A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INVESTIGATION INTO the EFFECT of the WEB on SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION in CHEMISTRY by Richard William Fyson
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON Faculty of Natural and Environmental Sciences School of Chemistry A Multi-Stakeholder Investigation into the Effect of the Web on Scholarly Communication in Chemistry by Richard William Fyson Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy February 2017 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON ABSTRACT FACULTY OF NATURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES School of Chemistry Doctor of Philosophy A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INVESTIGATION INTO THE EFFECT OF THE WEB ON SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION IN CHEMISTRY by Richard William Fyson As an open, inexpensive, collaborative platform, the Web is ideal for facilitating commu- nication among scholars, enabling near free access to knowledge. The Web’s potential goes further still however, allowing researchers to utilise the digital, networked medium to publish more of their research data in comparison to paper-based journal articles, and to publish them in context sensitive formats enabling wider access and visibility, increased discoverability and potential for further use including through e-science tech- niques. Yet this potential has not been fully realised. Whilst much research is made freely available via open access, this remains a contentious subject, along with other facets of scholarly communication such as peer review and journal impact factors. The range of functions fulfilled by the processes of academic publishing ultimately inhibits the Web’s ability to instigate change. This thesis presents an all-encompassing study examining the roles of the major stakeholders in the process of capturing research and making it publicly available, to understand why the full potential of the application of the Web in scholarly discourse has not yet been fully realised. Through doing so a new approach to scholarly discourse, termed disintermediation, is formulated whereby the researcher is placed in a central role, using the Web to communicate research findings directly with their peers. An evaluation of disintermediation via a socio-economic anal- ysis of researchers’ behaviour finds that publisher-enabled mechanisms of reward and recognition are crucial in driving scholarly dissemination. Therefore a more pragmatic approach to instigating change in academic publishing is then investigated. This leads to the development of a prototype Web service to facilitate a process termed disaggrega- tion, the breaking down of conventional publications so that their constituent elements may be disseminated and used more freely. An evaluation of disaggregation via expert interviews, seeds a final proposal that builds on the disaggregation approach. Whilst not immediately implementable, this proposal recognises the need for a significant cultural shift and engagement from all the stakeholders of scholarly discourse, if it is to truly benefit from the affordances of the Web. Contents Declaration of Authorship xv Acknowledgements xvii 1 Introduction1 1.1 Scope of the Research.............................3 1.2 Thesis Outline.................................4 2 Background7 2.1 Knowledge Creation..............................7 2.2 Modern Research Environment........................9 2.3 A Brief History of Academic Publishing................... 12 2.4 The Impact of Academic Journals....................... 13 2.4.1 Measuring Impact........................... 14 2.4.2 Peer Review............................... 17 2.4.3 Serials Crisis.............................. 19 2.4.4 A Complicated Legacy......................... 20 2.5 The World Wide Web............................. 21 2.6 Academic Publishing and the Web...................... 24 2.7 Open Access.................................. 30 2.7.1 A Critique of Open Access...................... 35 2.7.2 Open Access to Data.......................... 38 2.8 Academia 2.0.................................. 39 2.9 Conclusion................................... 41 3 Disintermediation 45 3.1 Identifying a Social Framework for Scholarly Discourse........... 45 3.2 A Functional Analysis............................. 47 3.3 Transactions of Scholarly Discourse...................... 51 3.4 Background to Disintermediation....................... 53 3.5 Disintermediation in Scholarly Discourse................... 55 3.6 Disintermediation in Practice......................... 60 3.6.1 The Tools that Enable Disintermediation.............. 60 3.6.1.1 Researcher Portfolios.................... 61 3.6.1.2 Crowd Sourced Editorial.................. 64 3.6.1.3 Publish then Filter Peer Review.............. 65 3.6.2 A Model for Disintermediation.................... 67 3.7 Previous Attempts at Disintermediation................... 