This document discusses the history and rise of the open access movement in academic publishing. It provides:
- A brief history of academic publishing, noting its shift from personal letters to commercial publishing companies in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.
- An overview of the "academic spring" protest movement against large commercial publishers' control and profits from publicly funded research.
- Statistics showing over 8,500 open access journals and millions of openly accessible documents now available online.
- Evidence that open access articles tend to be cited more often than articles hidden behind paywalls, indicating greater visibility and impact.
Open access for researchers, policy makers and research managers, librariesIryna Kuchma
Open access for researchers: enlarged audience and citation impact, tenure and promotion. Open access for policy makers and research managers: new tools to manage a university’s image and impact. Open access for libraries. Maintaining digital repository as a key function for research libraries.
Open access policies - Policy effectiveness, Alma SwanSPARC Europe
"Open access policies - Policy effectiveness"
SPARC Europe presentation by
Alma Swan for the
SPARC Europe (Pre-LIBER) Workshop: Open Access Policy and Training in Europe
24 June 2015, London, UK
Flying solo: data librarians working outside (traditional) librariesJane Frazier
I used these slides for my portion of the "Flying Solo" ANDS webinar:
Did you know there are data librarians who work outside of (traditional) libraries? For some, being a data librarian means leaving the relative comfort of the library behind and ‘flying solo’ into unchartered territory. These are new and demanding roles that require a steep learning curve with minimal support. In this webinar, three data librarians working outside of libraries will share their experience of going it alone, reflecting on these challenging yet rewarding roles that push the boundaries of librarianship and open new opportunities for the profession.
Siobhann McCafferty is based at QUT’s Institute for Future Environments in Brisbane and is the Research Data Coordinator for the National Agricultural Nitrous Oxide Research Program (NANORP). She is embedded in the Healthy Ecosystems and Environmental Management group at IFE and works with researchers from across Australia to store program data and make it discoverable and reusable.
Jane Frazier is a Data Librarian at ANDS. She has previously worked in the University of North Carolina Music Library cataloging 20th century American vocal sheet music, as curatorial assistant at the Dryad digital repository, and at the UNC Metadata Research Center exploring automatic subject indexing processes for Dryad. From 2013 to 2014 Jane led the research and development of a new web-based cataloging system for collectible items with Stanley Gibbons, one of the world’s oldest stamp collecting firms.
-- Michelle Teis has more than 25 years’ industry experience, senior consultant
Michelle Teis is an enterprise information management expert specialising in content, data and knowledge management, and information privacy. http://www.glentworth.com/about-us/our-key-people/michelle-teis/
Open access for researchers, policy makers and research managers, librariesIryna Kuchma
Open access for researchers: enlarged audience and citation impact, tenure and promotion. Open access for policy makers and research managers: new tools to manage a university’s image and impact. Open access for libraries. Maintaining digital repository as a key function for research libraries.
Open access policies - Policy effectiveness, Alma SwanSPARC Europe
"Open access policies - Policy effectiveness"
SPARC Europe presentation by
Alma Swan for the
SPARC Europe (Pre-LIBER) Workshop: Open Access Policy and Training in Europe
24 June 2015, London, UK
Flying solo: data librarians working outside (traditional) librariesJane Frazier
I used these slides for my portion of the "Flying Solo" ANDS webinar:
Did you know there are data librarians who work outside of (traditional) libraries? For some, being a data librarian means leaving the relative comfort of the library behind and ‘flying solo’ into unchartered territory. These are new and demanding roles that require a steep learning curve with minimal support. In this webinar, three data librarians working outside of libraries will share their experience of going it alone, reflecting on these challenging yet rewarding roles that push the boundaries of librarianship and open new opportunities for the profession.
Siobhann McCafferty is based at QUT’s Institute for Future Environments in Brisbane and is the Research Data Coordinator for the National Agricultural Nitrous Oxide Research Program (NANORP). She is embedded in the Healthy Ecosystems and Environmental Management group at IFE and works with researchers from across Australia to store program data and make it discoverable and reusable.
