Innovations in Scholarly Communication and the Rise of Web 2.0 Scholarship
Download as PPTX, PDF•1 like•1,135 views
This document discusses how innovations in web technologies like Web 2.0 have changed scholarly communication. It outlines how traditional scholarly practices of conducting research, publishing findings, and disseminating work have been impacted by new collaborative online environments and tools that allow for more open and immediate sharing of ideas. While peer review and rigorous standards remain important, the rise of social media, open access publishing, and new metrics are shifting how research is produced and evaluated.
Innovations in Scholarly Communication and the Rise of Web 2.0 Scholarship
- 1. Innovations in Scholarly Communication and the Rise of Web 2.0 Scholarship Michelle Willmers Scholarly Communication in Africa Programme CC-BY-SA
- 2. Defining Scholarly Communication in the internet era (Thorin, 2003) - Conducting research, developing ideas and informal communications. - Preparing, shaping and communicating what will become formal research outputs. - Disseminating formal outputs. - Managing personal careers, and research teams and programmes. - Communicating scholarly ideas to broader communities.
- 3. Traditional Scholarly Communication Literature reviews Student Conceptual frameworks Bibliographies Proposals Conceptualisation Notes Interview transcripts Lectures Translation Data sets Data Collection Presentations Engagement Data Analysis Images Reports Audio recordings Interviews Community Findings Books Conference papers Journal articles Technical papers Scholar Image CC-BY-SA Laura Czerniewicz
- 4. Traditional Scholarship • Relatively contained disciplinary context. • Relatively clear scholarly community. • Relatively clear boundaries. • Particular points of engagement.
- 5. Some things have stayed the same … - Need for academic rigour > quality assurance/peer review. - Need to build reputation and collaborative partnerships. >>> Journals and monographs remain the central currency (RIN 2010)
- 6. But certain things are very different … • Collaborative focus • Interdisciplinary push • Granular • Immediacy factor • Suited to addressing socio-economic imperatives and collaborative breakthrough • Openness (process, findings, outputs)
- 7. Web 2.0 scholarship plays out in multiple environments utilising various tools/platforms.
- 8. 1. Open Access Green Route - Self-archiving of scholarly content prior to, in parallel with, or after publication. - New movement not restricting this content to journal articles – includes ‘grey literature’ (reports, etc.) - 2085 repositories worldwide (DOAR 2011) Gold Route - Primary publication in open-access journals. - 7 070 journals (DOAJ 2011)
- 9. 2. Open Research • Replicable (transparency - method) • Reusable (results free for re-use and appropriation) • Replayable (tools available for appropriation) • Immediacy (more speedily available) • Granular in approach
- 10. 3. Open Data
- 12. 5. Alternative Licensing Mechanisms Creative Commons licensing of content in the public domain enables control over: - Commercialisation by third parties - Right to produce derivatives - Ensuring attribution
- 13. “Web 2.0 is widely seen as providing a technical platform essential to this ‘re-evolution’ of science.” (Waldrop 2008) But not just about appropriation of new technologies. Also changing how we produce and communicate information. “Web 2.0 services emphasise decentralised and collective generation, assessment and organisation of information, often with new forms of technological intermediation.” (Surowieki 2004)
- 14. Scholarship 2.0 • New ways of describing content (and looking for it). Metadata as passport to participation. • New ways of tracking usage. • Aggregation crucial. • Blogging and social networking as mechanisms for research and collaboration. • Outputs of social web become part of the scholarly record. • Rise of the global networked scholar.
- 15. New Models of Scholarly Communication Literature Reviews Bibliographies Conceptual frameworks Proposals Conceptualisation Notes Interview transcripts Lectures Translation Data sets Data Collection Presentations Engagement Data Analysis Images Reports Audio recordings Interviews Findings Books Conference papers Journal articles Technical papers Image CC-BY-SA Laura Czerniewicz
- 16. New questions arise… • What does this mean for peer review and quality control? • What does this mean for how we measure and reward research (and the notion of ‘impact’?)?
