digital scholarship:

how open publication and co-creation

could transform science @cristobalcobo

Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford University, England

1

2  

3  JISC. (2012, September 4). Amberthomas openness he. Technology. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/16znWvI

6  

5  

4  

7  

10  

9  

11  

8  

13  Ron Mader. (2013, July 21). Set the default to open #openaccess #oer #openjournalism. Technology.

Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/14BTtRN

17  

28  

37  

Cameron Neylon. (2011, July 4). Open Research: Pipedream or growing

reality. Education. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/16zm85S

38  

39  

42  

43  

44  

45  

46  

47  

48  

49  

18  Source: Cameron Neylon. (2009, January 29). Open Access, Open Data. Open Research? Retrieved from http://

www.slideshare.net/CameronNeylon/open-access-open-data-open-research-presentation?from_search=1

19  

20  

21  

22  

23  

24  

25  

26  Julien Sicot. (20131). Open Science, Open Access, Science2.0 : de nouvelles modalités pour... Technology.

Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/14BSxNm

29  Carl-Christian Buhr. (2012, October 22). Open Science at the European Commission. Technology.

Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/14BTKEm

30  

Two  features  define  an  open-­‐access  publica3on:    1.  Published  contents  are  freely  accessible  through  Internet.    2.  Readers  are  given  copyright  permission  to  republish  or  reuse  the  content  as  they  like  so  long  as  the  author  and  publisher  receive  proper  aOribu3on.    

Why  Full  Open  Access  Ma<ers  

What  is  open  access?  (that  does  not  mean  openly  licensed)  

Public    Domain  

All  Rights  Reserved  

Least  restricAve                                    à                                  Most  restricAve  hOp://www.slideshare.net/mrgarin/o-­‐a-­‐w-­‐e-­‐e-­‐k2009  

31  

32  john wilbanks. (2010, March 2). Nfais Wilbanks. News & Politics. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/14BUs4o

33  

34  

Open data

Open source software

Open discussion

Open resources

Open review

Two relevant dimensions: knowledge generation (wikis,

e-science, online education, distributed R&D, open

innovation, open science, peer-based production, UGC)

+ new models of knowledge distribution (e-journals,

open repositories, open licenses, dataweb archive). 50  

••Today's initiatives in cyber- infrastructure, e-

Science, e-Humanities or e-Learning emerged

from a period combining technological advances

and economic-institutional redefinitions (Borgman, 2007)

51  

•Exponential transformation of information is

remarkable from the quantitative perspective,

but also there fragmentation of mechanisms to

create, access and distribute information. 52  

••New modes of scholarship of collaborative,

trans-disciplinary and computationally

engaged research, teaching and publication. (Burdick, et al, 2012).

53  

•••Digital scholarship communities collaborate in

dynamic, flexible/open-ended networks, exchanging

in innovation, creativity/co-authoring.

(i.e open Science Federation)

54  

•Radical decentralization: Open values, ideology

and potential of technologies born of peer-to-

peer networking and wiki-ways. (Benkler, 2006)

i.e. BioMed Central, Public Library of Science

55  

 connect  supply  and  demand  

Publishing

journals

Publishing

books

Post in

conferences

Blogging

Tweeting

DOAJ - OCW

YouTube Channel

Webinar

Print-on-demand

First  Monday:  (1ST  of  its  kind)  15-­‐year-­‐old  open  access  journal  about  the  internet.  

PLoS  ONE:  peer-­‐reviewed,  open-­‐access  resource  from  the  Public  Library  Of  Science  

SciELO  -­‐  ScienAfic  Electronic  Library  Online  (1998):  facilitate  coopera3ve  electronic  publishing  of  scien3fic  (peer  review)  journals.      SiELO  network  (federa3on)  is  based  on  na3onal  infrastructures  (future  sustainability).    Goal:  To  foster  the  na3onal  scien3fic  research  (expanding  the  visibility,  accessibility  and  credibility)  of  the  LA&C  scien3fic  publica3ons.  

SciElo  enables:  -­‐  Searching,    -­‐  Preserving  and    -­‐  Monitoring  scien3fic  literature.      It  includes  over  760  journals,    ~300,000  ar3cles.  Impact  factor:  Over  6  million  granted  cita3on.    Over  than  12  million  ar3cles  accessed  per  month.    

SiELO:  Compa3ble  with  interna3onal  standards  (Web  of  Science,  Scopus,  Crossref,  Google  Scholar,  PubMed,  DOAJ).    

