World wide web User generated content Social media Open research practices Suppercomputing Cloud computing Mobile computing (blackberry and ipad) - Many of these underpin or are a result of web 2.0 technology
  • Producers of knowledge: dissemination and sharing Users of knowledge: collaborations and re-purposing the definition is not limited to technologies but also includes the changing ways in which individuals and groups produce and communicate information
  • Over the past few years, there has been a growing increase in the use of the internet within research, and tied to this is the rapid development of new tools and services being launched by commercial players as well as arising from the efforts of research communities, information service providers and knowledge intermediaries such as publishers and conference organizers Researchers and proponents of open research practises report a number of benefits of using these tools and resources: Saves time, enhances collaborations, find new sources of information, enhanced visibility, Given these benefits it is believed that the majority of researchers use or plan to use these tools in the future
  • Yet depsite the advantages i mentioned before, few researchers are using web 2.0 tools and resouces for dissemination many researchers are reluctant due to fears of being ‘scooped’, missinterpretation of data, copyright and IP issues, and the lack of recognition and reward (RIN 2008).
  • A number of our reports have highlighted the growing use and reliance of e-journals and online databases One area our report on the us of web 2.0 tools and resources did not examine in detail was the use of these resources as research tools Google Flu - estimate current flu activity around the world in near real-time E-epidemiology - adapting epidemiological data collection to the 21st century Linguistic analysis of myspace and facebook pages Ordnance survey maps Cyberpsychology Asd What is becoming clear is the distinction between the researcher as a producer and as a user of knowledge is becoming blurred.
  • These initiatives can have a profound effect on researcher behaviour as well as scholarly communications development But as you can see many of these policy initiatives conflict, or more importantly are perceived to conflict, in the eyes of researchers e.g. research assessment and open access/data sharing
  • To support these policy and technological development we are seeing a number of changes to the scholarly communications landscape This just gives an over view of some of the changes that are occurring As I mentioned previously, the development of new and innovative publishing and searching platform, tools and services being launched by commercial players as well as arising from the research communities, information service providers and knowledge intermediaries such as publishers and conference organizers There is also a move to publish research data, linking information within publications to existing data bases, and enhanced annotation of research outputs Commenting, moderating and rating are also being introduced as new ways of undertaking peer review
  • Whole research cycle is affect by policy, technology (including) social media and I already mentioned some changes that are happening within the publishing community and touched on peer review, but you can see that there area number of implications for the future of peer review Boundaries are starting to become blurred and there is less of a distinction between producer and user of knowledge
  • - Disciplinary differences – these used to be much more defined – humanities vs sciences but now we are seeing areas such digital humanities
  • The changing nature of scholarly communication. What does this mean for researchers?

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

    ×