69 v vi CONTENTS 3.8 Conclusion................................... 71 4 Disintermediation: An Evaluation 73 4.1 Methodological Approach........................... 73 4.2 Socio-economic Factors............................. 74 4.2.1 Game Theory.............................. 74 4.2.2 Knowledge Management........................ 80 4.2.3 Collective Behaviour.......................... 84 4.3 Previous Work................................. 85 4.3.1 Studies................................. 86 4.3.2 Questionnaire.............................. 89 4.3.3 Preliminary Interview Notes...................... 90 4.4 Problems with Disintermediation....................... 91 4.4.1 Reward & Recognition......................... 91 4.4.2 Reintermediaries............................ 95 4.5 Conclusion................................... 96 5 Disaggregation 99 5.1 Background................................... 99 5.2 Disaggregation - A Proposal.......................... 103 5.3 Disaggregator.................................. 104 5.3.1 Disaggregator Development...................... 104 5.3.1.1 Image Redactor....................... 104 5.3.1.2 Basic Disaggregator..................... 105 5.4 Disaggregator Overview............................ 109 5.4.1 Components.............................. 109 5.4.2 Disaggregating............................. 113 5.4.2.1 Scanners........................... 114 5.4.2.2 Manual Disaggregation................... 114 5.4.3 Portfolio................................. 115 5.5 Conclusion................................... 116 5.5.1 Research Questions........................... 117 6 Disaggregation Evaluation 119 6.1 Methodological Approach........................... 119 6.1.1 Focus Group Procedure........................ 121 6.1.2 Semi-Structured Interview Procedure................. 122 6.2 Analysis..................................... 122 6.3 Disaggregation Evaluation Results...................... 124 6.3.1 The 251st American Chemical Society National Meeting & Expo- sition Computers in Chemistry Conference............. 124 6.3.2 Overview of the Implemented Study................. 128 6.3.3 Norms and Behaviour......................... 129 6.3.3.1 Results............................ 129 6.3.3.2 Discussion.......................... 133 6.3.4 Stakeholders.............................. 135 6.3.4.1 Results............................ 135 CONTENTS vii 6.3.4.2 Discussion.......................... 141 6.3.5 Reputation............................... 143 6.3.5.1 Results............................ 143 6.3.5.2 Discussion.......................... 147 6.3.6 The Researcher’s Workflow...................... 150 6.3.6.1 Results............................ 150 6.3.6.2 Discussion.......................... 153 6.3.7 Disaggregation............................. 154 6.3.7.1 Results............................ 154 6.3.7.2 Discussion.......................... 159 6.3.8 Disaggregation Implementation.................... 161 6.3.8.1 Results............................ 161 6.3.8.2 Discussion.......................... 165 6.3.9 Social or Technical Determinism................... 167 6.3.9.1 Results............................ 167 6.3.9.2 Discussion.......................... 170 6.4 Conclusion................................... 171 7 Disaggregation: A New Approach 175 7.1 Proposals.................................... 175 7.2 A New Proposal for Disaggregation...................... 178 7.2.1 Component Store............................ 178 7.2.2 The ELN................................ 181 7.3 Conclusion................................... 183 8 Conclusions 185 8.1 Overall Discussion............................... 185 8.1.1 The Web – A Scholarly Utopia?................... 185 8.1.2 Disintermediation Critique...................... 187 8.1.3 Disaggregation Critique........................ 188 8.2 Disaggregation – A New Approach...................... 189 8.3 Limitations................................... 190 8.4 Future Work.................................. 191 8.5 In Conclusion.................................. 191 A Preliminary Questionnaire and Responses 193 B Preliminary Interview Schedule 205 C Disaggregator Screenshots 209 D Interview Guide 217 E Code Book 221 Bibliography 231 List of Figures 2.1 Charles Humphrey’s Knowledge Transfer Cycle describing the various stages that a research project goes through, from “conceptualising” a new idea and gaining support and resources to carry it out, before going on to “formalise” and eventually “popularise” the results so that others may build on the work (Research Information Network, 2009)....... 11 2.2 The many facets of academic publishing. The roles of journal publishers have become increasingly influential over time, to the extent that there are implications for other aspects of the research life cycle. The wide reach of publishers along with their monopolistic characteristics in the academic publishing market, may result in varying levels of efficiency or effectiveness for