15  na3ons  +  South-­‐South  Coopera3on  

hOp://figshare.com/  

59  Source: Cameron Neylon. (2010, January 22). Science in the Open. Business & Mgmt.

Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/CameronNeylon/science-in-the-open?from_search=2

60  

62  

63  

64  

65  

66  

68  

69  

70  

71  

72  

73  

74  

78  

79  

Scientific publishing

80  Jonathan Eisen. (2012, July 13). Jonathan Eisen talk on “Open Science” at #BOSC2012

#ISMB. Entertainment. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/16znpdq

Existing Barriers:

Impact Factor

Money raising efforts

Immobilism ‒ Lobby

False positive: 1.  Lack of peer review or quality

2.  Only Journal copyright protects authors

3.  Poor distribution

81  

82  Björn Brembs. (2011, August 30). What’s wrong with scholarly publishing today? II. Business &

Mgmt. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/14BT7L5

83  

84  

85  

86  

Where you publish is

more important to us

than what you

publish

“Not everything

that can be

counted counts, and

not everything that

counts can be

counted”

35  

87  

Current tensions that face the

academic community:

•  • Tradition (800 centuries and counting......)

•  • Proprietary value of information.

•  • Revenues (sure?)

•  • Plagiarism (yes, but...)

•  • Misunderstanding (access vs open or

quality)

•  • Funding model

The  WWW  enables  global  exchange  and  wealth  of  knowledge  (par3cularly  by  amateurs).  Academic  communi3es  have  their  preferen3al  aOachments  (i.e    JCR  journals)  

hOp://www.flickr.com/photos/franganillo/3554010670/sizes/z/in/photostream/  

Cornelius Puschmann. (2008). New Paradigms In Scholarly Communication (Ibm).

Technology. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/16zocuJ

88  

How is 'impact'

measured?

“ Your article

was published in a

journal with an

Impact Factor

of X”

hOp://www.flickr.com/photos/macrj/7678960512/sizes/l/in/photostream/  

89  

How could 'impact' be measured? Authority 3.0 (Michael Jensen)

•  • X citations (de-duped from Google Scholar, Scopus, WoSc)

•  • prestige of the publisher + peer pre-reviewers, commenters •  • citations (scholarly, hyperlinks, social bookmarks)

•  • expert ratings (f1000.com; Peer Reviewers)

•  • community rating& commenting (Digging; Rating)

•  • social media coverage (bookmarked/discussed/commented)

•  • it was viewed X times in X journal/communities

•  • proportion-quoted-by-others: out in Web/ valued-links

•  • author's participation in other valued projects

•  • inclusion in in syllabi and other indexes

Authority  2.0  and  3.0  (PDF)  originally  presented  at  50th  anniversary  celebra3on  of  Hong  Kong  University  Press,  11/2006.  hOp://bit.ly/17jDV1f  

Björn Brembs. (2009, January 21). Reputation, authority and incentives. Or: How to

get rid of the Imp... Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/16zoylf

drivers

90  

•EU Commission + ESRC: Accelerate open access.

OA journals + databases facilitating mechanism of

open peer revision + visibility/impact (avoid duplication).

1. Technology: Coordination mechanisms - exchange and

codification of tacit knowledge, simplifying its

translation into more findable and interchangeable

resources (Heimeriks & Vasileiadou, 2008).

(i.e. PeerJ, Rubriq)

91  

•Books become a dialogical tool not simply

“finished” + “published” but open to dynamics +

iterations (i.e. versioning, crowd-source, peer

reviewed, remix). Burdick (et al., 2012)

2. Co-creation: Networking +Coordination +Cooperation +

Collaboration. (Rheingold, 2012)

The higher the level of negotiation the more

complex the set of skills required.

(i.e. Flat World Knowledge, Creative Crowdwriting)

92  

•Do-it-yourself publishing: Blogs, photos + videos (Nielsen, 2011).

Less clear distinction between popular and more specialized scholarship (Burdick, 2012).

3. Dissemination: New open-access policies (open

repositories/journals) almost anyone anywhere.

“If it doesn’t spread, it’s dead” Jenkins et al. (2010).

4’R: reuse, revise, remix and redistribute. (Wiley, 2010).  

(i.e. CreateSpace or Blurb)

93  

•~20 mill. papers over 50y:

cross Disciplinary teams dominate solo authors

and frequently more cited than individuals (Wuchty, 2007)

•4. Co-Authorship/beta: From solitary genius toward the

virtually boundless community of digital scholars (Burdick, et al, 2012)).

