This document summarizes the work of the NISO/ALPSP Journal Article Versions working group. It introduces the working group members and their tasks, which include creating standardized terminology for different versions of journal articles. The working group recommended terms like "Author's Original," "Accepted Manuscript," "Version of Record," and others. It also includes feedback from the working group's Review Group and discusses next steps.
Wetland managers need tools to assess how climate change may impact wetlands and identify appropriate adaptation options. The document presents an adaptation toolkit for wetland managers that allows them to evaluate the sensitivity of existing or new wetlands to climate change risks and helps identify management changes. The online, free to use toolkit scores wetlands based on how climate change may impact their key hydrological characteristics and associated vegetation and wildlife. Feedback is sought to improve the toolkit and ensure it helps with decision-making around wetland management under climate change.
The document discusses developing a mobile app to help students revise anytime and anywhere without internet access. The app would allow users to access digital textbooks stored on their phone for last-minute revision on the go. Testing with students found a need for offline revision help via mobile when internet is unavailable. The proposed app aims to meet this need by allowing cached textbook access without internet connectivity.
This document discusses psychological approaches to health and their impacts on health promotion. It defines psychological aspects of health and lists common approaches like the biopsychosocial model. The key points made are that psychology influences health through emotional, behavioral and mental characteristics. Behavior is a major factor influencing physical health. While psychological approaches can help health promotion through education and behavior change advice, there are also some setbacks like certain views that illness is imaginary or issues with multicultural acceptance in medical settings.
Freud's psychodynamic theory proposes that early childhood experiences and unconscious thoughts influence our behaviors. The theory describes three divisions of the mind - the id, ego, and superego - that develop during different stages from infancy through adulthood. Anxiety results from conflicts between the primitive desires of the id and moral goals of the superego, which people defend against using mechanisms like rationalization, denial, and repression.
The psychodynamic perspective focuses on explaining behavior through unconscious sexual conflicts from childhood. It assumes that early relationships with parents shape personality. Freud's case study of Little Hans showed the boy's sexual attraction to his mother and fear of his father through dreams and behaviors. Thigpen and Cleckley's study of "Eve" found her multiple personalities developed after childhood trauma, supporting the idea that early events influence later personality. Projective tests were used but rely on subjective interpretation. While psychodynamic theory helped further understanding of mental illness, Freud's findings have limited generalizability due to focusing on single case studies within a specific cultural context.
Vegetative propagation is an important technique in modern Indian agriculture to increase crop yields. It involves reproducing plants through plant parts like stems, roots, and leaves rather than seeds. The key types of vegetative propagation discussed are cuttings, layering, and grafting. Cuttings involve propagating plants from stem, root, or leaf cuttings taken from a mother plant. Layering causes a stem to root while still attached to the parent plant. Grafting involves joining tissue from one plant onto another to propagate commercially important crops like mangoes. Vegetative propagation allows for mass production of plants with desired traits and is widely used in horticultural nurseries.
This document discusses open access publishing and citation metrics. It argues that open access articles have more readers and citations than articles behind paywalls, citing research showing an open access citation advantage of 25-250%. It provides an overview of citation indexes and metrics like the h-index and g-index. The document recommends that scholars publish in open access journals or repositories when possible to enlarge their audience and impact. Overall it promotes the benefits of open access for both readers and scholars.
Wetland managers need tools to assess how climate change may impact wetlands and identify appropriate adaptation options. The document presents an adaptation toolkit for wetland managers that allows them to evaluate the sensitivity of existing or new wetlands to climate change risks and helps identify management changes. The online, free to use toolkit scores wetlands based on how climate change may impact their key hydrological characteristics and associated vegetation and wildlife. Feedback is sought to improve the toolkit and ensure it helps with decision-making around wetland management under climate change.
The document discusses developing a mobile app to help students revise anytime and anywhere without internet access. The app would allow users to access digital textbooks stored on their phone for last-minute revision on the go. Testing with students found a need for offline revision help via mobile when internet is unavailable. The proposed app aims to meet this need by allowing cached textbook access without internet connectivity.
This document discusses psychological approaches to health and their impacts on health promotion. It defines psychological aspects of health and lists common approaches like the biopsychosocial model. The key points made are that psychology influences health through emotional, behavioral and mental characteristics. Behavior is a major factor influencing physical health. While psychological approaches can help health promotion through education and behavior change advice, there are also some setbacks like certain views that illness is imaginary or issues with multicultural acceptance in medical settings.
Freud's psychodynamic theory proposes that early childhood experiences and unconscious thoughts influence our behaviors. The theory describes three divisions of the mind - the id, ego, and superego - that develop during different stages from infancy through adulthood. Anxiety results from conflicts between the primitive desires of the id and moral goals of the superego, which people defend against using mechanisms like rationalization, denial, and repression.
The psychodynamic perspective focuses on explaining behavior through unconscious sexual conflicts from childhood. It assumes that early relationships with parents shape personality. Freud's case study of Little Hans showed the boy's sexual attraction to his mother and fear of his father through dreams and behaviors. Thigpen and Cleckley's study of "Eve" found her multiple personalities developed after childhood trauma, supporting the idea that early events influence later personality. Projective tests were used but rely on subjective interpretation. While psychodynamic theory helped further understanding of mental illness, Freud's findings have limited generalizability due to focusing on single case studies within a specific cultural context.
Vegetative propagation is an important technique in modern Indian agriculture to increase crop yields. It involves reproducing plants through plant parts like stems, roots, and leaves rather than seeds. The key types of vegetative propagation discussed are cuttings, layering, and grafting. Cuttings involve propagating plants from stem, root, or leaf cuttings taken from a mother plant. Layering causes a stem to root while still attached to the parent plant. Grafting involves joining tissue from one plant onto another to propagate commercially important crops like mangoes. Vegetative propagation allows for mass production of plants with desired traits and is widely used in horticultural nurseries.