Jane Frazier is a Data Librarian at ANDS. She has previously worked in the University of North Carolina Music Library cataloging 20th century American vocal sheet music, as curatorial assistant at the Dryad digital repository, and at the UNC Metadata Research Center exploring automatic subject indexing processes for Dryad. From 2013 to 2014 Jane led the research and development of a new web-based cataloging system for collectible items with Stanley Gibbons, one of the world’s oldest stamp collecting firms.
-- Michelle Teis has more than 25 years’ industry experience, senior consultant
Michelle Teis is an enterprise information management expert specialising in content, data and knowledge management, and information privacy. http://www.glentworth.com/about-us/our-key-people/michelle-teis/
Open access for researchers and research managersIryna Kuchma
Presented at “Gaining the momentum: Open Access and advancement of science and research” workshop, African Digital Scholarship & Curation 2009, Thursday 14 May 2009, CSIR Conference Centre, Pretoria, South Africa. About enlarged audience and citation impact, tenure and promotion. Advanced and enhanced metrics. The evidences that Open Access leads to advancement of science and research.
Open access for researchers, policy makers and research managersIryna Kuchma
Presented at Open Access: Maximising Research Impact, April 23 2009, New Bulgarian University Library, Sofia. Open access for researchers: enlarged audience, citation impact, tenure and promotion. Open access for policy makers and research managers:
new tools to manage a university’s image and impact. How to maximize the visibility of research publications, improve the impact and influence of the work, disseminate the results of the research, showcase the quality of the research in the Universities and research institutions, better measure and manage the research in the institution, collect and curate the digital outputs, generate new knowledge from existing findings, enable and encourage collaboration, bring savings to the higher education sector and better return on investment. What are the key functions for research libraries?
1 Do You Speak Open Science Resources and Tips to LearVannaJoy20
1
Do You Speak Open Science? Resources and Tips to Learn the Language.
Paola Masuzzo1, 2 - ORCID: 0000-0003-3699-1195, Lennart Martens1,2 - ORCID: 0000-
0003-4277-658X
Author Affiliation
1 Medical Biotechnology Center, VIB, Ghent, Belgium
2 Department of Biochemistry, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Abstract
The internet era, large-scale computing and storage resources, mobile devices, social media,
and their high uptake among different groups of people, have all deeply changed the way knowledge
is created, communicated, and further deployed. These advances have enabled a radical
transformation of the practice of science, which is now more open, more global and collaborative,
and closer to society than ever. Open science has therefore become an increasingly important topic.
Moreover, as open science is actively pursued by several high-profile funders and institutions, it
has fast become a crucial matter to all researchers. However, because this widespread interest in
open science has emerged relatively recently, its definition and implementation are constantly
shifting and evolving, sometimes leaving researchers in doubt about how to adopt open science,
and which are the best practices to follow.
This article therefore aims to be a field guide for scientists who want to perform science in the
open, offering resources and tips to make open science happen in the four key areas of data, code,
publications and peer-review.
The Rationale for Open Science: Standing on the Shoulders of Giants
One of the most widely used definitions of open science originates from Michael Nielsen [1]:
“Open science is the idea that scientific knowledge of all kinds should be openly shared as early as
is practical in the discovery process”. With this in mind, the overall goal of open science is to
accelerate scientific progress and discoveries and to turn these discoveries into benefits for all. An
essential part of this process is therefore to guarantee that all sorts of scientific outputs are publicly
available, easily accessible, and discoverable for others to use, re-use, and build upon.
As Mick Watson has recently wondered, “[...] isn’t that just science?” [2]. One of the basic
premises of science is that it should be based on a global, collaborative effort, building on open
communication of published methods, data, and results. In fact, the concept of discovering truth by
building on previous findings can be traced back to at least the 12th century in the metaphor of
dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants: “Nanos gigantum humeris insidentes”1.
While creativity and intuition are contributed to science by individuals, validation and
confirmation of scientific findings can only be reached through collaborative efforts, notably peer-
driven quality control and cross-validation. Through open inspection and critical, collective
analysis, models can be refined, improved, or rejected ...