94  

•a) the existing practices of peer-review to

assure the quality of knowledge creation /

dissemination

b) Mode 2, post-normal science + technoscience (Burdick, et al, 2012).

Critique: Need to recognize distinction between DIY

scholarship and high scholarship.

••

(i.e Wikipedia)

95  

•Stick or the carrot: academic mechanisms of

recognition (in many cases) are limited to metrics

such as ‘h-index' affecting to possibilities to

facilitate peers based collaboration (Hirsch, 2005)

96  

•the current academic assessment systems

which reward scholarship are dysfunctional

and potentially cause more harm than good. (Adler and Harzing, 2009)

97  

Due to these elements of exclusiveness/

individualism, knowledge-sharing in academic

organizations are often inefficient (Seonghee and

Boryung, 2008)

The highly competitive environment enhance lack of

partnership (Kanwar, Kodhandaraman, and Umar, 2010).

98  

Will universities institutionalize approaches (learning and

research) grounded in collaboration instead of celebrity

and competition?

99  

‘The shift in knowledge landscape is disturbing to

people familiar with the earlier paradigm’. Chesbrough (2006)

100  

•More appropriate institutional recognition are needed

(i.e. A tenure evaluation system that recognizes the

value of more flexible mechanisms of knowledge

creation and new publication formats).

Is not easy to determine to what extent traditional

and new practices of scholarship will coexist.

(i.e. Reinventing Discovery)

101  

Appropriating these tools/practices requires a new set

of skills (i.e. Curation, Editing, and Modelling) to work

across an information ecosystem full of new

intermediaries. 102  

New cultural practices: institutional flexibility (i.e.

diversifying tenure track, re- understand concepts

such as academic visibility or digital influence).

103  

104  

105  

Sources  Cameron  Neylon.  (2010,  January  22).  Science  in  the  Open.  Business  &  Mgmt.  Retrieved  from  hOp://www.slideshare.net/CameronNeylon/science-­‐in-­‐the-­‐open?from_search=2    Cameron  Neylon.  (2009,  January  29).  Open  Access,  Open  Data.  Open  Research?  Retrieved  from  hOp://www.slideshare.net/CameronNeylon/open-­‐access-­‐open-­‐data-­‐open-­‐research-­‐presenta3on?from_search=1    Julien  Sicot.  (2013,  May  21).  Open  Science,  Open  Access,  Science2.0 :  de  nouvelles  modalités  pour...  Technology.  Retrieved  from  hOp://www.slideshare.net/jsicot/open-­‐science-­‐open-­‐access-­‐science20-­‐de-­‐nouvelles-­‐modalits-­‐pour-­‐la-­‐communica3on-­‐scien3fique?from_search=3    Björn  Brembs.  (2011,  August  30).  What’s  wrong  with  scholarly  publishing  today?  II.  Business  &  Mgmt.  Retrieved  from  hOp://slidesha.re/14BT7L5    Ron  Mader.  (2013,  July  21).  Set  the  default  to  open  #openaccess  #oer  #openjournalism.  Technology.  Retrieved  from  hOp://slidesha.re/14BTtRN    Carl-­‐Chris3an  Buhr.  (2012,  October  22).  Open  Science  at  the  European  Commission.  Technology.  Retrieved  from  hOp://slidesha.re/14BTKEm    John  Wilbanks.  (2010,  March  2).  Nfais  Wilbanks.  News  &  Poli3cs.  Retrieved  from  hOp://slidesha.re/14BUs4o    Cameron  Neylon.  (2011,  July  4).  Open  Research:  Pipedream  or  growing  reality.  Educa3on.  Retrieved  from  hOp://slidesha.re/16zm85S    Jonathan  Eisen.  (2012,  July  13).  Jonathan  Eisen  talk  on  “Open  Science”  at  #BOSC2012  #ISMB.  Entertainment.  Retrieved  from  hOp://slidesha.re/16znpdq    JISC.  (2012,  September  4).  Amberthomas  openness  he.  Technology.  Retrieved  from  hOp://slidesha.re/16znWvI    Cornelius  Puschmann.  (2008).  New  Paradigms  In  Scholarly  CommunicaRon  (Ibm).  Technology.  Retrieved  from  hOp://slidesha.re/16zocuJ    Björn  Brembs.  (2009,  January  21).  ReputaRon,  authority  and  incenRves.  Or:  How  to  get  rid  of  the  Imp...  Retrieved  from  hOp://slidesha.re/16zoylf                      

@cristobalcobo  hOp://3ny.cc/ppts  

Oxford  Internet  Ins3tute  Research  Fellow.  106  

107  

108