This document discusses open access publishing and citation metrics. It argues that open access articles have more readers and citations than articles behind paywalls, citing research showing an open access citation advantage of 25-250%. It provides an overview of citation indexes and metrics like the h-index and g-index. The document recommends that scholars publish in open access journals or repositories when possible to enlarge their audience and impact. Overall it promotes the benefits of open access for both readers and scholars.
Philip Bourne summarizes his perspective as a domain scientist and co-founder of an open access journal and company. He argues that the current system of formal science communication occurs too slowly, reaches too few people, costs too much, ignores data, and is stuck in the era of print. His dream is for a system that integrates literature, data, and methods, allowing users to analyze figures, access related information with links, and engage in a knowledge and data cycle. He discusses some contributions toward more open, reproducible, and integrated systems but notes challenges integrating workflows and changing reward systems to fully realize this vision.
The document describes Earthster Core Ontology (ECO), a domain ontology for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). ECO aims to provide a vocabulary for core LCA concepts to publish LCA data on the web in a semantically interoperable way. It defines concepts like Process, Quantified Effect, and Elementary Flow. ECO is still under development with feedback from the LCA community. Its goals are to extend existing LCA data structures, link data sources, and allow for flexible extension over time as the field evolves.
This document discusses provenance and collaboration in science. It presents use cases in astronomy, biology, and other disciplines to illustrate challenges around data packaging, preservation, retrieval and reuse of scientific workflows. These include dealing with large datasets, versioning data from external sources, and understanding and reusing other researchers' workflows. The role of research objects and linked data for supporting provenance, identity, context and the lifecycle of scientific work is also examined.
What are the challenges in exploring the existing journal literature and new forms of scientific communication? Ultimately in the online, digital environment, everyone is a potential consumer and reviewer of scientific content. What tools currently exist, and what future types of content certification and metrics can we imagine?
PLoS - Why It is a Model to be EmulatedPhilip Bourne
The document discusses the Public Library of Science (PLoS) and why it is a model for open access scientific publishing. PLoS was founded to make scientific literature openly accessible. It publishes several open access journals, including PLoS Biology, PLoS Medicine, and PLoS ONE, a "mega journal" that publishes scientifically sound research from any field. PLoS aims to drive change in publishing towards open access models and make science more comprehensible. It uses many web tools and operates using a liberal open license to encourage sharing of research.
Keynote: SemSci 2017: Enabling Open Semantic Science
1st International Workshop co-located with ISWC 2017, October 2017, Vienna, Austria,
https://semsci.github.io/semSci2017/
Abstract
We have all grown up with the research article and article collections (let’s call them libraries) as the prime means of scientific discourse. But research output is more than just the rhetorical narrative. The experimental methods, computational codes, data, algorithms, workflows, Standard Operating Procedures, samples and so on are the objects of research that enable reuse and reproduction of scientific experiments, and they too need to be examined and exchanged as research knowledge.
We can think of “Research Objects” as different types and as packages all the components of an investigation. If we stop thinking of publishing papers and start thinking of releasing Research Objects (software), then scholar exchange is a new game: ROs and their content evolve; they are multi-authored and their authorship evolves; they are a mix of virtual and embedded, and so on.
But first, some baby steps before we get carried away with a new vision of scholarly communication. Many journals (e.g. eLife, F1000, Elsevier) are just figuring out how to package together the supplementary materials of a paper. Data catalogues are figuring out how to virtually package multiple datasets scattered across many repositories to keep the integrated experimental context.
Research Objects [1] (http://researchobject.org/) is a framework by which the many, nested and contributed components of research can be packaged together in a systematic way, and their context, provenance and relationships richly described. The brave new world of containerisation provides the containers and Linked Data provides the metadata framework for the container manifest construction and profiles. It’s not just theory, but also in practice with examples in Systems Biology modelling, Bioinformatics computational workflows, and Health Informatics data exchange. I’ll talk about why and how we got here, the framework and examples, and what we need to do.
[1] Sean Bechhofer, Iain Buchan, David De Roure, Paolo Missier, John Ainsworth, Jiten Bhagat, Philip Couch, Don Cruickshank, Mark Delderfield, Ian Dunlop, Matthew Gamble, Danius Michaelides, Stuart Owen, David Newman, Shoaib Sufi, Carole Goble, Why linked data is not enough for scientists, In Future Generation Computer Systems, Volume 29, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 599-611, ISSN 0167-739X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2011.08.004
What Did They Do? Deriving High-Level Edit Histories in WikisRobert Biuk-Aghai
1. The document proposes a method to automatically analyze wiki edit histories and derive high-level descriptions of the edits.
2. It describes a prototype system called the Wiki Edit History Analyzer that uses text differencing and rule-based categorization to analyze edits and generate summaries.
3. An evaluation of the prototype found an average agreement rate of 84.1% between the system's edit categorizations and those of human evaluators. The system is still being improved based on findings from the preliminary evaluation.
This document provides guidance on finding and using chemical information sources. It discusses finding reliable journal articles, review papers, chemical data, and information on enzymes and compounds. It also covers citing references in the ACS citation style and using tools like Google Scholar. Key sources mentioned include databases like SciFinder and Scopus for peer-reviewed articles, BRENDA for enzyme data, and ChemWatch for safety information. The document emphasizes evaluating sources and the role of peer review in ensuring reliability.
