DOCSLIB.ORG

Open and Equitable Scholarly Communications: Creating a More Inclusive Future

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Open and Equitable Scholarly Communications: Creating a More Inclusive Future OPEN AND EQUITABLE SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATIONS CREATING A MORE INCLUSIVE FUTURE Prepared by Nancy Maron and Rebecca Kennison with Paul Bracke, Nathan Hall, Isaac Gilman, Kara Malenfant, Charlotte Roh, and Yasmeen Shorish OPEN AND EQUITABLE SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATIONS CREATING A MORE INCLUSIVE FUTURE Prepared by Nancy Maron and Rebecca Kennison with Paul Bracke, Nathan Hall, Isaac Gilman, Kara Malenfant, Charlotte Roh, and Yasmeen Shorish Association of College and Research Libraries A division of the American Library Association Chicago, Illinois 2019 Open and Equitable Scholarly Communications: Creating a More Inclusive Future. © 2019 Association of College & Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association. This work is issued under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license CC BY-NC 4.0. Citation: Association of College and Research Libraries. Open and Equitable Scholarly Communications: Creating a More Inclusive Future. Prepared by Nancy Maron and Rebecca Kennison with Paul Bracke, Nathan Hall, Isaac Gilman, Kara Malenfant, Charlotte Roh, and Yasmeen Shorish. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2019. https:// doi.org/10.5860/acrl.1 Association of College & Research Libraries A division of the American Library Association Chicago, Illinois 2019 Contents Foreword .....................................................................................................................................................v Designing an Inclusive Process ..............................................................................................................................v Recognizing All Contributors ..............................................................................................................................vi Collective Responsibility for Change ...................................................................................................................vi Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................vii Reading This Report ............................................................................................................................................ vii Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................1 Defining Open, Inclusive, and Equitable ...............................................................................................................2 Aiming for Change .................................................................................................................................................5 Situating Research in Practice ................................................................................................................................6 Research Agenda ........................................................................................................................................8 PEOPLE ..................................................................................................................................................................8 Areas of Progress ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Practical Actions ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Next Directions for Research .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Embracing Diversity and Inclusion ...............................................................................................................................9 Enhancing representation within academic libraries ................................................................................................10 Creating a broader scholarly communications workforce .......................................................................................11 Improving the Working Lives of People Engaged in Scholarly Communications ................................................11 Creating incentives for participation ...............................................................................................................................12 Understanding the costs of un(der)recognized and un(der)compensated labor ...........................................12 Increasing Awareness Concerning Creators’ Rights .................................................................................................13 Retaining and protecting intellectual rights .................................................................................................................14 Intentionally limiting openness and knowledge sharing ........................................................................................15 CONTENT ............................................................................................................................................................16 Areas of Progress ........................................................................................................................................................... 16 Practical Actions ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 Next Directions for Research ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Rethinking What “Counts” ...........................................................................................................................................18 Addressing implicit and explicit bias ...............................................................................................................................18 Creating metrics built on value: Expanding which values we measure ..............................................................19 Creating More Representative and Open Collections ..............................................................................................20 Ensuring diversity of collections ........................................................................................................................................20 Enacting effective strategies for revisiting copyright ................................................................................................21 SYSTEMS ..............................................................................................................................................................21 Areas of Progress ........................................................................................................................................................... 