Preprint of “Introducing the Scholarly Communication Section of the Academic Division: What Will the Section Do?”Posted: September 4, 2015
Abstract – The first part of this article presents a chronology of the creation of the new Section. I would like people to know more about the historical origins of the Section. For part two, I address some fallacies that librarians and information professionals face when discussing scholarly communication issues. This provides some of the reasons I had gotten involved in the debate. I would like the Section to address these fallacies and others in the future. [This has been submitted to Practical Academic Librarianship: The International Journal of the SLA Academic Division.]
The draft was ready on May 15, 2015. It was also placed on the E-Lis server.
I did some work on this report convened by the National Science Communication Institute (nSCI). The report is:
Mapping the Future of Scholarly Publishing (PDF), 1st edition
(Seattle: National Science Communication Institute, January 2015).
Note: “This document isn’t official yet—it’s being fine-tuned by contributors as we speak.”
The Open Science Initiative (OSI) is a working group convened by the National Science Communication Institute (nSCI) in October 2014 to discuss the issues regarding improving open access for the betterment of science and to recommend possible solutions. The following document summarizes the wide range of issues, perspectives and recommendations from this group’s online conversation during November and December 2014 and January 2015.
The 112 participants who signed up to participate in this conversation were drawn mostly from the academic, research, and library communities. Most of these 112 were not active in this conversation, but a healthy diversity of key perspectives was still represented.
Individual participants may not agree with all of the viewpoints described herein, but participants agree that this document reflects the spirit and content of the conversation. This main body of this document was written by Glenn Hampson and edited by Joyce Ogburn and Laura Ada Emmett. Additional editorial input was provided by many members of the OSI working group. Kathleen Shearer is the author of Annex 5, with editing by Dominque Bambini and Richard Poynder.
I signed this “Open Letter to The American Association for the Advancement of Science.” I recently discovered that it got published as a paper in The Winnower with type: letter. It even has a DOI: 10.15200/winn.140813.35294.
My article “Cash, carrots, and sticks: Open Access incentives for researchers” was recently publishedPosted: November 6, 2014
This was published at F1000Research. (http://f1000research.com/articles/3-263/) They use a model with post-publication peer review, and if you are so inclined, you can review the article. After the reviews and recommendations come in, then I can make changes based on the feedback.
Each country, scholarly field and institution has developed responses to new scholarly communication systems, and those policies and responses influence the behavior of the scholars within those systems. Over the last couple of years, policy makers and stakeholders in the United Kingdom have thoroughly discussed open access issues. In July 2012, the Finch Report and the Research Councils UK (RCUK) Policy on open access were published. The RCUK, one of the major funding bodies for research in the UK, announced the availability of a new funding mechanism to help researchers at member institutions transition their sponsored work to open access sources. Because the author is more familiar with the scholarly communication situation in the United States, the author interviewed 16 people with international perspectives on scholarly communication issues. This article provides an overview of the discussions with those individuals.
I took the MOOC “Copyright for Educators and Librarians” which was taught from July 21 to August 18, 2014, and I passed with flying colors. I am not exactly sure which colors, but I did pass. Here is a blurb about the class.
Fear and uncertainty about copyright law often plagues educators and sometimes prevents creative teaching. This course is a professional development opportunity designed to provide a basic introduction to US copyright law and to empower teachers and librarians at all grade levels. Course participants will discover that the law is designed to help educators and librarians.
It was taught by Kevin Smith of Duke University, Lisa A. Macklin of Emory University, and Anne Gilliland of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
I am going to be giving a presentation at the Fall RMSLA Membership Meeting. The meeting will be on Wednesday, October 29th.
Altmetrics at Altitude: Attaining Higher Ground
The term altmetrics was coined by Jason Priem back in 2010. This is a new field that investigates the wide range of impacts that scholars, authors, researchers, and others contribute to the world. In the past, researchers had been mostly interested in article level and journal level citation metrics, but that is changing as new measures are becoming available. People contribute information products and knowledge sources in many ways and formats, and altmetrics can be “applied to people, journals, books, data sets, presentations, videos, source code repositories, web pages, etc.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altmetrics) The presenter, Joseph Kraus, has been following the development of altmetrics since January of 2011, and he will provide an overview of some of the resources, tools, and methodologies used by proponents of altmetrics.
The presentation is ready, and here it is below.
It isn’t official yet, but I’ve been asked to moderate this session in Vancouver.
Monday, June 9 • 12:00pm – 1:30pm
Show All the Metrics: Uncovering and Rewarding the Broad Impact of Research
Speaking – Heather Piwowar, ImpactStory
Ambitious scholars have been including a few metrics on their CVs for years, for example indicating that a paper was recommended by Faculty of 1000, received a “Highly Accessed” badge on a journal website or SSRN, or was widely discussed in the media. New tools are starting to make it easy to track traditional and alternative metrics (altmetrics) at a large scale; we can expect it will become common to include impact data on CVs in the future. In this talk we’ll explore how this change will empower scholars and their publishing decisions, what opportunities and challenges exist for displaying and interpreting this data, what pitfalls we should avoid, and how libraries can help with the transition.