ScienceOpen: Rethinking Peer Review / Young Academy of ScotlandScienceOpen
Hosted by the RSE Young Academy of Scotland Open Data Working Group
The scholarly publishing paradigm is changing – Open Access, altmetrics, data-mining are increasingly setting new standards. A recent Royal Society conference on “The Future of Scholarly Scientific Communication” called in particular for sweeping reforms to the current system of peer review. The new platform ScienceOpen has taken up the challenge. In order to put the evaluation of research back in the hands of researchers, we are experimenting with new forms of author-mediated pre-publication peer review. Published articles are open for transparent post-publication peer review and versioning to reflect feedback as the scientific community reads, works with, attempts to reproduce and builds on the results. The essential efforts of peer reviewers in this process are recognized with a citable CrossRef DOI for their report. ScienceOpen goes further to extend this open research evaluation process to over 1.5 million aggregated Open Access publications. We are taking advantage of this transitional moment to rethink how scientific communication, and particularly peer review could function in the future, because we believe that scholarly publishing is not an end in itself, but the beginning of a dialogue to move the whole scientific venture forward.
(1) The document discusses the review process for submitted manuscripts, including inviting reviewers, receiving reviews, the editor's decision, and potential revisions.
(2) It then covers understanding publishing agreements, including allowed uses of pre-print, post-print, and final published versions.
(3) The document also addresses ethics in publishing, open access, creative commons licenses, debunks myths about open access publishing, and discusses emerging trends like altmetrics and open data/linking.
This document provides an overview of the materials science publishing process and tips for maximizing success. It discusses what journal editors do, the peer review process, and how to write submissions that are most likely to be accepted for publication. Key points include choosing an appropriate journal, writing an effective cover letter, addressing reviewer feedback, and adapting to changes in the digital scholarly landscape.
This document summarizes discovery service adoption rates among major library vendors. It reports that EBSCO has the largest number of subscribers to its discovery service (EDS) at 5,612 libraries. OCLC reports 1,717 libraries using WorldCat Local, and Ex Libris has licensed Primo to 1,407 libraries. The document also provides subscriber numbers for ProQuest Summon. It examines themes from user research on discovery services and outlines features and capabilities of EBSCO's EDS product.
This document provides guidance on scholarly publishing. It discusses why researchers publish, the publishing process, and resources for writing, peer review, and promoting publications. Key steps include choosing a suitable journal based on scope and impact, understanding author responsibilities, and using reference managers. Ongoing writing and seeking feedback is encouraged. The document emphasizes communicating research findings through publication to increase impact and build reputation. Contact information is provided for the UQ Scholarly Publishing Team for additional support.
Software Repositories for Research-- An Environmental ScanMicah Altman
This document provides a summary of the state of software curation based on an environmental scan of research software repositories and related practices. The summary finds:
1) There are no comprehensive indices of software archives and orders of magnitude fewer software archives than data archives. Institutional repositories offer little functionality for software archiving.
2) Very few funders have policies addressing software curation. There is little available advice for researchers who wish to curate, cite, and preserve software.
3) Substantial reproducibility failures continue to be reported due to a lack of software preservation. In summary, software curation looks a lot like data curation did a decade ago, with no universal standards for citing and archiving software.
Usability Testing a Public ERM: Worth the Effort?Stephanie Brown
Reviews the overall usability testing process, then discusses the usability testing UConn Libraries completed in academic year 2006-07 and rolled out in March 2007. Presentation for Eastern Connecticut State Libraries, January 2008.
The document introduces CrossMark, a service from CrossRef that helps researchers cite articles with certainty by providing versioning information and notifications of corrections, retractions, and other content changes. It notes that while the "version of record" concept works for print, in the digital environment articles are dynamic and may be updated or corrected. CrossMark aims to address issues like the lack of consistent notifications about article changes, multiple versions available online, and difficulties determining the status and version of downloaded PDFs. The presentation provides examples of inconsistencies and limitations in how publications currently handle content changes and corrections.
This document provides an overview of a two-day training course on RDA for original catalogers. Day one will cover the background and history of RDA, FRBR concepts, authority records, and cataloging monographic materials using RDA. Day two will cover cataloging serials, audiovisual materials, online resources, and provider-neutral records using RDA, as well as relationships. The document outlines the course, provides context on the development and testing of RDA, and previews some of the key changes and concepts in RDA compared to AACR2.
This document provides guidance for vendors responding to a request for proposal (RFP). It outlines the key steps, which include reading the RFP thoroughly, establishing win themes in an internal kickoff meeting, collecting questions, framing the response, ensuring proper grammar, conducting an internal review, submitting before the deadline, preparing for presentations as an assembled team with rehearsal, taking nothing for granted by being overly prepared, negotiating if selected, celebrating the outcome, and conducting a post-mortem review.
The document discusses the request for proposal (RFP) process. It defines an RFP as an invitation for vendors to submit proposals to provide goods or services to an organization. The document outlines the key steps in the RFP process, including assessing needs, preparing and distributing the RFP, evaluating proposals, conducting presentations, and negotiating contracts. It provides guidance on elements to include in an RFP, questions to ask vendors, tips for evaluating proposals and presentations, and best practices for negotiations.
Philip Bourne summarizes his perspective as a domain scientist and co-founder of an open access journal and company. He argues that the current system of formal science communication occurs too slowly, reaches too few people, costs too much, ignores data, and is stuck in the era of print. His dream is for a system that integrates literature, data, and methods, allowing users to analyze figures, access related information with links, and engage in a knowledge and data cycle. He discusses some contributions toward more open, reproducible, and integrated systems but notes challenges integrating workflows and changing reward systems to fully realize this vision.