22 Digital Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................................................22 Sustainability and Business Models .............................................................................................................................24 Practical Actions ........................................................................................................................................................... 24 Next Directions for Research ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Supporting Technological Infrastructure That Is Sustainable ..................................................................................25 Determining the right scale and scope for infrastructure ........................................................................................26 Managing research data and enhancing discovery ...................................................................................................27 Creating Systems That Permit More Access to More People....................................................................................27 Facilitating access for those with disabilities ................................................................................................................27 iii Designing systems that focus on users and audience ...............................................................................................28 Building Mission-Aligned Organizational and Financial Systems .........................................................................29 Building business models to support scholarly communications ........................................................................29 Investing in community-owned infrastructure ............................................................................................................30 Advancing Innovation in Academic Libraries ...........................................................................................................31 Encouraging technological innovation and ongoing development ...................................................................31 Driving transformation within libraries ...........................................................................................................................32 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................33
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “Altmetrics” Using Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook
    Pre-Print Version Altmetrics of “altmetrics” using Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook, Google-plus, CiteULike, Blogs and Wiki Saeed-Ul Hassan, Uzair Ahmed Gillani [email protected] Information Technology University, 346-B Ferozepur Road, Lahore (Pakistan) Abstract: We measure the impact of “altmetrics” field by deploying altmetrics indicators using the data from Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook, Google- plus, CiteULike, Blogs and Wiki during 2010- 2014. To capture the social impact of scientific publications, we propose an index called alt-index, analogues to h-index. Across the deployed indices, our results have shown high correlation among the indicators that capture social impact. While we observe medium Pearson’s correlation (ρ= .247) among the alt-index and h-index, a relatively high correlation is observed between social citations and scholarly citations (ρ= .646). Interestingly, we find high turnover of social citations in the field compared with the traditional scholarly citations, i.e. social citations are 42.2% more than traditional citations. The social mediums such as Twitter and Mendeley appear to be the most effective channels of social impact followed by Facebook and Google-plus. Overall, altmetrics appears to be working well in the field of “altmetrics”. Keywords: Altmetrics, Social Media, Usage Indicators, Alt-index Pre-Print Version Introduction In scholarly world, altmetrics are getting popularity as to support and/or alternative to traditional citation-based evaluation metrics such as impact factor, h-index etc. (Priem et. al., 2010). The concept of altmetrics was initially proposed in 2010 as a generalization of article level metrics and has its roots in the #altmetrics hashtag (McIntyre et al, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Publishing Infrastructure
    RatSWD Working Paper www.ratswd.de Series Flipping journals to open: 251 Rethinking publishing infrastructure Benedikt Fecher and Gert G. Wagner December 2015 Working Paper Series of the German Data Forum (RatSWD) The RatSWD Working Papers series was launched at the end of 2007. Since 2009, the series has been publishing exclusively conceptual and historical works dealing with the organization of the German statistical infrastructure and research infrastructure in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences. Papers that have appeared in the series deal primarily with the organization of Germany’s official statistical system, government agency research, and academic research infrastructure, as well as directly with the work of the RatSWD. Papers addressing the aforementioned topics in other countries as well as supranational aspects are particularly welcome. RatSWD Working Papers are non-exclusive, which means that there is nothing to prevent you from publishing your work in another venue as well: all papers can and should also appear in professionally, institutionally, and locally specialized journals. The RatSWD Working Papers are not available in bookstores but can be ordered online through the RatSWD. In order to make the series more accessible to readers not fluent in German, the English section of the RatSWD Working Papers website presents only those papers published in English, while the German section lists the complete contents of all issues in the series in chronological order. The views expressed in the RatSWD Working Papers are exclusively the opinions of their authors and not those of the RatSWD or of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The RatSWD Working Paper Series is edited by: Chair of the RatSWD (since 2014 Regina T.
