Who’s Talking about Scholarly Communication? An Examination of Gender and Behavior on the SCHOLCOMM Listserv

Authors: Clayton Hayes and Heidi Elaine Kelly

Abstract: INTRODUCTION This study analyzes the gender dynamics of the American Library Association’s SCHOLCOMM listserv in order to determine the accuracy of concerns expressed by participants in early 2016 regarding the dominance of male voices on the listserv. METHODS Utilizing the SCHOLCOMM listserv archive, openly available online, the authors analyzed metadata related to individual messages in order to create a comprehensive list of participants, which was then analyzed to determine gender identity. The authors utilized this information to correlate the frequency of new messages and replies sent to the list with the gender identity of participants. RESULTS While men represented 35% of the SCHOLCOMM list’s participants, they contributed over half of the messages sent to the listserv and two-thirds of those sent as replies on existing message threads. DISCUSSION The opinion of several SCHOLCOMM participants that male voices were overrepresented in listserv discussions proved to be true. The gender identity breakdown of those most active on the list may also influence the perceptions and/or behaviors of other listserv participants, however, and should be investigated further. CONCLUSION While this study substantiates the opinion of several listserv participants that male SCHOLCOMM participants account for a disproportionately large amount of listserv discussion, we argue that the dynamics of the listserv can and should be changed in order to better represent the participant population.

Citation: Hayes, C. & Kelly, H.E., (2017). Who’s Talking about Scholarly Communication? An Examination of Gender and Behavior on the SCHOLCOMM Listserv. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 5(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2017


Discovering Scholarly Orphans Using ORCID

Authors: Martin Klein, Herbert Van de Sompel

Abstract: Archival efforts such as (C)LOCKSS and Portico are in place to ensure the longevity of traditional scholarly resources like journal articles. At the same time, researchers are depositing a broad variety of other scholarly artifacts into emerging online portals that are designed to support web-based scholarship. These web-native scholarly objects are largely neglected by current archival practices and hence they become scholarly orphans. We therefore argue for a novel paradigm that is tailored towards archiving these scholarly orphans. We are investigating the feasibility of using Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) as a supporting infrastructure for the process of discovery of web identities and scholarly orphans for active researchers. We analyze ORCID in terms of coverage of researchers, subjects, and location and assess the richness of its profiles in terms of web identities and scholarly artifacts. We find that ORCID currently lacks in all considered aspects and hence can only be considered in conjunction with other discovery sources. However, ORCID is growing fast so there is potential that it could achieve a satisfactory level of coverage and richness in the near future.

Citation: Martin Klein and Herbert Van de Sompel. 2016. Discovering Scholarly Orphans Using ORCID. In Proceedings of ACM Conference, Washington, DC, USA, July 2017 (Conference’17), 10 pages.


Open: The Philosophy and Practices that are Revolutionizing Education and Science

Authors: Rajiv Jhangiani, Robert Biswas-Diener (eds.)

Abstract: Affordable education. Transparent science. Accessible scholarship. These ideals are slowly becoming a reality thanks to the open education, open science, and open access movements. Running separate—if parallel—courses, they all share a philosophy of equity, progress, and justice. This book shares the stories, motives, insights, and practical tips from global leaders in the open movement.

Citation: Jhangiani R. & Biswas-Diener R. 2017. Open: The Philosophy and Practices that are Revolutionizing Education and Science. London: Ubiquity Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/bbc


Library collections in the life of the user: two directions

Author: Lorcan Dempsey
Abstract: The paper considers how the changing nature of research in digital environments is reshaping the nature of library collections and services in academic and research libraries. It describes two central directions, each a response to the centrality of the user in a network environment. First, the library has an increasing role in managing the research and other outputs of the university (the inside-out collection). Second, the library is facilitating access to a broader range of local, external and collaborative resources organized around user needs (the facilitated collection).
Citation: Dempsey, L., (2016). Library collections in the life of the user: two directions. LIBER Quarterly. 26(4). DOI: http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10170



ORCID Annual Report 2016

Authors: Alice Meadows, Josh Brown, Laurel Haak, Laura Paglione, Robert Peters, Douglas Wright

Abstract: This is the 2016 annual report for ORCID, which includes information about membership, usage and adoption, engagement activities, integrations, technical updates, financials, and more. For more information, visit orcid.org.

