Report on Integration of Data and Publications …

Report on Integration of Data and Publications :

“Scholarly communication is the foundation of modern research where empirical evidence is interpreted and communicated as published hypothesis driven research. Many current and recent reports highlight the impact of advancing technology on modern research and consequences this has on scholarly communication. As part of the ODE project this report sought to coalesce current though and opinions from numerous and diverse sources to reveal opportunities for supporting a more connected and integrated scholarly record. Four perspectives were considered, those of the Researcher who generates or reuses primary data, Publishers who provide the mechanisms to communicate research activities and Libraries & Data enters who maintain and preserve the evidence that underpins scholarly communication and the published record. This report finds the landscape fragmented and complex where competing interests can sometimes confuse and confound requirements, needs and expectations. Equally the report identifies clear opportunity for all stakeholders to directly enable a more joined up and vital scholarly record of modern research.”


Citation and Peer Review of Data Moving Towards…

Citation and Peer Review of Data: Moving Towards Formal Data Publication

“This paper discusses many of the issues associated with formally publishing data in academia, focusing primarily on the structures that need to be put in place for peer review and formal citation of datasets. Data publication is becoming increasingly important to the scientific community, as it will provide a mechanism for those who create data to receive academic credit for their work and will allow the conclusions arising from an analysis to be more readily verifiable, thus promoting transparency in the scientific process. Peer review of data will also provide a mechanism for ensuring the quality of datasets, and we provide suggestions on the types of activities one expects to see in the peer review of data. A simple taxonomy of data publication methodologies is presented and evaluated, and the paper concludes with a discussion of dataset granularity, transience and semantics, along with a recommended human-readable citation syntax.”


PEER Behavioural Research Authors and Users vis à…

PEER Behavioural Research: Authors and Users vis-à-vis Journals and Repositories (final report) :

“The Behavioural research project is one of three independent research projects commissioned and managed by PEER as part of the PEER Observatory. The aim of the Behavioural research
project was to address the role of stage-two manuscript repositories in the scholarly and scientific communication system by exploring perceptions, motivations and behaviours of authors and readers. The research was carried out between April 2009 and August 2011 by the Department of Information Science and LISU at Loughborough University, UK.”


The Digital Scholar: How Technology Is Transforming Scholarly Practice

While industries such as music, newspapers, film and publishing have seen radical changes in their business models and practices as a direct result of new technologies, higher education has so far resisted the wholesale changes we have seen elsewhere.

However, a gradual and fundamental shift in the practice of academics is taking place. Every aspect of scholarly practice is seeing changes effected by the adoption and possibilities of new technologies.

This book will explore these changes, their implications for higher education, the possibilities for new forms of scholarly practice and what lessons can be drawn from other sectors.


Analysis of Chemists and Economists survey on Open…

Analysis of Chemists and Economists survey on Open Access :

“The data presented here should be approached with due caution. We are dealing with a relatively small number of academics from a selection of higher education institutions (HEIs), so extrapolating these findings to academia as a whole would not be advisable. There are few non-participants in open access (OA) in the sample, so if there is a bias in the sample, it is towards those who already engage with OA. We can therefore feel more confident about the data regarding why academics do use OA as opposed to why they do not. There were however a large number of participants who did not always make their work OA. From them we should gain some insight into the barriers that currently exist to making work OA.

We know that three institutions from which the academics in this study were drawn have a policy or mandate requiring academic staff to make their work open access. Of those that did have an institutional policy (54 academics), only seven were confident of this. A similar picture existed with funder mandates. Of those that did have a funder mandate (65 academics) only 14 reported that they did. The majority of the academics in the study are engaged with open access, so we can conclude that these policies have had little impact on the uptake of OA. HEIs have failed to get the message of these mandates over to these engaged academics, so we can surmise that the message has also not got over to the less engaged.

The motivations for engaging with open access given by these academics tend to be internal, personal reasons, especially altruistic ones. Both chemists and economists see themselves as working for the wider public benefit. However, economists especially also give more selfish reasons, where OA is seen as conferring a personal benefit. External forces that attempt to push academics towards engagement with OA feature less prominently. One academic commented that the existence of an institutional mandate would make him feel less inclined to engage. However, these are academics who are already engaged, and may be enthusiastic, early adopters of OA. It may take more “push” to bring the others on board.

Quality is a concern for both chemists and economists. The need to publish in high-impact journals and the peer-review process are major concerns of academics when they choose not to participate in OA. These are however issues that would affect any new journal, in any medium. Reputation and the perception of quality take time to develop. However open-access journals need to ensure that they have adequate quality procedures in place with regard to issues like plagiarism and peer review.