The document describes Earthster Core Ontology (ECO), a domain ontology for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). ECO aims to provide a vocabulary for core LCA concepts to publish LCA data on the web in a semantically interoperable way. It defines concepts like Process, Quantified Effect, and Elementary Flow. ECO is still under development with feedback from the LCA community. Its goals are to extend existing LCA data structures, link data sources, and allow for flexible extension over time as the field evolves.
This document discusses provenance and collaboration in science. It presents use cases in astronomy, biology, and other disciplines to illustrate challenges around data packaging, preservation, retrieval and reuse of scientific workflows. These include dealing with large datasets, versioning data from external sources, and understanding and reusing other researchers' workflows. The role of research objects and linked data for supporting provenance, identity, context and the lifecycle of scientific work is also examined.
What are the challenges in exploring the existing journal literature and new forms of scientific communication? Ultimately in the online, digital environment, everyone is a potential consumer and reviewer of scientific content. What tools currently exist, and what future types of content certification and metrics can we imagine?
PLoS - Why It is a Model to be EmulatedPhilip Bourne
The document discusses the Public Library of Science (PLoS) and why it is a model for open access scientific publishing. PLoS was founded to make scientific literature openly accessible. It publishes several open access journals, including PLoS Biology, PLoS Medicine, and PLoS ONE, a "mega journal" that publishes scientifically sound research from any field. PLoS aims to drive change in publishing towards open access models and make science more comprehensible. It uses many web tools and operates using a liberal open license to encourage sharing of research.
Keynote: SemSci 2017: Enabling Open Semantic Science
1st International Workshop co-located with ISWC 2017, October 2017, Vienna, Austria,
https://semsci.github.io/semSci2017/
Abstract
We have all grown up with the research article and article collections (let’s call them libraries) as the prime means of scientific discourse. But research output is more than just the rhetorical narrative. The experimental methods, computational codes, data, algorithms, workflows, Standard Operating Procedures, samples and so on are the objects of research that enable reuse and reproduction of scientific experiments, and they too need to be examined and exchanged as research knowledge.
We can think of “Research Objects” as different types and as packages all the components of an investigation. If we stop thinking of publishing papers and start thinking of releasing Research Objects (software), then scholar exchange is a new game: ROs and their content evolve; they are multi-authored and their authorship evolves; they are a mix of virtual and embedded, and so on.
But first, some baby steps before we get carried away with a new vision of scholarly communication. Many journals (e.g. eLife, F1000, Elsevier) are just figuring out how to package together the supplementary materials of a paper. Data catalogues are figuring out how to virtually package multiple datasets scattered across many repositories to keep the integrated experimental context.
Research Objects [1] (http://researchobject.org/) is a framework by which the many, nested and contributed components of research can be packaged together in a systematic way, and their context, provenance and relationships richly described. The brave new world of containerisation provides the containers and Linked Data provides the metadata framework for the container manifest construction and profiles. It’s not just theory, but also in practice with examples in Systems Biology modelling, Bioinformatics computational workflows, and Health Informatics data exchange. I’ll talk about why and how we got here, the framework and examples, and what we need to do.
[1] Sean Bechhofer, Iain Buchan, David De Roure, Paolo Missier, John Ainsworth, Jiten Bhagat, Philip Couch, Don Cruickshank, Mark Delderfield, Ian Dunlop, Matthew Gamble, Danius Michaelides, Stuart Owen, David Newman, Shoaib Sufi, Carole Goble, Why linked data is not enough for scientists, In Future Generation Computer Systems, Volume 29, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 599-611, ISSN 0167-739X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2011.08.004
What Did They Do? Deriving High-Level Edit Histories in WikisRobert Biuk-Aghai
1. The document proposes a method to automatically analyze wiki edit histories and derive high-level descriptions of the edits.
2. It describes a prototype system called the Wiki Edit History Analyzer that uses text differencing and rule-based categorization to analyze edits and generate summaries.
3. An evaluation of the prototype found an average agreement rate of 84.1% between the system's edit categorizations and those of human evaluators. The system is still being improved based on findings from the preliminary evaluation.
This document provides guidance on finding and using chemical information sources. It discusses finding reliable journal articles, review papers, chemical data, and information on enzymes and compounds. It also covers citing references in the ACS citation style and using tools like Google Scholar. Key sources mentioned include databases like SciFinder and Scopus for peer-reviewed articles, BRENDA for enzyme data, and ChemWatch for safety information. The document emphasizes evaluating sources and the role of peer review in ensuring reliability.
ScienceOpen: Rethinking Peer Review / Young Academy of ScotlandScienceOpen
Hosted by the RSE Young Academy of Scotland Open Data Working Group
The scholarly publishing paradigm is changing – Open Access, altmetrics, data-mining are increasingly setting new standards. A recent Royal Society conference on “The Future of Scholarly Scientific Communication” called in particular for sweeping reforms to the current system of peer review. The new platform ScienceOpen has taken up the challenge. In order to put the evaluation of research back in the hands of researchers, we are experimenting with new forms of author-mediated pre-publication peer review. Published articles are open for transparent post-publication peer review and versioning to reflect feedback as the scientific community reads, works with, attempts to reproduce and builds on the results. The essential efforts of peer reviewers in this process are recognized with a citable CrossRef DOI for their report. ScienceOpen goes further to extend this open research evaluation process to over 1.5 million aggregated Open Access publications. We are taking advantage of this transitional moment to rethink how scientific communication, and particularly peer review could function in the future, because we believe that scholarly publishing is not an end in itself, but the beginning of a dialogue to move the whole scientific venture forward.
(1) The document discusses the review process for submitted manuscripts, including inviting reviewers, receiving reviews, the editor's decision, and potential revisions.
