Updated Figures on the Scale and Nature of Researchers’ Use of Scholarly Collaboration Networks – The Scholarly Kitchen

Author: Charlie Rapple

Abstract: My last post was about institutional conservatism in relation to research evaluation and reward. I illustrated it with a brick wall bearing the words “insert head here” because so many wicked problems in scholarly communications today can be traced back to this underlying cause, and its immutability is therefore so frustrating to those trying to tackle its symptoms.

One of the many symptoms is that publishers and researchers are inextricably linked, mutually dependent, and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Evaluation processes — even those that are evolving away from simplistic publication counts or Impact Factor-based points systems — still mean that publication in an established journal is important for researchers, much as quality submissions are important for publishers. It is into this stasis that “scholarly collaboration networks” (SCNs) have emerged, originally as places for researchers to form connections (à la LinkedIn) but increasingly used for “content swapping” and / or “quasi-legal downloading of research papers

Source: Updated Figures on the Scale and Nature of Researchers’ Use of Scholarly Collaboration Networks – The Scholarly Kitchen

Citation: Rapple, Charlie. “Updated Figures on the Scale and Nature of Researchers’ Use of Scholarly Collaboration Networks ” – The Scholarly Kitchen [Online] April 7, 2017 https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/07/updated-figures-scale-nature-researchers-use-scholarly-collaboration-networks/.



Opening the Publication Process with Executable Research Compendia

Authors: Daniel Nüst, Markus Konkol, Edzer Pebesma, Christian Kray, Marc Schutzeichel, Holger Przibytzin, Jörg Lorenz


Abstract: A strong movement towards openness has seized science. Open data and methods, open source software, Open Access, open reviews, and open research platforms provide the legal and technical solutions to new forms of research and publishing. However, publishing reproducible research is still not common practice. Reasons include a lack of incentives and a missing standardized infrastructure for providing research material such as data sets and source code together with a scientific paper. Therefore we first study fundamentals and existing approaches. On that basis, our key contributions are the identification of core requirements of authors, readers, publishers, curators, as well as preservationists and the subsequent description of an executable research compendium (ERC). It is the main component of a publication process providing a new way to publish and access computational research. ERCs provide a new standardisable packaging mechanism which combines data, software, text, and a user interface description. We discuss the potential of ERCs and their challenges in the context of user requirements and the established publication processes. We conclude that ERCs provide a novel potential to find, explore, reuse, and archive computer-based research.


Citation: Nüst, D, Konkol, M, Pebsema, E, Kray, C, Schutzeichel, M, Przibytzin, H, Lorenz, J. (2017) Opening the Publication Process with Executable Research Compendia D-Lib Magazine 23(1-2). https://doi.org/10.1045/january2017-nuest




Contribution of ROAR and OpenDOAR in Open Access Movement and Universal Access to Scholarly Information

Authors: Jayanti Chakravorty, Saumen Datta, Manoj Kumar Sinha


Abstract: Open Access initiative (OAI) is the wide discussed subject in the world of information and communication technology. The open access philosophy rapidly became popular and a number of universities and research institutions spontaneously came forward to provide open access to their scholarly communications, research outcomes and electronic journals. In the present paper, the meaning, definition and the present scenario of the Open Access initiative, as well as the problems and improvement of the Open Access initiative has been discussed. Contribution of ROAR and OpenDOAR in the field of Open Access initiative has been discussed in detail. The data collected from the secondary sources of information and presented in a tabular form for easy understanding of the LIS professionals and masses to know the importance of the Open Access initiative for giving access to scholarly communications for wider audience.





Changes in the digital scholarly environment and issues of trust: An exploratory, qualitative analysis

Authors: Anthony Watkinson, David Nicholas, Clare Thornley, Eti Herman, Hamid R. Jamali, Rachel Volentine, Suzie Allard, Kenneth Levine, Carol Tenopir


Abstract: The paper reports on some of the results of a research project into how changes in digital behaviour and services impacts on concepts of trust and authority held by researchers in the sciences and social sciences in the UK and the USA. Interviews were used in conjunction with a group of focus groups to establish the form and topic of questions put to a larger international sample in an online questionnaire. The results of these 87 interviews were analysed to determine whether or not attitudes have indeed changed in terms of sources of information used, citation behaviour in choosing references, and in dissemination practices. It was found that there was marked continuity in attitudes though an increased emphasis on personal judgement over established and new metrics. Journals (or books in some disciplines) were more highly respected than other sources and still the vehicle for formal scholarly communication. The interviews confirmed that though an open access model did not in most cases lead to mistrust of a journal, a substantial number of researchers were worried about the approaches from what are called predatory OA journals. Established researchers did not on the whole use social media in their professional lives but a question about outreach revealed that it was recognised as effective in reaching a wider audience. There was a remarkable similarity in practice across research attitudes in all the disciplines covered and in both the countries where interviews were held.


