Authors : April Hathcock, Guy Geltner
Open scholarly communications are being suffocated by for-profit and large-scale academic publishers on the one hand and undermined by commercial academic social networks on the other.
A possible part of the solution to both is ScholarlyHub, a new initiative to create a non-profit digital commons. ScholarlyHub proposes to serve as a social ‘front end’ of the open access movement and offer an aggregating space for diverse initiatives in the world of scholarly communications, from mentoring and pre-print services and data storage, to peer review and publication.
This article explains the pressing need to ‘clear the garden’ in order to enable research to flourish in its natural environment and details the progress of ScholarlyHub to date, looking ahead with optimism to a more collaborative and open future.
URL : Clearing the garden: ScholarlyHub as a new non-profit digital commons
DOI : http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.398
Author : Lydia Thorne
Many academics are active users of social media and some even use these sites for professional networking. However, while scholars can use traditional social networking platforms to network with their peers, share research articles, and keep up to date in their fields, there are some limitations that emerge when these sites are used for academic purposes.
Academic social networking sites have emerged as one viable alternative, as they allow scholars to share their research and to network and collaborate with others while maintaining a professional online presence.
Although many studies have examined the information behaviour of those who use academic social networking sites, such as differences in discipline and academic status, no studies to date have explored these characteristics in the health and medical field.
This study seeks to address this gap by focusing on the scholarly communication practices of faculty members and graduate students in two disciplines – Medical Sciences and Health Sciences – on Academia.edu.
URL : https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/fimswp/7/
Author : Kevin L. Smith
The word ‘predatory’ has become an obstacle to a serious discussion of publishing practices. Its use has been both overinclusive, encompassing practices that, while undesirable, are not malicious, and underinclusive, missing many exploitative practices outside the open access sphere.
The article examines different business models for scholarly publishing and considers the potential for abuse with each model. After looking at the problems of both blacklists and so-called ‘whitelists’, the author suggests that the best path forward would be to create tools to capture the real experience of individual authors as they navigate the publishing process with different publishers.
URL : Examining publishing practices: moving beyond the idea of predatory open access
DOI : http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.388
Authors : Jean-Christophe Plantin, Carl Lagoze, Paul N. Edwards, Christian Sandvig
“Big data” discussions typically focus on scale, i.e. the problems and potentials inherent in very large collections. Here, we argue that the most important consequences of “big data” for scholarship stem not from the increasing size of datasets, but instead from a loss of control over the sources of data.
The breakdown of the “control zone” due to the uncertain provenance of data has implications for data integrity, and can be disruptive to scholarship in multiple ways. A retrospective look at the introduction of larger datasets in weather forecasting and epidemiology shows that more data can at times be counter-productive, or destabilize already existing methods.
Based on these examples, we look at two implications of “big data” for scholarship: when the presence of large datasets transforms the traditional disciplinary structure of sciences, as well as the infrastructure for scholarly communication.
URL : https://books.openedition.org/editionsmsh/9103
Authors : David M. Nichols, Michael B. Twidale
The characterization of scholarly communication is dominated by citation-based measures. In this paper we propose several metrics to describe different facets of open access and open research.
We discuss measures to represent the public availability of articles along with their archival location, licenses, access costs, and supporting information. Calculations illustrating these new metrics are presented using the authors’ publications.
We argue that explicit measurement of openness is necessary for a holistic description of research outputs.
URL : http://hdl.handle.net/10289/10842
Authors : Stefania Manca, Maria Ranieri
Research on scholars’ use of social media suggests that these sites are increasingly being used to enhance scholarly communication by strengthening relationships, facilitating collaboration among peers, publishing and sharing research products, and discussing research topics in open and public formats.
However, very few studies have investigated perceptions and attitudes towards social media use for scholarly communication of large cohorts of scholars at national level.
This study investigates the reasons for using social media sites for scholarly communication among a large sample of Italian university scholars (N=6139) with the aim of analysing what factors mainly affect these attitudes.
The motivations for using social media were analysed in connection with frequency of use and factors like gender, age, years of teaching, academic title, and disciplinary field. The results point out that for the most used tools the influence of the variables examined was higher in shaping scholars’ motivations.
In fact, frequency of use, age, years of teaching, and disciplinary field were found to be relevant factors especially for LinkedIn and ResearchGate-Academia.edu, while gender and academic title seemed to have a limited impact on scholars’ motivations for all social media sites considered in the study.
Considerations for future research are provided along with limitations of the study.
URL : Networked Scholarship and Motivations for Social Media use in Scholarly Communication
DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i2.2859
Author: Christine Fruin
The U.K. library community has implemented collaborative strategies in key scholarly communication areas such as open access mandate compliance, and U.S. librarians could benefit from learning in greater detail about the practices and experiences of U.K. libraries with respect to how they have organized scholarly communication services.
In order to better understand the scholarly communication activities in U.K. academic and research libraries, and how U.S. libraries could apply that experience in the context of their own priorities, an environmental scan via a survey of U.K. research libraries and in-person interviews were conducted.
U.K. libraries concentrate their scholarly communication services on supporting compliance with open access mandates and in the development of new services that reflect libraries’ shifting role from information consumer to information producer.
Due to the difference in the requirements of open access mandates in the U.K. as compared to the U.S., scholarly communication services in the U.K. are more focused on supporting compliance efforts. U.S. libraries engage more actively in providing copyright education and consultation than U.K. libraries. Both U.K. and U.S. libraries have developed new services in the areas of research data management and library publishing.
There are three primary takeaways from the experience of U.K. scholarly communication practitioners for U.S. librarians: increase collaboration with offices of research, reconsider current organization and delegation of scholarly communication services, and increase involvement in legislative and policy-making activity in the U.S. with respect to access to research.
URL : Organization and Delivery of Scholarly Communications Services by Academic and Research Libraries in the United Kingdom: Observations from Across the Pond
DOI : http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2157