(2) It then covers understanding publishing agreements, including allowed uses of pre-print, post-print, and final published versions.
(3) The document also addresses ethics in publishing, open access, creative commons licenses, debunks myths about open access publishing, and discusses emerging trends like altmetrics and open data/linking.
This document provides an overview of the materials science publishing process and tips for maximizing success. It discusses what journal editors do, the peer review process, and how to write submissions that are most likely to be accepted for publication. Key points include choosing an appropriate journal, writing an effective cover letter, addressing reviewer feedback, and adapting to changes in the digital scholarly landscape.
This document summarizes discovery service adoption rates among major library vendors. It reports that EBSCO has the largest number of subscribers to its discovery service (EDS) at 5,612 libraries. OCLC reports 1,717 libraries using WorldCat Local, and Ex Libris has licensed Primo to 1,407 libraries. The document also provides subscriber numbers for ProQuest Summon. It examines themes from user research on discovery services and outlines features and capabilities of EBSCO's EDS product.
This document provides guidance on scholarly publishing. It discusses why researchers publish, the publishing process, and resources for writing, peer review, and promoting publications. Key steps include choosing a suitable journal based on scope and impact, understanding author responsibilities, and using reference managers. Ongoing writing and seeking feedback is encouraged. The document emphasizes communicating research findings through publication to increase impact and build reputation. Contact information is provided for the UQ Scholarly Publishing Team for additional support.
Software Repositories for Research-- An Environmental ScanMicah Altman
This document provides a summary of the state of software curation based on an environmental scan of research software repositories and related practices. The summary finds:
1) There are no comprehensive indices of software archives and orders of magnitude fewer software archives than data archives. Institutional repositories offer little functionality for software archiving.
2) Very few funders have policies addressing software curation. There is little available advice for researchers who wish to curate, cite, and preserve software.
3) Substantial reproducibility failures continue to be reported due to a lack of software preservation. In summary, software curation looks a lot like data curation did a decade ago, with no universal standards for citing and archiving software.
Usability Testing a Public ERM: Worth the Effort?Stephanie Brown
Reviews the overall usability testing process, then discusses the usability testing UConn Libraries completed in academic year 2006-07 and rolled out in March 2007. Presentation for Eastern Connecticut State Libraries, January 2008.
The document introduces CrossMark, a service from CrossRef that helps researchers cite articles with certainty by providing versioning information and notifications of corrections, retractions, and other content changes. It notes that while the "version of record" concept works for print, in the digital environment articles are dynamic and may be updated or corrected. CrossMark aims to address issues like the lack of consistent notifications about article changes, multiple versions available online, and difficulties determining the status and version of downloaded PDFs. The presentation provides examples of inconsistencies and limitations in how publications currently handle content changes and corrections.
This document provides an overview of a two-day training course on RDA for original catalogers. Day one will cover the background and history of RDA, FRBR concepts, authority records, and cataloging monographic materials using RDA. Day two will cover cataloging serials, audiovisual materials, online resources, and provider-neutral records using RDA, as well as relationships. The document outlines the course, provides context on the development and testing of RDA, and previews some of the key changes and concepts in RDA compared to AACR2.
This document provides guidance for vendors responding to a request for proposal (RFP). It outlines the key steps, which include reading the RFP thoroughly, establishing win themes in an internal kickoff meeting, collecting questions, framing the response, ensuring proper grammar, conducting an internal review, submitting before the deadline, preparing for presentations as an assembled team with rehearsal, taking nothing for granted by being overly prepared, negotiating if selected, celebrating the outcome, and conducting a post-mortem review.
The document discusses the request for proposal (RFP) process. It defines an RFP as an invitation for vendors to submit proposals to provide goods or services to an organization. The document outlines the key steps in the RFP process, including assessing needs, preparing and distributing the RFP, evaluating proposals, conducting presentations, and negotiating contracts. It provides guidance on elements to include in an RFP, questions to ask vendors, tips for evaluating proposals and presentations, and best practices for negotiations.
This document discusses the RFP (Request for Proposal) process. It begins by outlining when an RFP may be needed, such as when a contract is up for renewal or there are issues with the current vendor. It then discusses selecting a consultant to manage the RFP process if desired. The document outlines the consultant's role in defining needs, identifying vendors, developing the RFP, managing communications and evaluations. Key aspects of the RFP are described like requirements, expectations and allowing vendor questions. The proposal, demo and contract phases are also summarized. The goal is to have a smooth transition to the new vendor selected through this competitive process.
This document provides guidance on executing a successful RFP (request for proposal) process. It begins by outlining when an RFP is the right tool and when it may not be suitable. When scope is unclear or requirements are not well defined, a project charter can help determine the best path forward. The document emphasizes treating the RFP as a process, not just a document, with clear communication and sufficient time allotted. It also provides tips on prioritizing requirements, evaluating differentiators between vendors, negotiating contracts, and determining when to engage a consultant.
This document summarizes a seminar on networking for career development. The speaker has over 24 years of experience in strategy, sales, legal, and business development. They will discuss their experiences as a mentee, peer, and mentor. Networking is defined as developing business opportunities through referrals and introductions in person or online to build enduring relationships. The speaker will discuss why networking and mentoring are important for meeting people in your field, learning industry dynamics, and finding new opportunities. They will provide tips on how to network strategically including starting with goals, focusing on personal connections, using professional societies and social networks, and maintaining a long-term perspective. Contact details are provided for anyone seeking mentoring advice.