Citation: Watkinson, A, Nicholas, D, Thornley, C, Herman, E, Jamali, H, Volentine, R, Allard, S, Levine, J, Tenopir, C. (2016) Changes in the digital scholarly environment and issues of trust: An exploratory, qualitative analysis Information Processing & Management 52(32).




Reimagining the Digital Monograph: Design Thinking to Build New Tools for Researchers

Authors: Laura Brown, Alex Humphreys, Matthew Loy, Ron Snyder, Christina Spencer


Abstract: Scholarly books are increasingly being made available in digital form, joining in the print-to-digital transition that scholarly journals began well over a decade ago. Ten years of innovation have produced tremendous benefits for authors and readers of journal literature, and certainly some of this innovation is applicable to the digital migration of monographs. But the long-form scholarly argument presents some very different challenges, and its online migration is still in many ways in its infancy. The platforms that make monographs available to users often offer little in the way of specialized functionality for the different ways that scholars and students use these books. The JSTOR Labs group, an experimental product development team at JSTOR, undertook a user research and design process in order to better understand the wide variety of needs, behaviors, frustrations, and ambitions users bring to the task of reading scholarly books online, and to explore possible new paths to unlocking the value of the long-form argument in a digital environment. This paper is intended to do three things. First, we discuss the kinds of uses that readers have for scholarly books, and the opportunities for improving the usefulness of books for those purposes in a digital environment. These emerged from ethnographic research we carried out with a variety of readers of digital monographs and with a small working group of scholars, publishers, librarians, engineers, data scientists and user experience designers that we convened in partnership with the Columbia University Libraries in late 2016. Second, we discuss the design thinking process that we used to explore the landscape, how the group identified problems to solve, and how together we selected one opportunity ripe for new feature development that the JSTOR Labs team could prototype. Third, we describe the process we used to develop that prototype, and introduce the tool that we built, which we are calling “Topicgraph.”


Citation: Brown, L, Humphreys, A, Loy, M, Snyder, R, Spencer, C. (2017) Reimagining the Digital Monograph: Design Thinking to Build New Tools for Researchers, A JSTOR Labs Report – DRAFT FOR COMMENT http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M62G8M




The Scholix Framework for Interoperability in Data-Literature Information Exchange

Authors: Adrian Burton, Amir Aryani, Hylke Koers, Paolo Manghi, Sandro La Bruzzo, Markus Stocker, Michael Diepenbroek, Uwe Schindler, Martin Fenner


Abstract: The Scholix Framework (SCHOlarly LInk eXchange) is a high level interoperability framework for exchanging information about the links between scholarly literature and data, as well as between datasets. Over the past decade, publishers, data centers, and indexing services have agreed on and implemented numerous bilateral agreements to establish bidirectional links between research data and the scholarly literature. However, because of the considerable differences inherent to these many agreements, there is very limited interoperability between the various solutions. This situation is fueling systemic inefficiencies and limiting the value of these, separated, sets of links. Scholix, a framework proposed by the RDA/WDS Publishing Data Services working group, envisions a universal interlinking service and proposes the technical guidelines of a multi-hub interoperability framework. Hubs are natural collection and aggregation points for data-literature information from their respective communities. Relevant hubs for the communities of data centers, repositories, and journals include DataCite, OpenAIRE, and Crossref, respectively. The framework respects existing community-specific practices while enabling interoperability among the hubs through a common conceptual model, an information model and open exchange protocols. The proposed framework will make research data, and the related literature, easier to find and easier to interpret and reuse, and will provide additional incentives for researchers to share their data.