Citation: Meadows, Alice; Brown, Josh; Haak, Laurel; Paglione, Laura; Peters, Robert; Wright, Douglas (2017): ORCID Annual Report 2016.pdf. figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4810213.v2. Retrieved: 12 40, Apr 07, 2017 (GMT).


Openness as social praxis

Authors: Matthew Longshore Smith, Ruhiya Seward

Abstract: Since the early 2000s, there has been an explosion in the usage of the term open, arguably stemming from the advent of networked technologies — including the Internet and mobile technologies. ‘Openness’ seems to be everywhere, and takes many forms: from open knowledge, open education, open data and open science, to open Internet, open medical records systems and open innovation. These applications of openness are having a profound, and sometimes transformative, effect on social, political and economic life.

This explosion of the use of the term has led to multiple interpretations, ambiguities, and even misunderstandings, not to mention countless debates and disagreements over precise definitions. The paper “Fifty shades of open” by Pomerantz and Peek (2016) highlighted the increasing ambiguity and even confusion surrounding this term. This article builds on Pomerantz and Peek’s attempt to disambiguate the term by offering an alternative understanding to openness — that of social praxis. More specifically, our framing can be broken down into three social processes: open production, open distribution, and open consumption. Each process shares two traits that make them open: you don’t have to pay (free price), and anyone can participate (non-discrimination) in these processes.

We argue that conceptualizing openness as social praxis offers several benefits. First, it provides a way out of a variety of problems that result from ambiguities and misunderstandings that emerge from the current multitude of uses of openness. Second, it provides a contextually sensitive understanding of openness that allows space for the many different ways openness is experienced — often very different from the way that more formal definitions conceptualize it. Third, it points us towards an approach to developing practice-specific theory that we believe helps us build generalizable knowledge on what works (or not), for whom, and in what contexts.

Citation: Smith, Matthew and Seward, Ruhiya. “Openness as social praxis” First Monday [Online], Volume 22 Number 4 (3 April 2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i4.7073.


Negating the Gender Citation Advantage in Political Science

Author: Amy L. Atchison

Abstract: Open-access (OA) advocates have long promoted OA as an egalitarian alternative to traditional subscription-based academic publishing. The argument is simple: OA gives everyone access to high-quality research at no cost. In turn, this should benefit individual researchers by increasing the number of people reading and citing academic articles. As the OA movement gains traction in the academy, scholars are investing considerable research energy to determine whether there is an OA citation advantage—that is, does OA increase an article’s citation counts? Research indicates that it does. Scholars also explored patterns of gender bias in academic publishing and found that women are cited at lower rates in many disciplines. Indeed, in many disciplines, men enjoy a significant and positive gender citation effect (GCE) compared to their female colleagues. This article combines these research areas to determine whether the OA citation advantage varies by gender. Using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) tests, the nonparametric analog to the independent samples T-test, I conclude that OA benefits male and female political scientists at similar rates. Thus, OA negates the gender citation advantage that typically accrues to male political scientists.

Citation: Atchison, Amy, “Negating the Gender Citation Advantage in Political Science” (2017). Political Science and International Relations Faculty Publications. 19.


Assessing Research Data Management Practices of Faculty at Carnegie Mellon University

Authors: Steve Van Tuyl , Gabrielle Michalek

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Recent changes to requirements for research data management by federal granting agencies and by other funding institutions have resulted in the emergence of institutional support for these requirements. At CMU, we sought to formalize assessment of research data management practices of researchers at the institution by launching a faculty survey and conducting a number of interviews with researchers. METHODS We submitted a survey on research data management practices to a sample of faculty including questions about data production, documentation, management, and sharing practices. The survey was coupled with in-depth interviews with a subset of faculty. We also make estimates of the amount of research data produced by faculty. RESULTS Survey and interview results suggest moderate level of awareness of the regulatory environment around research data management. Results also present a clear picture of the types and quantities of data being produced at CMU and how these differ among research domains. Researchers identified a number of services that they would find valuable including assistance with data management planning and backup/storage services. We attempt to estimate the amount of data produced and shared by researchers at CMU. DISCUSSION Results suggest that researchers may need and are amenable to assistance with research data management. Our estimates of the amount of data produced and shared have implications for decisions about data storage and preservation. CONCLUSION Our survey and interview results have offered significant guidance for building a suite of services for our institution.

Citation: Tuyl, S.V. & Michalek, G., (2015). Assessing Research Data Management Practices of Faculty at Carnegie Mellon University. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 3(3), p.eP1258. DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1258