    [Show full text]
  • Pledging 2019 KU OPEN ACCESS HEROES 2019
    VERSION September 2019 Knowledge Unlatched Making Open Access Work Pledging 2019 KU OPEN ACCESS HEROES 2019 TOP Titles by Usage TOP Subject Areas Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism The Learning Econo- by my and the Econom- Paolo Gerbaudo ics of Hope Frankenstein : A New by Edition for Scientists Bengt-Åke Lundvall and Engineers by Jason Scott Robert History Political Sociology Literature Linguistics & Science Languages Philosophy Anthro- Media & Theology & Arts pology Communi- Religion cations # of Supporting Institutions per Region 9 27 Scandinavia 114 UK / Ireland North America 68 10 Germany / Austria / Switzerland BeNeLux 16 Australia / New Zealand www.knowledgeunlatched.org TOP KU Authors (by Region) 40.27% 17.17% 15.19% 4.89% 4.16% 3.33% North America UK / Ireland DACH Australia / NZ BeNeLux Scandinavia TOP 10 Publishers (# of Titles) TOP Institutions (# of Downloads) Pluto Press Liverpool University Press 32 31 1. Freie Universität Berlin 6. University of Oxford Manchester 33 204 Transcript 2. Kings College London 7. University of London University of 36 (SOAS) Michigan Press 3. University of Toronto 8. University of Sydney 56 Duke Peter Lang 38 4. Cambridge University 9. University of Edinburgh Mohr Siebeck Academic Studies 41 52 Press 5. Columbia University 10. University of California, 51 San Diego DeGruyter Sources: OAPEN, JSTOR, Altmetrics, based on 2018 Data © Knowledge Unlatched 2019 Knowledge Unlatched Overview KU Marketplace - Pledging Deadline November 30th Page Page New 1 KU Select 2019 Books
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access Advocacy: Think Globally, Act Locally
    Collaborative Librarianship Volume 2 Issue 3 Article 7 2010 Open Access Advocacy: Think Globally, Act Locally Bette Rathe University of Northern Colorado, [email protected] Jayati Chaudhuri University of Northern Colorado, [email protected] Wendy Highby University of Northern Colorado, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship Part of the Information Literacy Commons Recommended Citation Rathe, Bette; Chaudhuri, Jayati; and Highby, Wendy (2010) "Open Access Advocacy: Think Globally, Act Locally," Collaborative Librarianship: Vol. 2 : Iss. 3 , Article 7. Available at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol2/iss3/7 This From the Field is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Collaborative Librarianship by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. Rathe, Chaudhuri & Highby: Open Access Advocacy Open Access Advocacy: Think Globally, Act Locally Bette Rathe, University of Northern Colorado ([email protected]) Jayati Chaudhuri, University of Northern Colorado ([email protected]) Wendy Highby, University of Northern Colorado ([email protected]) Abstract While the open access movement is a global movement, University of Northern Colorado libra- rians acted locally and collaboratively to make changes to their scholarly communication system. Authors of this article describe how global advocacy affected their local, institutional open access activities that resulted in a library faculty open access resolution at University of Northern Colo- rado Libraries. This article is based on the “Advocating for Open Access on Your Campus” pres- entation at the Colorado Academic Library Consortium Summit on May 21, 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Sci-Hub Provides Access to Nearly All Scholarly Literature
    Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature A DOI-citable version of this manuscript is available at https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100. This manuscript was automatically generated from greenelab/scihub-manuscript@51678a7 on October 12, 2017. Submit feedback on the manuscript at git.io/v7feh or on the analyses at git.io/v7fvJ. Authors • Daniel S. Himmelstein 0000-0002-3012-7446 · dhimmel · dhimmel Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania · Funded by GBMF4552 • Ariel Rodriguez Romero 0000-0003-2290-4927 · arielsvn · arielswn Bidwise, Inc • Stephen Reid McLaughlin 0000-0002-9888-3168 · stevemclaugh · SteveMcLaugh School of Information, University of Texas at Austin • Bastian Greshake Tzovaras 0000-0002-9925-9623 · gedankenstuecke · gedankenstuecke Department of Applied Bioinformatics, Institute of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, Goethe University Frankfurt • Casey S. Greene 0000-0001-8713-9213 · cgreene · GreeneScientist Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania · Funded by GBMF4552 PeerJ Preprints | https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100v2 | CC BY 4.0 Open Access | rec: 12 Oct 2017, publ: 12 Oct 2017 Abstract The website Sci-Hub provides access to scholarly literature via full text PDF downloads. The site enables users to access articles that would otherwise be paywalled. Since its creation in 2011, Sci- Hub has grown rapidly in popularity. However, until now, the extent of Sci-Hub’s coverage was unclear. As of March 2017, we find that Sci-Hub’s database contains 68.9% of all 81.6 million scholarly articles, which rises to 85.2% for those published in toll access journals.