Elizabeth Demers is a senior acquisitions editor at Johns Hopkins University Press with 20 years of experience in academic and trade publishing. She signs 20-30 books per year, including monographs, trade titles, and course adoption books. She commissions new books, evaluates submitted manuscripts, provides developmental edits, and attends conferences to promote books and the press. Her talk discusses strategies for networking to build professional connections in two areas: building her book list through conferences, outreach, and social media; and finding future career opportunities by getting involved in the industry and being generous with her time and recommendations.
Angela Cochran is a director, mother, wife, daughter, and volunteer leader who advocates for networking through volunteering and active participation. She recommends getting involved in committees and leadership roles to meet people, learn negotiation and collaboration skills, and gain experience in governance. Cochran also suggests attending professional events to ask questions, start conversations, exchange business cards, contribute online, and speak up so others realize your knowledge and potential to contribute.
Digital Science's mission is to fuel scientific discovery with software that simplifies research. They aim to empower researchers with disruptive technology. They incubate and invest in startups in the research field, with the goal of making research simpler so researchers have more time for discovery. Digital Science is a technology company that serves the needs of scientific research by changing the way science works.
The document discusses diversity and inclusion in mentorship at the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). It describes the ASCE Diversity & Inclusion Council established in 2014 with a mission to foster understanding and cultivate an inclusive workforce. The council has 13 members from different departments, designations, races, ethnicities, and genders. It also works with a separate committee for ASCE's over 150,000 members from 177 countries. Activities to promote diversity include highlighting heritage months, lunch-and-learn sessions on topics like disability etiquette and working styles, and inviting outside speakers on bias. Mentorship can be formal or informal and aims to bridge gaps in skills, self-awareness, and confidence through
The Mentorship Program at T&F was created in 2010 based on employee feedback requesting guidance and support from experienced employees. The program is informal with 1:1 mentoring relationships lasting 6-12 months between employees in different divisions. Over 70 matches have been made in 5 years with only 2 not working out. Benefits include 20% of participants being promoted, 10% transferring, and under 5% turnover. The program increased employee engagement and led to improved productivity and cost savings.
This document discusses mentoring at the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). It provides details about the pilot mentoring program launched in 2014 and the full program launched in 2015. Key points include pairing mentees and mentors, providing training and guidelines, and collecting feedback. The program aimed to facilitate a culture shift at ASCE to emphasize core values like trust, teamwork and excellence. Lessons learned include ensuring mentors and mentees are a good match and maintaining expectations. The author provides their own experience being paired as a mentor and mentee.
The document discusses advice and mentorship. It presents a series of fictional scenarios where a person seeks advice at different career stages and receives both helpful and unhelpful advice. It then provides recommendations for finding mentors and making the most of advice received, such as looking across different fields, mentoring others, and remembering that not all advice should be followed. The overall message is that while advice can be good or bad, it is still useful to consider different perspectives to help advance one's career.
October Ivins has worked in various library and information science roles since 1985, including positions at UNC Chapel Hill Library, LSU Baton Rouge Library, and UT Austin. She has been involved with professional organizations like ALA, NASIG, and SSP since 1981. As an independent consultant since 2001, Ivins mentors others on career development topics such as getting the most out of conferences, choosing positions, supervisor and coworker issues, and professional associations. Her document provides advice on training opportunities, managing staff, getting referrals, and preparing for phone interviews.
Early in one's career, a formal mentor is not necessary as support can be found from observing mid-to-late career colleagues. Peer mentoring through collaboration with other managers, especially other women managers, can also be effective. As careers advance, having a women mentor becomes important as women face unique challenges in the workplace and mentors help other women navigate their careers. Without any mentor, one risks lacking career advice, feeling stagnant in their career progression, and experiencing periods of career confusion with no expert to provide guidance.
Adrian Stanley discussed his experience mentoring fellows through the SSP program. He explained that mentoring involves softer guidance to help mentees develop over the long term through balanced listening, directing, and connecting. Fellows benefit from the experience and connections of mentors, who can help open doors, share new perspectives, and make introductions to expand networks and opportunities in the industry. Feedback from fellows showed mentoring helped them learn from experience, feel more included and secure asking questions, and broaden their industry perspectives.
The document discusses two kinds of mentorship at the nonprofit organization BioOne. It provides an overview of BioOne's mission to make scientific research more accessible and its founding by both library and publisher interests. It then defines a "culture of mentorship" as a work environment where employees feel comfortable getting advice from supervisors and colleagues, who see them as whole people rather than just skills. The second kind of mentorship is described as a more traditional unofficial mentor who provides professional guidance. It concludes by listing the executive staff of BioOne and contact information for the speaker.
This document provides a summary of October Ivins' career experience and areas of expertise. It lists her educational background, including degrees from UNC Chapel Hill Library in 1974-1985, UNC Chapel Hill SILS in 1985-1987, and LSU Baton Rouge Library in 1987-1995. It also outlines her work experience at UT Austin SILS from 1995-1998, Publist.com from 1998-2000, Booktech.com from 2000-2001, and as an independent consultant from 2001-present. The document then discusses how her definition of an information professional has loosened over time to include various managerial roles. It concludes by listing topics she provides career coaching and mentoring on, such as choosing jobs
Mohammad H Asadi Lari presented on creating an office culture of mentorship from the perspective of an early career student and mentee. He discussed his experiences being mentored through the SSP Fellowship program and beyond. Emerging trends in early career mentorship include more organizations introducing formal mentorship opportunities and an increase in both professional and peer mentoring models. Mentorship provides visible benefits like networking and career development, as well as hidden benefits beyond initial programs.