Open access for researchers and research managersIryna Kuchma
Presented at “Gaining the momentum: Open Access and advancement of science and research” workshop, African Digital Scholarship & Curation 2009, Thursday 14 May 2009, CSIR Conference Centre, Pretoria, South Africa. About enlarged audience and citation impact, tenure and promotion. Advanced and enhanced metrics. The evidences that Open Access leads to advancement of science and research.
Open access for researchers, policy makers and research managersIryna Kuchma
Presented at Open Access: Maximising Research Impact, April 23 2009, New Bulgarian University Library, Sofia. Open access for researchers: enlarged audience, citation impact, tenure and promotion. Open access for policy makers and research managers:
new tools to manage a university’s image and impact. How to maximize the visibility of research publications, improve the impact and influence of the work, disseminate the results of the research, showcase the quality of the research in the Universities and research institutions, better measure and manage the research in the institution, collect and curate the digital outputs, generate new knowledge from existing findings, enable and encourage collaboration, bring savings to the higher education sector and better return on investment. What are the key functions for research libraries?
1 Do You Speak Open Science Resources and Tips to LearVannaJoy20
1
Do You Speak Open Science? Resources and Tips to Learn the Language.
Paola Masuzzo1, 2 - ORCID: 0000-0003-3699-1195, Lennart Martens1,2 - ORCID: 0000-
0003-4277-658X
Author Affiliation
1 Medical Biotechnology Center, VIB, Ghent, Belgium
2 Department of Biochemistry, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Abstract
The internet era, large-scale computing and storage resources, mobile devices, social media,
and their high uptake among different groups of people, have all deeply changed the way knowledge
is created, communicated, and further deployed. These advances have enabled a radical
transformation of the practice of science, which is now more open, more global and collaborative,
and closer to society than ever. Open science has therefore become an increasingly important topic.
Moreover, as open science is actively pursued by several high-profile funders and institutions, it
has fast become a crucial matter to all researchers. However, because this widespread interest in
open science has emerged relatively recently, its definition and implementation are constantly
shifting and evolving, sometimes leaving researchers in doubt about how to adopt open science,
and which are the best practices to follow.
This article therefore aims to be a field guide for scientists who want to perform science in the
open, offering resources and tips to make open science happen in the four key areas of data, code,
publications and peer-review.
The Rationale for Open Science: Standing on the Shoulders of Giants
One of the most widely used definitions of open science originates from Michael Nielsen [1]:
“Open science is the idea that scientific knowledge of all kinds should be openly shared as early as
is practical in the discovery process”. With this in mind, the overall goal of open science is to
accelerate scientific progress and discoveries and to turn these discoveries into benefits for all. An
essential part of this process is therefore to guarantee that all sorts of scientific outputs are publicly
available, easily accessible, and discoverable for others to use, re-use, and build upon.
As Mick Watson has recently wondered, “[...] isn’t that just science?” [2]. One of the basic
premises of science is that it should be based on a global, collaborative effort, building on open
communication of published methods, data, and results. In fact, the concept of discovering truth by
building on previous findings can be traced back to at least the 12th century in the metaphor of
dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants: “Nanos gigantum humeris insidentes”1.
While creativity and intuition are contributed to science by individuals, validation and
confirmation of scientific findings can only be reached through collaborative efforts, notably peer-
driven quality control and cross-validation. Through open inspection and critical, collective
analysis, models can be refined, improved, or rejected ...
1. and
s o cial media –
the future of research?
Service goes Accessible symposium
January 10, 2013 @ Otaniemi, Finland
Dr. Toma Susi
(Department of Applied Physics / Aalto SCI)
3. (A very brief) history of academic publishing
• Scholarly publishing started as personal letters
• Moved to serials published by scholarly societies
(Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 1665)
• Nature (1865), Science (1880), Elsevier (1880)...
Christopher Wren
• A series of mergers and acquisitions (1960s onwards)
concentrated journals into the hands of a few giants
• Elsevier, Springer, Wiley: 42% of articles published1
• Monopolistic power: price increases, huge profits
• In 1986, libraries spent 44% of their budgets on books
compared with 56% on journals; in 1998, the ratio had
skewed to 28% and 72% – recently even worse
• The rise of alternatives (such as PLoS) and increasing
protests culminated in the “academic spring” of 2011
1http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/
aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist
4. The academic spring
• Research Works Act (RWA) in US congress (Dec 16, 2011)
• Prohibit open access for Fed funded research (ie. NIH)
• Large donations to bill sponsors from Elsevier...
