Upload
research-information-network
View
934
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The changing nature of scholarly communication
Dr. Branwen Hide
August 3rd, 2010
What does this mean for researchers?
Outline Introduction Current research practices Researcher publishing practices Factors influencing researcher behaviours Changes in scholarly communications Conclusions Recommendations for librarians Food for thought
Basic research life cycle
Research Production
Publication
Development of research idea
Post-publication distribution
Pre-publication dissemination
Literature reviews, archival material, e-mails,
face-face meetings, conferences, networking
Bench research, field research,
conceptualizing
Conferences, meetings, departmental seminars,
personal communications, emails
Peer reviewed high impact publications
(journals or monographs)
Conferences, seminars, Personal communications,
technical reports, grey literature, popular literature,
newspapers, grant applications, networking
Publication and Dissemination:
To maximize dissemination to the target audience
Gain peer esteem Career rewards
Why do researchers publish?
Formal and informal means Related to disciplinary norms
Including: monographs, journals, conference proceedings etc.
How do researchers publish?
What influences the way researchers publish?
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
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008
Other
Meetingabstract
Editorial
Book review
Proceedings
Bookchapter
Book
Article
Bio-medicine Sciences Engineering Social Humanities Education Total inc. studies Arts
Article
RIN (2009), Communicating knowledge: how and why researchers publish and disseminate their findings
The raise in the importance of journal articles
2. Technological developments
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
Web 2.0 tools and resources
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 ?
Using web 2.0 tools to producing, commenting on, and share scholarly content
Researchers as generators of knowledge
Type of Scholarly Communications
Activity
PhD Student
Research Assistant
Lecturer
RIN (2010), If they buid it will they come. Researchers us of web 2.0 tools and resources
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
3. Policy developmentsFunding cuts
Research Assessment
Public engagement
Impact
Knowledge Transfer
Data management plans
Open access publishing
Data sharing mandates
Library budget constraints
Innovation
Grand Challenges
Internationalization
Quality Assurance
dissemination
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
Research 2.0
Research Production
Development of research idea
Publication and distribution
Pre-publication dissemination
Literature reviews, online data bases, online archival material, online discussions
Text mining, virtual lab equipment, online-analysis, reuse of existing data
Blogs, wikis, networking sites, on-line forums, databases
Peer reviewed outputs (E-journals, e-books, open access publications), subject specific repositories, Blogs, wikis, online-forums, networking sites, slideshare, Flicker, YouTube, institutional repositories, reference sharing sites, subject specific repositories, Society web pages
UKPMC, UKDA, Mendeley, Connotea, Times Archives EMBL,H-net.org, Economists online, Researchgate, Friend Feed
Ensembl , myExperiment, EBI, UKDA
Friendfeed, Researchgate, UKDA academia.edu, arXiv, H-net.org,
Mendeley, Conneta, citeUlike, Connotea, Twitter, Omeka, ScholarPress, academia.edu, Friendfeed, open humanities press, Researchgate,EBI, UKDA, UKPMC
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
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
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?
Dr. Branwen HideLiaison and Partnership OfficerResearch Information Network
www.rin.ac.uk