This document discusses opportunities for Western academic publishers in China. It notes that China is a rapidly growing market with increasing research output and funding. However, it is also highly competitive. The document outlines several strategies publishers can consider to engage with the Chinese market, including developing local language materials, using social media platforms allowed in China, attending Chinese conferences, exploring co-publishing opportunities with Chinese partners, and developing a long-term strategic plan focused on impact and relationships within China. It also discusses China's increasing open access policies and investments in research universities that could affect publishing opportunities.
This document discusses JSTOR's growing participation in Turkey from 1999-2014. It shows that participation grew slowly at first but increased significantly after the Turkish government began funding access to JSTOR collections through the Anatolian University Libraries Consortium in 2005. Participation and number of collections licensed continued to grow steadily through partnerships with the consortium and engaging a licensing agent in 2013. While agents can help with local representation, awareness, and relationships, they also present challenges of managing expectations, competing demands, and individuals not reporting to JSTOR.
1. Journal Article Versions:
NISO/ALPSP Work Group
SSP Annual Conference,
7 June 2007
John Ober, University of California
(with thanks to Cliff Morgan and Peter McCracken for assistance)
2. Pandora’s box (or panacea?) CUP Preprint
Cambridge Univ. Press article
Univ. of Calif. Postprint
A Columbia Professor’s BLOG
BLOG entry about the “unpublished paper”
Google Scholar points to 8 versions
3. Background: NISO-ALPSP Partnership
(late 2005)
“Multiple versions of journal articles are
often available online”
“Currently there are no standards in
markings, nomenclature, or metadata
that could be used by authors,
publishers, search systems, or end
users to identify the different versions of
the same journal article.”
standards…conventions….best-practices…guidelines?
4. Background: Concerns represented
Publisher: how distinguish/identify their
definitive value-added version
Library: ensure access to an appropriate
version; fill repositories with sanctioned, well-
identified content
(Projected) reader/author: am I
getting/providing the [“real” | latest | “official” |
author’s-intended] material?
5. Technical WG
Beverley Acreman, Taylor and Francis
Claire Bird, Oxford University Press Journals
Catherine Jones, CCLRC
Peter McCracken, Serials Solutions
Cliff Morgan (Chair), John Wiley & Sons
John Ober, California Digital Library (CDL)
Evan Owens, Portico
T. Scott Plutchak, University of Alabama at
Birmingham
Bernie Rous, ACM (and CrossRef)
Andrew Wray, The Institute of Physics
6. Review Group
Helen Atkins, HighWire
Lindi Belfield, Elsevier (ScienceDirect)
Emily Dill, Indiana University
Richard Fidczuk, Sage
Fred Friend, University College London
David Goodman, Long Island University (now
Princeton)
Toby Green, OECD Publishing
Janet Halsall, CABI Publishing
Ted Koppel, Ex Libris, USA
Barbara Meredith, Association of American Publishers
Cliff Morgan (Chair), John Wiley & Sons
Sally Morris, ALPSP
Erik Oltmans, Koninklijke Bibliotheek
7. and
Norman Paskin, International DOI Foundation
Jan Peterson, Infotrieve
Heather Reid, Copyright Clearance Center
Nathan Robertson, U. of Maryland, Thurgood Marshall
Law Library
Bruce Rosenblum, Inera
Rebecca Simon, University of California Press
Kate Sloss (replaced by Sarah Rosenblum), London
School of Economics Library
Gavin Swanson, Cambridge University Press
Peter Suber, Earlham College
Anthony Watkinson, Consultant
Candy Zemon, Polaris Library Systems
Rachel Bruce (Alternate), Joint Information Systems
Committee
8. Work group tasks
Create & analyze use cases
Suggest nomenclature for lifecycle stages
Identify metadata needed to
disambiguate/relate versions
Consider “practical systems” for “ensuring that
metadata is applied”
[Investigate, leverage similar work in other
quarters]
[iterative consultation/review by Review
Group]
9. Focus
Limited to Journal Articles
Other scholarly document types:
if the cap fits …
Level of phylum rather than species
Value-added “state changes” from
origination to publication and updates
Concentrate on what’s important from
the user’s point of view
10. The recommended terms
“Author’s Original”
“Accepted Manuscript”
“Proof”
“Version of Record”
“Corrected Version of Record”
“Enhanced Version of Record”
12. “Author’s Original” (AO)
May have iterative versions
Possibly disseminated by 2nd party
But only author takes responsibility
Everything before acceptance
Synonymous (maybe) with:
“Personal version”, “Draft”, “Preprint”
13. “Accepted Manuscript” (AM)
Accepted for publication in a journal
Explain review process by link?
Fixed stage - not iterative
AO becomes AM upon acceptance
Acceptance confers value
Non-author takes responsibility
Same as “postprint” …
But “postprint” is counterintuitive
14. “Proof”
Part of the publication process
Copy-edited ms, galley proofs, page
proofs, revised proofs
Each stage more value-add
May be iterative within stages
Not designed to be public, but …
Doesn’t apply to mere format
conversions of AM (image scan, PDF)
15. “Version of Record” (VoR)
Fixed stage – not iterative
Published version: formally and
exclusively declared “fit for publication”
Also known as definitive, authorised,
formal, official, authentic, archival,
reference copy …
16. Version of Record cont.
Includes “early release” articles
that are identified as being published
… whether paginated or not
may exist in more than
one location (publisher’s website,
aggregator site, one or more repositories)
17. “Corrected Version of Record” (CVoR)
Previous recommendation was
“Updated VoR”, but criticised
Version of VoR in which errors
in VoR have been corrected
Errors may be author’s or publisher’s
May be iterative – datestamped
Formal CVoR published by entity
responsible for VoR
Equivalent to “erratum slip”
18. “Enhanced Version of Record” (EVoR)
Version of VoR that has been
updated or supplemented
VoR is correct at time of publication,
but amended or added to in light of
new information or insight
If supplementary material linked to
VoR, changes to this material are not an EVoR
If link itself changes, this is EVoR
Both CVoR and EVoR should link to VoR
19. Some comments from Review group
Use completely new terminology, or a
numbering system à la software?
