Open access and academic reputation :
“Open access aims to make knowledge freely available to those who would make use of it. High-profile open access journals, such as those published by PLoS (Public Library of Science), have been able to demonstrate the viability of this model for increasing an author’s reach and reputation within scholarly communication through the use of such bibliographic tools as the Journal Impact Factor, conceived and developed by Eugene Garfield. This article considers the various approaches that authors, journals, and funding agencies are taking toward open access, as well as its effect on reputation for authors and, more widely, for journals and the research enterprise itself.”
URL : http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/10242
Digital media have transformed the social practices of science communication. They have extended the number of channels that scientists, media professionals, other stakeholders and citizens use to communicate scientific information.
Social media provide opportunities to communicate in more immediate and informal ways, while digital technologies have the potential to make the various processes of research more visible in the public sphere.
Some digital media also offer, on occasion, opportunities for interaction and engagement. Similarly, ideas about public engagement are shifting and extending social practices, partially influencing governance strategies, and science communication policies and practices.
In this paper I explore this developing context via a personal journey from an analogue to a digital scholar. In so doing, I discuss some of the demands that a globalised digital landscape introduces for science communication researchers and document some of the skills and competencies required to be a digital scholar of science communication.
URL : http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/09/03/Jcom0903%282010%29C01/Jcom0903%282010%29C05/Jcom0903%282010%29C05.pdf
Open to All? Case studies of openness in research :
“Since the early 1990s, the open access movement has promoted the concept of openness in relationto scientific research. Focusing initially upon the records of science in the form of the text of articles in scholarly journals, interest has broadened in the last decade to include a much wider range of materials produced by researchers. At the same time, concepts of openness and access have also developed to include various kinds of use, by machines as well as humans.
Academic bodies, including funders and groups of researchers, have set out statements in support
of various levels of openness in research. Such statements often focus upon two key dimensions:
what is made open, and how; and to whom is it made open, and under what conditions? This study
set out to consider the practice of six research groups from a range of disciplines in order to better
understand how principles of openness are translated into practice.”
URL : http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/NESTA-RIN_Open_Science_V01_0.pdf
Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography :
“Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography presents over 1,100 selected English-language scholarly works useful in understanding the open access movement’s efforts to provide free access to and unfettered use of scholarly literature. The bibliography primarily includes books and published journal articles. A limited number of book chapters, conference papers, dissertations and theses, magazine articles, technical reports, and other scholarly works that are deemed to be of exceptional interest are also included. The bibliography does not cover digital media works (such as MP3 files), news articles, editorials, interviews, letters to the editor, presentation slides or transcripts, unpublished e-prints, weblog postings, or e-mail messages.
The bibliography includes links to freely available versions of included works. Such links, even to publisher versions and versions in disciplinary archives and institutional repositories, are subject to change. Typically, URLs may alter without warning or automatic forwarding, and they may disappear altogether. Inclusion of links to works on authors’ personal sites is highly selective. Links are checked as of 8/1/2010. Note that e-prints and published articles may not be identical.
Most sources have been published from January 1, 1999 through August 1, 2010; however, a limited number of key sources published prior to 1999 are also included.”
URL : http://digital-scholarship.org/tsp/transforming.pdf
Subject repositories are under-studied and under-represented in library science literature and in the scholarly communication and digital library fields.
A study of practical literature on subject repositories reveals a relatively small proportion of practical articles to total articles found that discuss subject repositories in some way — where practical refers to articles that would help inform decisions on repository development and management.
In addition to the lack of practical literature on subject repositories, registries, software, publishers, and database thesauri do not define subject repositories consistently, do not recognize subject repositories as distinct from other types of repositories, or do not recognize subject repositories at all.
At the same time, subject repositories are frequently cited as highly successful scholarly communication initiatives, especially in relation to institutional repositories.
The lack of subject repository recognition within the literature and among commonly used repository tools may be attributed to the isolated development of the largest subject repositories and a general lack of awareness about small-scale subject repositories.
The authors recommend an increase of literature and research on subject repositories, development of standard language, guidelines, and best practices, and the formation of a community of subject repository professionals.
URL : http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september10/adamick/09adamick.html
This report is based on an analysis of the practicability and the effect of different models for allocating costs of journal and other digital information licences between HEIs where journal collections or other information products have been licensed by a “bloc” of institutions for a single all-in price – the so-called “Big Deal”.
This type of transaction is contemplated for core resources that have widespread application in HE. It can operate at a national level, or on a regional basis, or for groups of academic libraries with a common interest in a particular discipline.
The report draws on two studies:
1. Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK, Research information Network, London, 2008 (referred to as the ‘CEPA Report), and
2. Review of the Costs and Benefits of Single Payment Arrangements for JISC/NESLi2 Licences, JISC collections, London, 2009, referred to as the ‘Single Payment Report’
Both reports point to the benefits of moving to a digital journal environment in which online-only journal lists are licensed from publishers (and print versions discontinued) and paid for in a single payment transaction and in which significant reductions in library operating costs are achievable.
URL : http://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/Reports/Bloc-Payment-for-online-journals/
Open Access, zitationsbasierte und nutzungsbasierte Impact Maße: Einige Befunde :
“Die Anwendung bibliometrischer Verfahren ist sowohl für Wissenschaftler als auch für Organisationen höchst relevant: Individuelle Karriere und Evaluierung von Fachbereichen sind abhängig von der Bewertung des Publikationsverhaltens. Der Beitrag eruiert, warum Open-Access-Publikationen in solchen Bewertungen benachteiligt werden, wie die in der Evaluierung üblicherweise herangezogenen bibliometrischen Verfahren (v.a. der Journal Impact Factor JIF) funktionieren, welche Alternativen zu diesen zitationsbasierten Verfahren existieren und zu welchen Ergebnissen sie kommen. Unter der Annahme, dass Open-Access-Publikationen nicht qua geringer Qualität geringere Wertschätzung in der Evaluierung und bei Berufungskommissionen erfahren, sondern aufgrund methodischer Eigenheiten der Evaluierungsinstrumente, wird diskutiert, inwiefern alternative Qualitätsmessungsverfahren sich vorteilhaft auf die Akzeptanz von Open Access auswirken können.”
URL : http://eprints.rclis.org/19008/