Archives des mots-clés : scientific communication

The Number of Scholarly Documents on the Public Web

Statut

The number of scholarly documents available on the web is estimated using capture/recapture methods by studying the coverage of two major academic search engines: Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search. Our estimates show that at least 114 million English-language scholarly documents are accessible on the web, of which Google Scholar has nearly 100 million.

Of these, we estimate that at least 27 million (24%) are freely available since they do not require a subscription or payment of any kind. In addition, at a finer scale, we also estimate the number of scholarly documents on the web for fifteen fields: Agricultural Science, Arts and Humanities, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Economics and Business, Engineering, Environmental Sciences, Geosciences, Material Science, Mathematics, Medicine, Physics, Social Sciences, and Multidisciplinary, as defined by Microsoft Academic Search. In addition, we show that among these fields the percentage of documents defined as freely available varies significantly, i.e., from 12 to 50%.

URL : The Number of Scholarly Documents on the Public Web

Alternative URL : http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0093949

Reproducibility, Correctness, and Buildability: the Three Principles for Ethical Public Dissemination of Computer Science and Engineering Research

Statut

“We propose a system of three principles of public dissemination, which we call reproducibility, correctness, and buildability, and make the argument that consideration of these principles is a necessary step when publicly disseminating results in any evidence-based scientific or engineering endeavor. We examine how these principles apply to the release and disclosure of the four elements associated with computer science research: theory, algorithms, code, and data. Reproducibility refers to the capability to reproduce fundamental results from released details. Correctness refers to the ability of an independent reviewer to verify and validate the results of a paper. We introduce the new term buildability to indicate the ability of other researchers to use the published research as a foundation for their own new work. This is more broad than extensibility, as it requires that the published results have reached a level of completeness that the research can be used for its stated purpose, and has progressed beyond the level of a preliminary idea. We argue that these three principles are not being sufficiently met by current publications and proposals in computer science and engineering, and represent a goal for which publishing should continue to aim. We introduce standards for the evaluation of reproducibility, correctness, and buildability in relation to the varied elements of computer science research and discuss how they apply to proposals, workshops, conferences, and journal publications, making arguments for appropriate standards of each principle in these settings. We address modern issues including big data, data confidentiality, privacy, security, and privilege. Our examination raises questions for discussion in the community on the appropriateness of publishing works that fail to meet one, some, or all of the stated principles.”

URL : http://research.kristinrozier.com/papers/RozierRozierEthics2014.pdf

Library-as-Publisher: Capacity Building for the Library Publishing Subfield

Statut

“The role of publisher is increasingly assumed by academic and research libraries, usually inspired by campus-based demands for digital publishing platforms to support e-journals, conference proceedings, technical reports, and database-driven websites. Although publishing is compatible with librarians’ traditional strengths, there are additional skill sets that library publishers must master in order to provide robust publishing services to their academic communities.

To help library publishing services mature into a consistent field of practice, practitioners in this growing publishing subfield increasingly cite their need for specialized training and professional development opportunities. For example, the authors’ conversations with participants in the Library Publishing Coalition (LPC), a collaborative network of 60 North American academic libraries involved in publishing, have revealed that no existing graduate-level training program adequately prepares practitioners for the full range of theoretical, practical, and organizational issues involved in publishing. LPC participants have also noted the relative lack of continuing education opportunities targeted toward those who are engaging in publishing—whether in a library, university press, or commercial publishing environment.

This essay provides a brief history of publisher training and uses this context to think about how and where library publishers may engage in capacity building to inform and train this growing publishing subfield. Throughout the essay, we integrate findings from a series of interviews conducted by the authors with 11 industry leaders from several publishing sectors, including university presses, library publishers, and commercial publishers (see Appendix A). We conclude with recommendations for pathways forward, focusing on seven key areas in which library publishers need additional training opportunities. This essay focuses primarily on North American activities.”

URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0017.207

Publishing Education in the 21st Century and the Role of the University

Statut

“Publishing education arose in the 20th century in response to a need for trained employees in a stable industry with a well understood set of competencies and skills. Today, the publishing landscape is disrupted, and that stability is seriously threatened. Given these circumstances, what is the role for university-level publishing education? This article argues for a model of university-level (graduate and undergraduate) publishing education that builds upon a vocational self-identification of incoming students, nurtures a community of practice and professional discourse, and in doing so generates and renews the very culture of publishing. In times of transition and disruption, this is a role uniquely suited to the university, where an environment of collaborative research, development, and innovation can be cultivated.”

URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0017.205

Teaching an Old University Press Publisher New Tricks: Living in the Present and Preparing for the Future of Scholarly Communications

Statut

“University presses currently exist in the dual worlds of print and digital publishing. Current staffing needs require that they hire personnel with skills and experience that mirror that present duality. Training and maintaining a skilled workforce requires a commitment to flexibility and an openness to the ever-changing nature of scholarly communication. As the scholarly publishing ecosystem continues to evolve, university presses will need to look to a future workforce that has additional training, knowledge, and experience beyond the traditional skills associated with academic publishing, one that fully embraces the realities of a digital world, the habits of new generations of researchers, and the increasing role of technology in scholarly communication. This article looks at what the future might look like, what skills might be required, and how one might prepare for that future.”

URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0017.202

Why Do We Still Have Journals?

Statut

“The Web has greatly reduced the barriers to entry for new journals and other platforms for communicating scientific output, and the number of journals continues to multiply. This leaves readers and authors with the daunting cognitive challenge of navigating the literature and discerning contributions that are both relevant and significant. Meanwhile, measures of journal impact that might guide the use of the literature have become more visible and consequential, leading to “impact gamesmanship” that renders the measures increasingly suspect. The incentive system created by our journals is broken. In this essay, I argue that the core technology of journals is not their distribution but their review process. The organization of the review process reflects assumptions about what a contribution is and how it should be evaluated. Through their review processes, journals can certify contributions, convene scholarly communities, and curate works that are worth reading. Different review processes thereby create incentives for different kinds of work. It’s time for a broader dialogue about how we connect the aims of the social science enterprise to our system of journals.”

URL : http://asq.sagepub.com/content/59/2/193.full