- 18. Bibliometrics mined impact on the first scholarly Web. altmetrics mines impact on the next one. (Priem 2012)
- 20. The social web and science 58k tweets mention scientific articles (with a DOI, PMID or arxiv ID), 1 – 31 July 2011. http://buzzdata.com/stew/tweets-linking-to-scientific-papers-jul-2011#!/overview Highly tweeted articles 11 times more likely to be highly cited than less- tweeted articles. Tweets can predict highly cited articles within the first 3 days of article publication. Social media activity either increases citations or reflects the underlying qualities of the article that also predict citations (Eysenbach 2011)
- 23. Hype Cycle of educational Technologies (2010) (Bozalek et al. 2012)
- 25. Contours of adoption “Frequency of use of the kinds of web 2.0 tools associated with producing, sharing and commenting on scholarly content is positively associated with older age groups, at least up to age 65, and more senior positions. The propensity for frequent use is highest among the 35–44 age group and lowest among those under 25.” (RIN 2010) “Those who work in collaboration with different institutions are significantly more likely to be frequent or occasional users of web 2.0 services associated with producing, sharing or commenting on scholarly content.” (RIN 2010)
- 26. Exploring utility of web 2.0 • Social filtering mechanism to cope with deluge of new information • Keeping in touch with colleagues and fostering collaboration • Helping to manage projects • Aid to dissemination
- 27. References Bozalek V, N’gambi D & Gachago D (in press) Emerging Technologies in South African HEIs: Institutional enables and constraints Eysenbach G (2011) Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13(4). Available at: http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e123 Priem J (2012) Toward a Second Revolution: altmetrics, total-impact, and the decoupled journal. Presented at Purdue University, 14 February 2012. Available at: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=ddfg787c_362f465q2g5 RIN (Research Information Network) (2010) If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0. Available at: http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/use-and- relevance-web-20-researchers Surowieki J (2004) The wisdom of crowds. Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations. New York: Doubleday Thorin SE (2003) Global changes in scholarly communication. In SC Hsianghoo, PWT Poon and C McNaught (eds) eLearning and Digital Publishing. Dordrecht: Springer. Available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/w873x131171x2421/ Waldrop M (2008) Science 2.0: Great new tool, or great risk? Scientific American. Available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-or-great-risk
Editor's Notes
- #3: Thorin SE (2003) Global changes in scholarly communication. In SC Hsianghoo, PWT Poon and C McNaught (eds) eLearning and Digital Publishing. Dordrecht: Springer. Available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/w873x131171x2421/
- #6: RIN (Research Information Network) (2010) If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0. Available at: http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/use-and-relevance-web-20-researchers
- #7: A few commonly acknowledge characteristics.
- #9: Gold Route- Primary publication in open-access journals.- 7 070 journals (DOAJ 2011)Green Route- Self-archiving of scholarly content in open access repositories prior to, in parallel with, or after publication.2085 repositories worldwide (DOAR 2011)
- #10: A few commonly acknowledge characteristics.
- #11: Gold Route- Primary publication in open-access journals.- 7 070 journals (DOAJ 2011)Green Route- Self-archiving of scholarly content in open access repositories prior to, in parallel with, or after publication.2085 repositories worldwide (DOAR 2011)
- #12: Gold Route- Primary publication in open-access journals.- 7 070 journals (DOAJ 2011)Green Route- Self-archiving of scholarly content in open access repositories prior to, in parallel with, or after publication.2085 repositories worldwide (DOAR 2011)
- #13: Gold Route- Primary publication in open-access journals.- 7 070 journals (DOAJ 2011)Green Route- Self-archiving of scholarly content in open access repositories prior to, in parallel with, or after publication.2085 repositories worldwide (DOAR 2011)
- #14: Waldrop M (2008) Science 2.0: Great new tool, or great risk? Scientific American. Available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-or-great-riskSurowieki J (2004) The wisdom of crowds. Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations. New York: Doubleday
- #16: The whole PROCESS becomes open and shareableEvery step is opened upAudiences all along the way
- #18: Open, technologically-driven practice leads to a new, expanded conception of impact.
- #19: Priem J (2012) Toward a Second Revolution: altmetrics, total-impact, and the decoupled journal. Presented at Purdue University, 14 February 2012. https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=ddfg787c_362f465q2g5
- #21: 1. http://buzzdata.com/stew/tweets-linking-to-scientific-papers-jul-2011#!/overview2. Eysenbach G (2011)Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13(4). Available at: http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e123/
- #24: Source: Bozalek V, N’gambi D and Gachago D (in press) Emerging Technologies in South African HEIs: Institutional enables and constraints.
- #25: Source: http://mediaexposure1.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html1. Innovators- The adoption process begins with a tiny number ofvisionary, imaginative innovators2. Early adopters: Once the benefits start to become apparent, earlyadopters leap in. They love getting an advantage over their peers and they have time and money to invest3. Early majority: They are followers who are influenced by mainstream fashions and wary of fads. They are looking for simple, proven, better ways of doing what they already do. 4. Late majority: They are conservative people who hate riskand are uncomfortable your new idea.5. Laggards: They hold out to the bitter end. They arepeople who see a high risk in adopting a particular product orbehavior