    [Show full text]
  • “The Scholarly Monograph's Descendants,” Mary M. Case, Ed., T
    Association of Research Libraries (ARL®) Clifford A. Lynch, “The Scholarly Monograph’s Descendants,” Mary M. Case, ed., The Specialized Scholarly Monograph in Crisis, or How Can I Get Tenure if You Won’t Publish My Book? (Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 1999), pp. 137‐148. The Scholarly Monograph's Descendants Clifford Lynch, Executive Director, Coalition for Networked Information Introduction This paper looks at the possible evolutionary paths that the current printed scholarly monograph may take, paying particular attention to the ways in which technical, economic, and cultural factors may shape this evolution. It does not predict the demise of today's printed scholarly monograph, but suggests that it will coexist with a series of successors that will offer new points of balance among technical and economic constraints and opportunities and that will provide authors with new ways in which to communicate their research. For some works and purposes, the new forms will be superior; in other cases, the traditional printed monograph will likely remain the preferred form. I begin with a brief examination of the current state of the scholarly journal in its transition to electronic formats–or at least to electronic distribution. This transition is arguably more advanced and taking place on a broader scale than is the evolution of the monograph, and thus it may offer insights into what we can expect for the monograph. At the same time, I will argue that much of the experience with the journal may be misleading when extrapolated directly to the future of the monograph. I have chosen words carefully: I believe that what is happening to the journal is best described as a transition or migration, while what we will see with the monograph is the evolution of digitally based successor genres that will coexist with the current print monograph.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge Working Paper Economics
    Faculty of Economics Cambridge Working Paper Economics Cambridge Working Paper Economics: 1753 PUBLISHING WHILE FEMALE ARE WOMEN HELD TO HIGHER STANDARDS? EVIDENCE FROM PEER REVIEW. Erin Hengel 4 December 2017 I use readability scores to test if referees and/or editors apply higher standards to women’s writing in academic peer review. I find: (i) female-authored papers are 1–6 percent better written than equivalent papers by men; (ii) the gap is two times higher in published articles than in earlier, draft versions of the same papers; (iii) women’s writing gradually improves but men’s does not—meaning the readability gap grows over authors’ careers. In a dynamic model of an author’s decision-making process, I show that tougher editorial standards and/or biased referee assignment are uniquely consistent with this pattern of choices. A conservative causal estimate derived from the model suggests senior female economists write at least 9 percent more clearly than they otherwise would. These findings indicate that higher standards burden women with an added time tax and probably contribute to academia’s “Publishing Paradox” Consistent with this hypothesis, I find female-authored papers spend six months longer in peer review. More generally, tougher standards impose a quantity/quality tradeoff that characterises many instances of female output. They could resolve persistently lower—otherwise unexplained—female productivity in many high-skill occupations. Publishing while Female Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review.∗ Erin Hengely November 2017 I use readability scores to test if referees and/or editors apply higher standards to women’s writing in academic peer review.
    [Show full text]
  • Joe Mcarthur - @Mcarthur Joe Assistant Director, Right to Research Coalition Co-Founder and Co-Lead of the Open Access Button
    Barriers and Impact Joe McArthur - @Mcarthur_Joe Assistant Director, Right to Research Coalition Co-founder and Co-Lead of the Open Access Button openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button These slides, videos and more: bit.ly/OI9OAB openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Launched in Summer 2009. Built around the Student Statement on the Right to Research: access to research is a student right International alliance of 77 graduate & undergraduate student organizations, representing nearly 7 million students We Educate + Advocate for Open Access openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Todays talk Barriers and impact for: •the Open Access Button; •Open Access. openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button How the Button Works openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Desktop App Mobile App openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Mobile Login openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Mobile Follow the instructions openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Mobile Menu openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Mobile Do some research .. browser openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Mobile Hit paywall openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Mobile FAQ bit openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Web Hit paywall openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button The Firefox Web App openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Web openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Web Same image, circled button image openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Web openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Web Click wishlist. openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Web Story
    [Show full text]
  • Scholarly Communication1
