Download to read offline
Uploaded byLYRASIS_PRODEV
Ideas and insights scholarly comm recap slides
This document summarizes an event discussing transformations in scholarly publishing and communications. The event included panels on publisher perspectives, and the roles of libraries in content creation. Speakers addressed open access models, infrastructure for distribution, and new metrics for evaluating impact. Challenges discussed involved raising awareness of open access, overcoming barriers, and aligning incentives with open scholarship. Strategies proposed engaging issues early in the research process, providing infrastructure through libraries, and changing reward structures to encourage open models.
More Related Content
Similar to Ideas and insights scholarly comm recap slides
Ideas and insights scholarly comm recap slides
- 1. Ideas & InsightsSeries Forging New Paths in Publishing & Scholarly Communications May 24th, 2012
- 2. Agenda 11:00 am –12:15 pm Opening & Keynote: Progress, Pressures and Prospects 12:15 pm – 2:00 pm Transformations: A Trio of Publisher Perspectives 2:30 pm – 3:45 pm New Roles, New Responsibilities: Libraries and Content Creation
- 3. Speakers • Heather Joseph,SPARC • Patrick Alexander, Pennsylvania State University Press • Keith Seitter, American Meteorological Society • Jennifer Lin, Public Library of Science • William Kane, Wake Forest University • October Ivins, IvinseContent Solutions
- 4. Agenda 11:00 am –12:15 pm Opening & Keynote: Progress, Pressures and Prospects 12:15 pm – 2:00 pm Transformations: A Trio of Publisher Perspectives Patrick Alexander, The Pennsylvania State University Press Keith Seitter, American Meteorological Society Jennifer Lin, Public Library of Science 2:00 pm – 2:30 pm Break 2:30 pm – 3:45 pm New Roles, New Responsibilities: Libraries and Content Creation
- 5. Our Mission: Expand thedistribution of the results of research and scholarship in a way that leverages digital networked technology, reduces financial pressures on libraries, and creates a more open system of scholarly communication.
- 6. Pressure: Price Barriers www.righttoresearch.org Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20050828210650/libraries.mit.edu/about/scholarly/expensive-titles.html
- 7. Library budgets journalprices MIT Libraries Materials Purchases vs. CPI % Increase 1986-2006 400% Journal expenditure 350% 300% 250% Percentage Change 200% 150% Inflation 100% 50% 0% 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 -50% Year Consumer Price Index % + Serial Expenditures % + # Serials Purchased % + # Books Purchased % + Book Expenditures % +
- 8. Pressure: Distribution I ask the author for a copy. I get it from a colleague at an institution with a subscription.
- 10. Pressure - Weneed to be able to apply computational tools to our scholarship
- 11.
- 12. Pressure – Use- We Don’t want a “Read-Only” World.
- 13.
- 15. “By open access,we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, prin t, search or link to the full text of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software or use them for any other lawful purpose…” - The Budapest Open Access Initiative – February 14, 2002 15 www.arl.org/sparc
- 16.
- 17. Opportunities to AdvanceOA • Infrastructure • Legal Constructs • Policy Framework • Culture Change 17 www.arl.org/sparc
- 18. OA Papers Published2000-2010 18000 16000 BMC Number of papers 14000 12000 PLoS 10000 8000 Hindawi 6000 Copernicus 4000 2000 Springer Open 0 Choice Oxford Open 2005 2010 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year Some data courtesy of Mark Patterson (PLoS), from Patterson: ‘Open Access Publishers: Breaking even and growing fast, ‘ delivered at APE 2011: http://river-valley.tv/open-access-publishers- breaking-even-and-growing-fast/
- 19. Open Access Repositories FEDERATION 19 www.arl.org/sparc
- 20.
- 21. Growth of OpenAccess Policies
- 22. Access is NationalPolicy Issue
- 23. Ongoing Challenges • Researcherawareness of OA not high enough • Perceived barriers still in place: • Disciplinary differences • New forms of scholarship not yet trusted • Uncertainty over sustainability • Deep reliance on current impact measures
- 24. Strategies to Consider •Consider OA issues at the beginning, not the end, of research process • Faculty control the destiny of their scholarly output • Library plays crucial role in providing/enabling infrastructure, educational resources to amplify impact of faculty work
- 25. Strategies to Consider •Incentive and reward structures need to be aligned with goal of open • Must be a priority at highest level of administration • Need to “model new behaviors” in evaluation, promotion and tenure process • Need more mechanisms to encourage thinking beyond single impact factor
- 26. Agenda 11:00 am –12:15 pm Opening & Keynote: Progress, Pressures and Prospects 12:15 pm – 2:00 pm Transformations: A Trio of Publisher Perspectives Patrick Alexander, The Pennsylvania State University Press Keith Seitter, American Meteorological Society Jennifer Lin, Public Library of Science 2:00 pm – 2:30 pm Break 2:30 pm – 3:45 pm New Roles, New Responsibilities: Libraries and Content Creation
- 27. Why does mymonograph cost $100.00? COSTS INCOME $75.00 selling price $7,500 to create and print 300 copies $100.00 list price 30 free copies |250 qty sold $1,000 Marketing, exhibits $18,750, revenue generated $7,500 overhead $1,500, cost of 20 returns___ (salaries, benefits, utilities, r total income: $17,250 ent, office Result: profit of $1,250 supplies, phones, computers , etc.) ________________ If I publish 50 titles we make total costs: $16,000 $862,500, or $62,500 profit 7.5%. total costs 50 titles $800,000
- 29. 2013 Budget allocations: NSF/NIH v NEH/NEA
- 30. “Open Access” Publishing Define“open access” (lower case) as free access online without need of a subscription. AMS maintains copyright so that it can act as steward of author’s intellectual property. © American Meteorological Society. Permission to use figures, tables, and brief excerpts from this work in scientific and educational works is hereby granted provided that the source is acknowledged. Any use of material in this work that is determined to be “fair use” under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act or that satisfies the conditions specified in Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act (17 USC §108, as revised by P.L. 94-553) does not require the AMS’s permission.
