The Changing nature of scholarly communication: what does this mean for researchers?
A paper given by Branwen Hide, Liaison and Partnership Officer at the (Research Information Network).
Knowledge, skills and reskilling – where does the MSc fit in?
The Changing nature of scholarly communication: what does this mean for researchers?
1. The changing nature of scholarly
communication
What does this mean for researchers?
Dr. Branwen Hide
August 3rd, 2010
2. Outline
Introduction
Current research practices
Researcher publishing practices
Factors influencing researcher behaviours
Changes in scholarly communications
Conclusions
Recommendations for librarians
Food for thought
3. Basic research life cycle
Development of
research idea
Literature reviews,
archival material, e-mails,
Post-publication face-face meetings, Research
distribution conferences, networking Production
Conferences, seminars, Bench research, field
Personal communications, research,
technical reports, grey conceptualizing
literature, popular literature,
newspapers, grant
applications, networking
Pre-publication
Publication dissemination
Conferences, meetings,
Peer reviewed high departmental seminars,
impact publications personal communications,
(journals or monographs) emails
4. Publication and Dissemination:
Why do researchers publish?
To maximize dissemination to the target
audience
Gain peer esteem
Career rewards
How do researchers publish?
Formal and informal means
Related to disciplinary norms
Including: monographs, journals, conference proceedings
etc.
6. 1. The research landscape
significant increase in research expenditure
increasing emphasis on the demonstration, and
maximization of social and economic returns
from that investment
“the journal article is the currency of research…”
RIN (2010), E-journals and Researchers
7. 100%
Other
90%
Meeting
80%
abstract
70% Editorial
60%
Book review
50%
40% Proceedings
30% Book
chapter
20%
Book
10%
Article
0% Article
2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008
Bio-medicine Sciences Engineering Social Humanities Education Total inc.
studies Arts
The raise in the importance of journal articles
RIN (2009), Communicating knowledge: how and why researchers publish and disseminate their findings
9. Web 2.0 tools and resources
web based tools and resources which encourage wide
scale informal dissemination, sharing, collaboration,
and re-purposing of content and innovative ways to
interact with and use these web based platforms.
Ware, M (2003). Web 2.0 and Scholarly Communication
10. Who uses the web and why
A strong belief that web 2.0 tools will:
enable and encourage new forms of research
promote new forms of scholarly communications
drive innovation
Web based tools and resources have been
developed to todate support these ideas
Wide scale usage ?
11. Researchers as generators of knowledge
Using web 2.0 tools to producing, commenting on, and share scholarly
content
Type of Scholarly
Communications
Activity
PhD Research Lecturer
Student Assistant
RIN (2010), If they buid it will they come. Researchers us of web 2.0 tools and resources
12. Researcher as a user of knowledge:
Digital resources as a research tool
Electronic publications
Online databases
Using aggregated Google search data
Using social media to distribute large population-
based surveys
Text mining of existing data bases
and social networking sites
Data mashups
New research areas
http://cyberbrethren.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/web-applications-desktop-software.jpg
13. 3. Policy developments
Grand Challenges Funding cuts
dissemination
Research Assessment Library budget constraints
Public engagement
Knowledge Transfer
Impact
Open access publishing
Quality Assurance
Data management plans Internationalization
Innovation
Data sharing mandates
14. Changes to publication practices
electronic and open access publishing
posting text, slides and images online
add value to publications – dynamic links
new and innovative publishing platforms
data as a publication
social media for the dissemination of
research outputs
15. UKPMC, UKDA, Mendeley, Connotea, Times
Research 2.0 Archives EMBL,H-net.org, Economists online,
Researchgate, Friend Feed
Development of
research idea Ensembl , myExperiment,
Mendeley, Conneta, citeUlike, Literature reviews, online EBI, UKDA
Connotea, Twitter, Omeka, data bases, online archival
ScholarPress, academia.edu, material, online discussions Research
Friendfeed, open humanities Production
press, Researchgate,
EBI, UKDA, UKPMC Text mining, virtual lab
equipment, online-
Publication and analysis, reuse of existing
distribution data
Peer reviewed outputs (E-
journals, e-books, open access
publications), subject specific Friendfeed, Researchgate, UKDA
repositories, Blogs, wikis, academia.edu, arXiv, H-net.org,
online-forums, networking
sites, slideshare, Flicker, Pre-publication
YouTube, institutional dissemination
repositories, reference sharing
sites, subject specific Blogs, wikis, networking sites,
repositories, Society web on-line forums, databases
pages
16. Conclusion
Scholarly communications can not be seen in
isolation
Developments must support technological
and policy initiatives
Developing practises must improve upon
existing research practises
Disciplinary differences
Local support and encouragement is
increasingly important
17. Recommendations for libraries
Maintain and improve access to e-content
Especially for those not working on site
Provide guidance and advice on the different
communication channels
Skills training:
Data management (preservation & curation), IP, copyright and
FoI etc.