• Strong backlash in the blogosphere and media
• Blog post by Fields medalist Timothy Gowers (Jan 21)1
• Boycott site thecostofknowledge.com (Jan 23)
• Reporting by The Guardian, The Economist2, NYT, etc...
• Elsevier withdraws support from RWA (Feb 27)
• Hours later bill sponsors drop it
• Activists happy, but want much more change
• UK: minister David Willets, Finch report, RCUK
• EU: open access for Horizon 2020 (80 B€)
1http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/elsevier-my-part-in-its-downfall
2http://www.economist.com/node/21545974
5. Yliopisto 5/2012 Tiedetoimittaja 2/2012
http://www.tiedetoimittajat.fi/lehdet/Tiedetoimittaja2_12.pdf
/
Jani Kotakoski, Toma Susi
Tiedejulkaisemisen
noidankehää murtamassa
Arabikevään mukaan nimetty akateeminen kevät -protestiliike alkoi matemaa-
tikkojen Elsevier-kustantajaa vastaan suunnattuna protestina. Tutkijat kamppai-
levat entistä riippumattomamman tieteellisen julkaisemisen puolesta kaupallis-
ten kustantajien ylivaltaa vastaan.
Arabikevään mukaan nimetty akatee- kustantajien välit tulehdutti suurim- yli 12 000 allekirjoitusta, eikä suinkaan
minen kevät -protestiliike on jäänyt man tieteellisten lehtien kaupallisen pelkästään matemaatikoilta.
suomalaisessa mediassa varsin vähäl- kustantajan Elsevierin tuki Yhdysval-
le huomiolle. Muualla maailmassa se tain edustajainhuoneen Research Works
on herättänyt kiinnostusta myös ei- Act (RWA) -lakialoitteelle, joka pyrki Kustantajat keräävät
akateemisille suunnatuissa julkaisuis- estämään liittovaltion – eli veronmak- taloudellisen hyödyn
sa, esimerkiksi aihetta laajasti käsitel- sajien – rahoittaman tutkimuksen avoi-
leessä englantilaisessa The Guardian men julkaisemisen. Tutkijoiden ja kustannusyhtiöiden
-lehdessä. Sosiaalisen median kataly- Itse protesti sai alkunsa kun Cam- huonojen välien perimmäinen syy on
soiman liikkeen saama julkisuus on bridgen professori ja Fields-mitalisti tutkimusartikkelien päätyminen kus-
nopeasti lisännyt kansalaisten ja päät- Timothy Gowers toivoi tammikuisessa tantajien yksityisomistukseen huo-
täjien tietoisuutta tieteellisen julkaise- blogissaan sivustoa, jonka kautta ma- limatta siitä, että tieteentekijät tuke-
misen ongelmista, mikä näyttäisi joh- temaatikot voisivat irtisanoutua työs- vat työtä merkittävällä ilmaisella työ-
tavan muutoksiin kansainvälisessä tie- kentelemästä Elsevierin hyväksi. New panoksella. Tutkijathan paitsi tekevät
depolitiikassa. Yorkin yliopiston tohtoriopiskelija Ty- tutkimukset myös vertaisarvioivat ar-
Liikkeen tavoite on tuoda tutkimus- ler Neylon toteutti pian Gowersin toi- tikkelit ja usein vielä toimittavat jul-
tulokset kaikkien saataville, kun jul- veen, ja vain kaksi päivää myöhemmin kaisut. Yliopistokirjastot puolestaan
kaisutoiminta tällä hetkellä keskittyy thecostofknowledge.com alkoi kerätä tut- joutuvat ostamaan kustantajalta sato-
voittoa tavoitteleville yrityksille. Vii- kijoiden nimiä boikottiin. Nyt kesä- jen lehtien niputettuja tilauksia, joten
meksi liikettä tukevien tutkijoiden ja kuun alussa sivustolle on kertynyt jo lehtiin uppoaa vuosi vuodelta kasvava
Akateeminen kevät -kampanja
sai alkunsa Cambridgen
professori Timothy Gowersin
tammikuisesta blogista.