- 31. AMS and openaccess BAMS articles open since they went online in 1997 • All journal content online older than two years is open • “Open Choice” option recently added Open access institutional repositories can post PDF of articles six months after publication (but only the final definitive published version, not an earlier version of the manuscript). Recently published content only available with subscription
- 32. Journal Excess Income TheAMS journals generate about 10% excess income that is used for other programs that serve the community and the public at large. • Member services not covered by dues • Outreach to public • K–12 Education • AMS Policy Program • History programs • Scholarship and Fellowship admin
- 33. Discussion Points The AMSjournal program represents a very traditional model, but there are increasing pressures to move toward a pure open access model. • Broad access becomes automatic • Changes the financial model – Waiving author charges for developing world harder without subscription revenue – May jeopardize other community programs done by AMS if revenue is reduced • Changes the dynamic controlling scholarly quality
- 34. Open Access =Share research freely and openly online • Everyone can read, store and index your paper • Easy to find – all in PubMed Central
- 35. Effective discovery, navigation,and management of content is crucial Researchers need new approaches to the: • structuring • presentation • use • evaluation of research literature. We need post-publication tools to manage research content. At PLoS, this challenge represents the next frontier for OA.
- 36. PLoS Article-Level Metrics: Asystematic encoding of measures that speak to the value and reliability of information. It forms the foundation for literature- derived intelligence that reveal new discoveries and support complex decisions throughout all stages of the research process.
- 37. We can capturethe broad ecosystem of channels used in research dissemination today: • article“usage,” • scholarly and nonscholarly citations, • blog and news coverage, • social network sharing • research community input Research Dissemination IS Research Impact Publication Dissemination ALMs Collectively as a suite, Article-Level Metrics aims to measure research impact in a transparent and comprehensive manner.
- 38. PLoS ALMs OverallInitiative • Collect data at the research article level beyond usage and citations, measures which might provide insight into “impact” across the dissemination domains • Present these data on the article & within search • Develop ALM data toolset • Provide an extensible, open platform which allows others to use the same tool, and also allows us to apply the tool to 3rd party content • Reach out to publishers, decision makers, funding bodies, governance organizations to promote adoption of article level metrics
- 39. Agenda 11:00 am –12:15 pm Opening & Keynote: Progress, Pressures and Prospects 12:15 pm – 2:00 pm Transformations: A Trio of Publisher Perspectives 2:00 pm – 2:30 pm Break 2:30 pm – 3:45 pm New Roles, New Responsibilities: Libraries and Content Creation William Kane, Wake Forest University October Ivins, IvinseContent Solutions
- 40. A Portal (ifnot quite Platform)
- 41. Wouldn’t it benice… …if WFU had its own digital publishing platform? • e-textbooks? • e-coursepacks? • including syllabi? • e-commerce? • the Press: • could convert books/poems into ebooks/epoems? • the Library: • could re-purpose/-distribute WakeSpace/Institutional Repository • special collections • public domain content • Admissions, Athletics, CER, students, etc. • could <gasp>monetize content
- 42. Final Research Report(March 2012) Free download available from http://wp.sparc.arl.org/lps 42
- 43. “Library-based publishing isdefined as „the organized production and dissemination of scholarly works in any format as a service provided by the library.‟ An institutional repository might be part of a library publishing program if it is involved in some way in the production process (e.g., peer reviewing). Repositories that only house works for dissemination (e.g., collections of post-prints) are not considered part of library publishing. Simply digitizing or otherwise reformatting works would not be considered publishing.” __ ARL Research Library Publishing Services, 2008 43
- 44. Develop Best Practicesfor Library Publishing Develop meaningful impact metrics for library publishing services Establish editorial quality and performance criteria Promote sustainability best practices Develop return-on-investment justifications for funding library publishing programs 44
- 45. Collaborate to Create Community-based Resources Create a shared repository of policies, tools, and templates Develop centrally hosted software solutions for publishing platforms Share service models and revenue approaches Promote collaborations and partnerships 45
- 46. Formalize Skills &Training Create formal and informal training venues Articulate the particular value delivered by library publishing programs Establish dedicated library publishing 46
- 47. Review the reportfor more in depth ideas Assemble a team to make a plan Assess what publishing services already in place on campus Do you have access to a University Press? Set goals for your program Identify staffing resources Determine what types of publications you will support Conduct interviews with faculty or student publication candidates 47
- 48. Review the reportfor more in depth ideas Consider hosted OJS or Digital Commons Create a sustainability plan Develop your MOUs and related documents Start with a pilot project Plan an evaluation process and timeline Participate in the SPARC LPS forum to share results and seek advice Participate in CE programs 48
- 49. This topic &LYRASIS … • Infrastructure support • Business model development & testing • Digitization & Digital Preservation • Education & Training • Facilitate information sharing, partnerships • Facilitate other aspects of LPS strategic agenda?