No – accept that terms are loaded but
better than a) current usage; b) inventing
new ones; or c) using numbers that
need explaining
for context.
20. Be more fine-grained?
No: focus is on key stages. If these
terms are adopted, can then go down
to “Classes and Orders” levels
21. Watch out for pseudo-synonyms
Yes: we warn that other terms may
not be exact synonyms, but still
useful to map across where possible
22. Should different formats be
considered as different versions?
No: introduces an extra level of
granularity, and versioning of
formats
23. What if someone makes other
versions outside the formal process?
Our conceptual framework is based
on the formal journal article publishing
process.
We hope that: other sources (a blog entry that turns
into an article) will move into value-adding process
(and point forward) .
We acknowledge that: some non-formal processes
(rogue, bastardized, defective, corrupt, lossy
fraudulent or spoof versions) will exist but we can’t
police/prevent that.
24. Can you have multiple copies of
VoRs?
Yes: copies of VoRs will proliferate
online, just as in print. OK as long as
each copy is the VoR.
25. Other work in this area
RIVER (Repositories – Identification of VERsions) -
Scoping study for JISC; RightsCom, LSE,
Oxford
VERSIONS (Versions of Eprints – a user Requirements Study
and Investigation Of the Need for Standards) - User
requirement study also for JISC also with LSE
CrossRef IR Committee (also see very useful
glossary - semantic analysis)
26. Pandora’s box (or panacea?) CUP Preprint - AM
Cambridge Univ. Press VoR
Univ. of Calif. Postprint - VoR
A Columbia Professor’s BLOG - VoR
BLOG entry about the “unpublished paper” – link to VoR
Google Scholar points to 8 instances of VoR
27. Conclusions
Everybody agrees that it would be good if there
were standard terms, but how to agree on…
what/whose problem(s) are being addressed
what terms (for humans? technical interop?)
who vets & codifies
how promulgate
“we have to agree on something before we can successfully
disagree”
NISO/ALPSP JAV WG:
Reader/user problems first
high-level, intuitive terms rooted in journal article lifecycle
28. Conclusion cont.
Next step: report to Review Group; add some
thoughts on metadata
For more info go to NISO website:
http://www.niso.org/committees/
Journal_versioning/JournalVer_comm.html
Editor's Notes
Thanks for the invite. I hope I can represent correctly what’s been done here; I hope that I can accurately describe the work that has gone in to this project. There may be other members of either the technical working group or the review committee in the audience, but since I’ve met almost none of these people in real-life, I won’t know you’re on the committee unless you identify yourself. I hope that if I misspeak, or you feel I’ve misrepresented some aspect of the committee’s work, you will set me and our colleagues here straight.
What situation are we trying to address? Well, it will be familiar to all of you, and while the next few moments will seem like a horror show to many of you, if you squint hard you MIGHT be able to think, as all good pundits would have it, of “opportunity.” [This paper among top ten among most popular in eScholarship’s 17,000 papers & 5.3 million downloads.]
By early 2005 there was broad implicit agreement with and concern connected to the two statements above, drawn from the NISO-ALPSP working group charge among publishers, librarians, repository managers, and others. The challenge was especially well-articulated by Sally Morris in February 2005 in which she named 13 different “versions” of an article that might reasonably be found to exist in the current environment. I understand that at one point the term “pre-peer-reviewed preprint” was bandied about! I should explain the caveat that the blue terms at the bottom represent. To my knowledge the NISO/ALPSP groups (you’ll see why I say plural, groups in a minute) has not settled on how formal the route which might be taken.
All stakeholders represented (authors & readers by proxy). At all times, and especially when there was tension, we tried to bias our consideration toward the user (reader/author) perspective. What would they need/want? Publisher concern: “a 'good enough' free substitute may gradually erode paid subscriptions and licences, potentially to the point where the parasite kills the host”(Morris, 2005)
RIVER – some potential semantics and recommendations for a rigorous requirements exercise for version identification that bridges the human/policy side as well as repository interoperation. The window to effect change (and avoid a huge retrospective task) is small. Final report is very thorough and interesting (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/RIVER%20Final%20Report.pdf) VERSIONS – documentation of author and reader habits and needs. Verifies the problem. (See esp. the Poster for an overview (http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/versions/VERSIONS_A1_poster_final_(2).pdf) CROSSREF glossary http://www.crossref.org/02publishers/glossary.html
The “panacea” here is extensive access to peer-reviewed scholarship (with an interesting sidenote, in this example, that the VoR clearly dominates the versions avvailable) Google Scholar’s 8 Links to Robert’s paper (accesses on May 30 & 31 2007) 1. Cambridge Univ Press VoR (closed access) 2. Eprints site in Italy – [server error] 3. PubMed Central – AbstractPlus (citation to VoR) 4. Openknowledge.org – 404 error 5. GA Tech Syllabus – VoR (from eScholarship) 6. Columbia Univ. BLOG – VoR 7. eScholarship – VoR (with “postprint” wrapper & citation to VoR) 8. eScholarship – abstract (link to postprint) Vanilla Google 208 hits, incl. DocDeli from INIST (France 10-50 euros) Postprint uploaded by 3rd party to Scribd Many BLOG entries link to postprint Several links to the preprint (AM)
Another way to put this, as Peter McCracken did when he presented our work late last year…we have to agree on something before we can successfully disagree.