Protesti ei ole ensimmäinen
laatuaan.
Signum 6/2012: Toma Susi & Jani Kotakoski:
Kohti tutkimuksen avointa verkkojulkaisemista—hinnalla millä hyvänsä?
6. A Very Brief Introduction to Open Access
by Peter Suber
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/brief.htm
Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of
most copyright and licensing restrictions. What makes it possible is the
internet and the consent of the author or copyright-holder.
OA is entirely compatible with peer review, and all the major OA initiatives
for scientific and scholarly literature insist on its importance. Just as
authors of journal articles donate their labor, so do most journal editors
and referees participating in peer review. Open
OA literature is not free to produce, even if it is less expensive to produce
than conventionally published literature. The question is not whether
scholarly literature can be made costless, but whether there are better
Access
ways to pay the bills than by charging readers and creating access barriers.
Business models for paying the bills depend on how OA is delivered.
There are two primary vehiclesWeek 2012 materials to research articles:
Open Access for delivering OA
OA journals and OA (http://openaccessweek.org/)
archives or repositories.
OA Journals: OA Archives or repostories:
OA journals perform peer review and then make the OA archives or repositories do not perform peer
approved contents freely available to the world. Their review, but simply make their contents freely available
expenses consist of peer review, manuscript preparation, to the world. They may contain unrefereed preprints,
7. A Very Brief Introduction to Open Access
by Peter Suber
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/brief.htm
Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of
most copyright and licensing restrictions. What makes it possible is the
internet and the consent of the author or copyright-holder.
OA is entirely compatible with peer review, and all the major OA initiatives
for scientific and scholarly literature insist on its importance. Just as
authors of journal articles donate their labor, so do most journal editors
and referees participating in peer review. Open
OA literature is not free to produce, even if it is less expensive to produce
than conventionally published literature. The question is not whether
scholarly literature can be made costless, but whether there are better
Access
ways to pay the bills than by charging readers and creating access barriers.
Business models for paying the bills depend on how OA is delivered.
There are two primary vehiclesWeek 2012 materials to research articles:
Open Access for delivering OA
OA journals and OA (http://openaccessweek.org/)
archives or repositories.
OA Journals: Open Access Explained
OA Archives or repostories:
(http://www.slideshare.net/UQSPADS/)
OA journals perform peer review and then make the OA archives or repositories do not perform peer
approved contents freely available to the world. Their review, but simply make their contents freely available
expenses consist of peer review, manuscript preparation, to the world. They may contain unrefereed preprints,
8. Some statistics
• >8500 open access journals, >3 added per day
(Directory of Open Access Journals, www.doaj.org)
• >36 million documents, +2 million in last 3 months
(BASE, http://www.base-search.net)
• PubMedCentral: 3.5 million fulltexts (17% of total)
• arXiv: 750 000, RePEC: 1 million, SSRN: 350 000
Laasko & Björk, BMC Medicine 2012, 10:124
up to 17%
of research
papers
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca now going
to open
access
journals!1
1http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/occams-corner/2012/
oct/22/inexorable-rise-open-access-scientific-publishing
9. @bmcmatt: “A striking example of a society journal improving
its impact factor radically following a move to #openaccess”
Matthew Cockerill (co-founder of BMC)
(http://twitpic.com/a1vdy3)
10. Open access impact (selected articles)
• Lawrence, S. 2001. Free online availability substantially increases a
paper's impact. Nature 411:521
• Xia, J. and Nakanishi, K. 2012. Self-selection and the citation advantage
of open access articles. Online Information Review 36:40-51
• Xia, J., Myers, R. L., and Wilhoite, S. K. 2011. Multiple open access
availability and citation impact. Journal of Information Science 37:19-28
• Riera, M. and Aibar, E. 2012. Does open access publishing increase the
impact of scientific articles? an empirical study in the field of intensive
care medicine. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.medin.2012.04.002
• Norris, M., Oppenheim, C., and Rowland, F. 2008. The citation
advantage of open-access articles. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 59:1963-1972
• Eysenbach, G. 2006. Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS
Biol 4:e157+
• Hajjem, C., Harnad, S., and Gingras, Y. 2006. Ten-Year Cross-
Disciplinary comparison of the growth of open access and how it
increases research citation impact. http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0606079
• Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., Brody, T., and
Harnad, S. 2010. Self-Selected or mandated, open access increases
citation impact for higher quality research. PLoS ONE 5:e13636+
• Bjork, B. C. and Solomon, D. 2012. Open access versus subscription
journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine 10:73+
Thanks to Ross Mounce (http://rossmounce.co.uk/)
More at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
12. Finland and Aalto
• A good overview1 in Signum 4/2012
• Academy of Finland “recommends” open access
• No unified national policy
• University of Helsinki open access policy (2010)
• Fulltexts of ALL articles should be deposited to
Uni database
• Not known, not followed, violates copyright (?)