- 50. Ideas & InsightsSeries Forging New Paths in Publishing & Scholarly Communications May 24th, 2012
Editor's Notes
- #7 Significant barriers in place to to doing this.
- #8 Even the best funded libraries can not keep pace with rising costs. We’ve got a real access gap – leaving researchers NOT affiliated with insts with deep pockets out in the cold.
- #9 We’re used to a system that forces us into “workarounds” when we think we absolutely have to have an article. Not optimal access. Not even “good enough” access.
- #10 We’ve gotten very creative in circumventing these barriers…
- #12 We’re still operating under the quid pro quo of copyright established in a paper based world.Even if we can get to to paper, it’s not enough any more for us to simply be able to print it and read it. We need to do more. To treat it like the treasure trove of digital data that it is, and we need to rebalance the traditional copyright transaction to reflect this.
- #15 Call for a new way forward that addresses all of these issues…
- #22 Funders and academic institutions alike (>200) have made Open Access a priority by adopting policies that make it the default mode for their faculty and researchers.
- #23 And on an even larger scale, we see increasing trend in organizations who fund science on a national level explicitly recognize the centrality of open sharing scientific information to leveraging their investments in research and achieving their core goals.
- #24 While we certainly come along way, there are still significant challenges ahead of us –
- #35 Given the audience, it is redundant to say that data is important. But perhaps it is less redundant to say that data is important to PLoS as a publisher, and even less to say that data is integral to our publishing work.PLoS started as a grass roots movement of scientists whose aim is to make the world’s research freely and openly available to all.Now what next?
- #37 Innovative metrics that collects real-time expert judgment to help systems know what information is reliable and good. We can use them to weight the value of information from different sources.Article-Level Metrics (ALMs) at PLoS are not just about citations and usage. The concept refers to a whole range of measures which might provide insight into “impact” or “reach”ALMs are not simply about “impact,” they are also used for discovery and filteringWe are providing metrics at the article-level, for every article, in every one of our titlesWe were the first publisher to provide this range of data, but others are now following
- #38 So what are these measurements of research value? As I mentioned before, traditional impact measurement based on the journal falls far short.PLoS, as a publisher, is keenly aware that the entire process of dissemination lies at the heart of the scientific enterprise itself. How do you measure the transmission of information?In fact, the answer is quite simple from a technologist’s perspective. You can measure the flow of research by the distance it travels. You can tracks its movements by the places it goes. We have created a diverse set of metrics based on this theory. We capture these channels, measure them as indicators of impact, and make them the basis of research assessment. Collectively as a suite, Article-Level Metrics measures research impact in a transparentandcomprehensivemanner.It is comprised of the following categories:Article Usage, Community Input on the PLoS site, Citations - Scholarly and non-scholarly literature, Media Coverage, Blog Coverage, and Social/Behavioral Mining. New research has shown that, where traditional measurements used to evaluate research at the journal level is weak and endemically misused, these ALMs can provide valuable indicators for research impact, not least by providing more rapid indicators. They provide much-needed new checks and balances, greater speed of feedback, and superior relationship mapping and influence tracking. Given the need for more granular, article-level rating and recommendation systems, the literature shows that the potential of peer review and recommendation systems is greatly enhanced by various new media and crowdsourcing tools. Different types of web services such as social bookmarking, social collection management, social news/recommendations, publisher-hosted comment spaces, data repositories, and social video all provide insights into the various types of impact that are possible. They can provide a form of "soft peer review” that assists researchers in the assessment of research articles on their own merits and establishes scholars' authority, augments peer review, broadens the scope of the IF, and filters articles. Furthermore, they are a transparent way of mapping and analyzing personal relationships between scientists, making them "more quantifiable than ever before” and allowing researchers "to estimate which scholarly articles and journals are truly central to the flow of information”. By using these web services to collect alt-metrics on research, we can also cross-validate different types of metrics against each other, providing a useful set of checks and balances. Alt-metrics have also been shown to provide a valuable service lacking in IF: a real-time indicator of impact for research. Finally, post-publication input is now possible through the type of crowdsourced recommendations enabled by new media alt-metrics tools. This innovative mode of peer review can be applied to research much more quickly than traditional peer review through an analysis of collective intelligence.