    Scholarly Communication1 Laurent Romary, INRIA & HUB The chapter tackles the role of scholarly publication in the research process (quality, preservation) and looks at the consequences of new information technologies in the organization of the scholarly communication ecology. It will then show how new technologies have had an impact on the scholarly communication process and made it depart from the traditional publishing environment. Developments will address new editorial processes, dissemination of new content and services, as well as the development of publication archives. This last aspect will be covered on all levels (open access, scientific, technical and legal aspects). A view on the possible evolutions of the scientific publishing environment will be provided. Keywords: digital libraries & online journals, e-print archives, communication models, communication platforms, copyright issues, open archive initiative. 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 2 2 CHARACTERIZING SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION ............................................................................... 2 3 ACQUIRING SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION .............................................................................................. 4 3.1 A TRANSITIONAL MODEL – BIG DEALS ...................................................................................................... 5 3.2 TOWARDS NEW CONTRACTUAL SCHEMES ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited
    publications Article How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited Bo-Christer Björk 1,*, Sari Kanto-Karvonen 2 and J. Tuomas Harviainen 2 1 Hanken School of Economics, P.O. Box 479, FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland 2 Department of Information Studies and Interactive Media, Tampere University, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland; Sari.Kanto@ilmarinen.fi (S.K.-K.); tuomas.harviainen@tuni.fi (J.T.H.) * Correspondence: bo-christer.bjork@hanken.fi Received: 19 February 2020; Accepted: 24 March 2020; Published: 26 March 2020 Abstract: Predatory journals are Open Access journals of highly questionable scientific quality. Such journals pretend to use peer review for quality assurance, and spam academics with requests for submissions, in order to collect author payments. In recent years predatory journals have received a lot of negative media. While much has been said about the harm that such journals cause to academic publishing in general, an overlooked aspect is how much articles in such journals are actually read and in particular cited, that is if they have any significant impact on the research in their fields. Other studies have already demonstrated that only some of the articles in predatory journals contain faulty and directly harmful results, while a lot of the articles present mediocre and poorly reported studies. We studied citation statistics over a five-year period in Google Scholar for 250 random articles published in such journals in 2014 and found an average of 2.6 citations per article, and that 56% of the articles had no citations at all. For comparison, a random sample of articles published in the approximately 25,000 peer reviewed journals included in the Scopus index had an average of 18, 1 citations in the same period with only 9% receiving no citations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Opencitations Data Model
    The OpenCitations Data Model Marilena Daquino1;2[0000−0002−1113−7550], Silvio Peroni1;2[0000−0003−0530−4305], David Shotton2;3[0000−0001−5506−523X], Giovanni Colavizza4[0000−0002−9806−084X], Behnam Ghavimi5[0000−0002−4627−5371], Anne Lauscher6[0000−0001−8590−9827], Philipp Mayr5[0000−0002−6656−1658], Matteo Romanello7[0000−0002−7406−6286], and Philipp Zumstein8[0000−0002−6485−9434]? 1 Digital Humanities Advanced research Centre (/DH.arc), Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, University of Bologna fmarilena.daquino2,[email protected] 2 Research Centre for Open Scholarly Metadata, Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, University of Bologna 3 Oxford e-Research Centre, University of Oxford [email protected] 4 Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC), University of Amsterdam [email protected] 5 Department of Knowledge Technologies for the Social Sciences, GESIS - Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences [email protected], [email protected] 6 Data and Web Science Group, University of Mannheim [email protected] 7 cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne [email protected] 8 Mannheim University Library, University of Mannheim [email protected] Abstract. A variety of schemas and ontologies are currently used for the machine-readable description of bibliographic entities and citations. This diversity, and the reuse of the same ontology terms with differ- ent nuances, generates inconsistencies in data. Adoption of a single data model would facilitate data integration tasks regardless of the data sup- plier or context application. In this paper we present the OpenCitations Data Model (OCDM), a generic data model for describing bibliographic entities and citations, developed using Semantic Web technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • An Initiative to Track Sentiments in Altmetrics
    Halevi, G., & Schimming, L. (2018). An Initiative to Track Sentiments in Altmetrics. Journal of Altmetrics, 1(1): 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29024/joa.1 PERSPECTIVE An Initiative to Track Sentiments in Altmetrics Gali Halevi and Laura Schimming Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, US Corresponding author: Gali Halevi ([email protected]) A recent survey from Pew Research Center (NW, Washington & Inquiries 2018) found that over 44 million people receive science-related information from social media channels to which they subscribe. These include a variety of topics such as new discoveries in health sciences as well as “news you can use” information with practical tips (p. 3). Social and news media attention to scientific publications has been tracked for almost a decade by several platforms which aggregate all public mentions of and interactions with scientific publications. Since the amount of comments, shares, and discussions of scientific publications can reach an audience of thousands, understanding the overall “sentiment” towards the published research is a mammoth task and typically involves merely reading as many posts, shares, and comments as possible. This paper describes an initiative to track and provide sentiment analysis to large social and news media mentions and label them as “positive”, “negative” or “neutral”. Such labels will enable an overall understanding of the content that lies within these social and news media mentions of scientific publications. Keywords: sentiment analysis; opinion mining; scholarly output Background Traditionally, the impact of research has been measured through citations (Cronin 1984; Garfield 1964; Halevi & Moed 2015; Moed 2006, 2015; Seglen 1997). The number of citations a paper receives over time has been directly correlated to the perceived impact of the article.
    [Show full text]