Help set standards for curation and preservation
Raise awareness of web 2.0 tools and services
Provide advice, training and encouragement
Publicise examples of successful use and good practice
Both as a vehicle for dissemination but also as a research tool
18. Food for thought
Can social media/web 2.0 tools help researchers
meet policy objectives?
Is everything we need really online?
Is traditional peer review adequate to monitor the
quality of less formal/new outputs?
Is a new system of quality assessment required for
blogs and other social media as well as for data?
Does using online resources affect the way we
interact with our data/primary resources?
19. Dr. Branwen Hide
Liaison and Partnership Officer
Research Information Network
Branwen.hide@rin.ac.uk
www.rin.ac.uk
Editor's Notes
I have been asked to talk about the changing nature of scholarly communications and the implications this has for researchers But I would like approach this in a slightly different manner and look at current researcher practises and talk about the factors that influence researcher behaviour And then examine what the implications are for those within the scholarly communications landscape I hope that when I finish you will understand why I have chosen to approach the topic in this way. As for personal background – I have been working for the RIN for 2 years as the liaison and partnerships officer and prior to the I completed a PhD at Oxford in Biochemistry.
I have just put together a simplified version of a research life cycle to help us identify the basic components of research and to think about how we approach the different steps There is a lot of overlap between the different stages but we tend to still think about and talk about the different stages as discrete steps Might be more accurate in this context to talk about it in simpler terms related to the role of researcher and researchers 1) to generate knowledge 2) to use knowledge Important to bare in mind these 2 different and often conflicting roles when talking about both researcher behaviour and scholarly communications
We know that in general the reasons why researchers publish has not changed very much for the past few years And that the types of out puts they publish has not changed that much either – it is more medium in which they are produced that has changed. What I mean is that researchers still produce journal articles – they are just now more likely to be produced electronically; instead of writing a letter to a journal commenting on a paper you might write a blog – but the principle and the reasoning behind them is the same. But we are all well aware the scholarly communications landscape is changing. So the question is what is instigating these changes?
The perception, and in many cases, the realty that their work is being monitored and assessed has a major influence on how it is communicated And as a result research outputs are becoming increasingly important commodity
As a result starting to see an increase in journal article production in areas that didn’t traditional publish in journals. Such as humanities and education
World wide web User generated content Social media Open research practices Suppercomputing Cloud computing Mobile computing (blackberry and ipad) - Many of these underpin or are a result of web 2.0 technology
Producers of knowledge: dissemination and sharing Users of knowledge: collaborations and re-purposing the definition is not limited to technologies but also includes the changing ways in which individuals and groups produce and communicate information
Over the past few years, there has been a growing increase in the use of the internet within research, and tied to this is the rapid development of new tools and services being launched by commercial players as well as arising from the efforts of research communities, information service providers and knowledge intermediaries such as publishers and conference organizers Researchers and proponents of open research practises report a number of benefits of using these tools and resources: Saves time, enhances collaborations, find new sources of information, enhanced visibility, Given these benefits it is believed that the majority of researchers use or plan to use these tools in the future
Yet depsite the advantages i mentioned before, few researchers are using web 2.0 tools and resouces for dissemination many researchers are reluctant due to fears of being ‘scooped’, missinterpretation of data, copyright and IP issues, and the lack of recognition and reward (RIN 2008).
A number of our reports have highlighted the growing use and reliance of e-journals and online databases One area our report on the us of web 2.0 tools and resources did not examine in detail was the use of these resources as research tools Google Flu - estimate current flu activity around the world in near real-time E-epidemiology - adapting epidemiological data collection to the 21st century Linguistic analysis of myspace and facebook pages Ordnance survey maps Cyberpsychology Asd What is becoming clear is the distinction between the researcher as a producer and as a user of knowledge is becoming blurred.
These initiatives can have a profound effect on researcher behaviour as well as scholarly communications development But as you can see many of these policy initiatives conflict, or more importantly are perceived to conflict, in the eyes of researchers e.g. research assessment and open access/data sharing
To support these policy and technological development we are seeing a number of changes to the scholarly communications landscape This just gives an over view of some of the changes that are occurring As I mentioned previously, the development of new and innovative publishing and searching platform, tools and services being launched by commercial players as well as arising from the research communities, information service providers and knowledge intermediaries such as publishers and conference organizers There is also a move to publish research data, linking information within publications to existing data bases, and enhanced annotation of research outputs Commenting, moderating and rating are also being introduced as new ways of undertaking peer review
Whole research cycle is affect by policy, technology (including) social media and I already mentioned some changes that are happening within the publishing community and touched on peer review, but you can see that there area number of implications for the future of peer review Boundaries are starting to become blurred and there is less of a distinction between producer and user of knowledge
- Disciplinary differences – these used to be much more defined – humanities vs sciences but now we are seeing areas such digital humanities