The use of an open access option from a traditional journal was the least popular means of making work open access. This is in spite of this option offering a solution to the problem of quality. Cost was a major issue for academics when they choose not to make work open access. Most of these same academics reported that institutional support for payment of open access fees would encourage them to participate in future.”


A further exploration of the views of chemists…

A further exploration of the views of chemists and economists on Open Access issues in the UK :

“Most UK researchers are attached to academic institutions. Although there are variations in the breadth of the subscription base of institutional libraries, most scholars have smooth and seamless access to most of the scholarly research outputs that they require, for most of the time. Their world is largely an open one. For this reason, the policy discourse about openness in general, and Open Access in particular has had little influence on most academics. Their world is dominated less by issues of efficiency, cost-effectiveness and public good, than by the motivations in relation to scholarly publishing that exist within their own field. The focus of this study is on the latter, that is, on culture and the reasons behind researchers’ attitude to Open Access.

It is worth noting that ‘ Open Access’ is not a term whose nuances and implications are widely understood. For most people the key distinction is – ‘is it free or do I have to pay for it?’ The organisation and arrangements that go on behind the scenes to make that ‘free’ stuff possible is and will probably always be only a concern for a tiny minority of people. But having the free access is a concern for everyone. In a similar way: everyone wants to use Google to find things but how many people get involved in discussing search algorithms, ranking and indexing?”


A research study into Practices Policies Plans and…

A research study into Practices, Policies, Plans…..and Promises :

“This is a research study commissioned by the Publishing Research Consortium on the topic of Content Mining of Journal Articles. Content mining is defined as the automated processing of large amounts of digital content for purposes of information retrieval, information extraction and meta‐analysis. This study, carried out between February and May 2011, aims to provide an overview of
current practices, players, policies, plans and expectations for text mining and data mining of content
in academic journals. The research consisted of a series of 29 interviews with experts and people working on content mining and was concluded by a survey among scholarly publishers.

Overall, experts expect a further acceleration of text and data mining into scholarly content, sparked by a greater availability of digital content corpuses, the ever increasing computer capabilities, improved user‐friendliness of software tools and easier access to content. Semantic annotation of content is expected by some to develop into a new standard for STM content, facilitating better and
deeper search and browse facilities into related articles ‐‐ even if use cases and business propositions
are at present in infancy stage only and not yet fully developed.

This optimism on Journal Article Mining is generally shared by publishers across the board who expect an increase in publishers mining their own content. Half of the publishers surveyed also already see an increase in mining requests from third parties. The mining requests that publishers receive are not very frequent (mostly less than 10 per year, a good share even less than 5 per year) and come mostly from Abstracting and Indexing services and from corporate customers. Respondents also note a fair amount of illegal crawling and downloading that suggest unreported mining activities.

Publishers tend to treat mining requests from third parties in a liberal way, certainly so for mining requests with a research purpose. Publishers are less permissive if the mining results can replace or compete with the original content. Few publishers have a publicly available mining policy, the large majority handles mining requests on a case‐by‐case basis. Approximately 30 % of publisher respondents allow any kind of mining of their content without restrictions, in most cases as part of their Open Access policies. For the other publishers, nearly all require information about the intent and purpose of the mining request.

Regarding measures to make content mining easier across multi‐publishers content, the interviews generated a broad spectrum of possible improvements: from the creation of one shared content mining platform across publishers, and commonly agreed permission rules for research based mining requests, to collaboration with (national) libraries and standardization of mining‐friendly content formats including basic, common ontologies. Of these options, the suggestion for more cross publisher standardization of content formats received most support in the survey, especially from the (self declared) mining experts. Collaboration with libraries was least popular, while one content mining platform received a good response overall, but faced less positive responses from those respondents who have expertise or experience in content mining.

The survey results were cross analyzed for differences in responses from small and large publishers, for different types of publishers and for experts versus non‐experts. Size and type of publishers showed no statistically significant deviations, except that larger publishers (with more than 50
journals) receive more mining requests, do more mining of their own content and more often have publicly available explicit permission guidelines for content mining. Differences between expert and non‐experts responses were most prominent regarding solutions to make content mining easier: experts were more articulate in their opinions with a higher rating for standardization of content formats and a lower rating for the creation of one shared content mining platform. Experts were more negative than non‐experts about collaboration with libraries.”