• Aalto preparing open access policy
• A strategic tool to increase research impact
(and make it to the top 100?)
• Aalto Open Data very ambitious2
1http://ojs.tsv.fi/index.php/signum/article/view/6967/5587
2http://sci.aalto.fi/en/current/news/view/2012-11-07-003/
14. Data from October 2011
http://inspiredm.com/current-state-of-social-media-the-big-four-exclusive-infographic/
15.
16. Started Aug 29, 2012. Took a
couple of hours to set up and tweak.
38 posts (~10 / month)
~2000 views (busiest day: 112)
ResearchGate:
40 followers, following 47 people
All article fulltexts available, 140 downloads
Google+ account:
Became active in Dec 2011.
~1 post / day, mostly science topics
~4400 have me in their circles
17. (Eysenbach, G. 2012. Can tweets predict citations? metrics of social
impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of
scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13.)
18. Social media impact (selected articles)
• Eysenbach, G. 2012. Can tweets predict citations? metrics of
social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional
metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet
Research 13(4):e123. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2012
• Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., and
Terliesner, J. 2012. Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the
social web. http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5611
• Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., and Hemminger, B. M. 2012.
Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly
impact. http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745
• Kelly, B. and Delasalle, J., 2012. Can LinkedIn and
Academia.edu Enhance Access to Open Repositories? In:
OR2012: the 7th International Conference on Open
Repositories, Edinburgh, Scotland
http://opus.bath.ac.uk/30227/1/or12-136-final.pdf
• Not much solid research yet, a LOT more sure to follow...
Thanks to Ross Mounce (http://rossmounce.co.uk/)
19. A linear multivariate model with time and tweets as significant predictors (P < .001)
could explain 27% of the variation of citations. Highly tweeted articles were 11 times
more likely to be highly cited than less-tweeted articles (9/12 or 75% of highly tweeted
article were highly cited, while only 3/43 or 7% of less-tweeted articles were highly
cited; rate ratio 0.75/0.07 = 10.75, 95% confidence interval, 3.4–33.6). Top-cited articles
can be predicted from top-tweeted articles with 93% specificity and 75% sensitivity.
(Eysenbach, G. 2012. Can tweets predict citations? metrics of social impact based on twitter Altmetrics and citations track forms of impact that are distinct, but related;
and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet neither approach is able to describe the complete picture of scholarly use
Research 13.) alone. There are moderate correlations between Mendeley and Web of
Science citation (comparable to that between Web of Science and Scopus),
but many altmetric indicators seem mostly orthogonal to citation. Third,
articles cluster in ways that suggest several different impact “flavors,” that
capture impacts on different audiences and of different types; for instance
some articles (cluster B) may be heavily read and saved by scholars but
seldom cited. (Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., and Hemminger, B. M. 2012. Altmetrics
in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv)
No clear picture yet.
20. Summary
• Public pays for research – public should have access
• Reporters, independent scholars, patient groups...
• Stop bleeding libraries dry: price competition
• >60% of EU funded research open by 2016
• Citation advantage is real and tangible
• Citations are the career currency...
• ...and citations are 20-32.5% of Uni ranking!
• How about social media?
• Science outreach and public engagement
• Natural for younger researchers?
• Networking, contacts; citation advantage?
Thank you.