Citation: Burton, A, Aryani, A, Koers, H, Manghi, P, La Burzzo, S, Stocker, M, Diepenbroek, M, Schindler, U, Fenner, M. (2017) The Scholix Framework for Interoperability in Data-Literature Information Exchange D-Lib Magazine 23(1-2). https://doi.org/10.1045/january2017-burton




Finding the Principles of the Commons: A Report of the Force11 Scholarly Communications Working Group

Authors: Robin Champieux, Bianca Kramer, Jeroen Bosman, Ian Bruno, Amy Buckland, Sarah Callaghan, Chris Chapman, Stephanie Hagstrom, MaryAnn E. Martone, and Daniel Paul O’Donnell


Abstract: While the creation and exchange of scholarly and research information now takes place within digital environments and increasingly on the open web, traditional print-based workflows are recapitulated across the scholarly communication life-cycle, outmoded rewards systems hold strong, and crises of access, reproducibility, and reuse continue to be raised. In some respects, scholarly and scientific communication has not changed much since the establishment of the first scientific journal 350 years ago. But, what if we could start over? What kind of system could and should we build to harnesses the resources of the digital age to maximize the communication and use of new knowledge? These questions, posed by Dr. Sarah Callaghan at the Force2015 Conference as part of the 1K Challenge, inspired the creation of the FORCE11 Scholarly Commons Working Group.


Citation: Champieux, Robin; Kramer, Bianca; Bosman, Jeroen; Bruno, Ian; Buckland, Amy; Callaghan, Sarah; Chapman, Chris; Hagstrom, Stephanie; Martone, MaryAnn E.; and O’Donnell, Daniel Paul (2016) “Finding the Principles of the Commons: A Report of the Force11 Scholarly Communications Working Group,” Collaborative Librarianship: Vol. 8 : Iss. 2 , Article 5.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol8/iss2/5




Citations for Software: Providing Identification, Access and Recognition for Research Software

Authors: Laura Soito, Lorraine J Hwang


Abstract: Software plays a significant role in modern academic research, yet lacks a similarly significant presence in the scholarly record. With increasing interest in promoting reproducible research, curating software as a scholarly resource not only promotes access to these tools, but also provides recognition for the intellectual efforts that go into their development. This work reviews existing standards for identifying, promoting discovery of, and providing credit for software development work. In addition, it shows how these guidelines have been integrated into existing tools and community cultures, and provides recommendations for future software curation efforts.


Citation: Soito, L, Hwang, L. (2016) Citations for Software: Providing Identification, Access and Recognition for Research Software International Journal of Digital Curation 11(2) doi:10.2218/ijdc.v11i2.390




Assessing Stewardship Maturity of the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly (GHCN-M) Dataset: Use Case Study and Lessons Learned

Authors: Ge Peng, Jay Lawrimore, Valerie Toner, Christina Lief, Richard Baldwin, Nancy Ritchey, Danny Brinegar, Stephen A. Del Greco


Abstract: Assessing stewardship maturity — the current state of how datasets are documented, preserved, stewarded, and made accessible publicly — is a critical step towards meeting U.S. federal regulations, organizational requirements, and user needs. The scientific data stewardship maturity matrix (DSMM), developed in partnership with NOAA’s National Centers of Environmental Information (NCEI) and the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites-North Carolina (CICS-NC), provides a consistent framework for assessing stewardship maturity of individual Earth Science datasets and capturing justifications for transparency. The consolidated stewardship maturity information will allow users and decision-makers to make informed use decisions based on their unique data needs. This DSMM was applied to a widely utilized monthly-land-surface-temperature dataset derived from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-M). This paper describes the stewardship maturity ratings of GHCN-M version 3 and provides actionable recommendations for improving the maturity of the dataset. The results from the use case study show that an application of DSMM like this one is useful to people who produce or care for digital environmental datasets. Assessments can identify the strengths and weaknesses of an individual dataset or organization’s preservation and stewardship practices, including how information about the dataset is integrated into different systems.


Citation: Peng, G., Lawrimore, J., Toner, V., Lief, C., Baldwin, R., Ritchey, N., . . . Greco, S. A. (2016). Assessing Stewardship Maturity of the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly (GHCN-M) Dataset: Use Case Study and Lessons Learned. D-Lib Magazine, 22(11/12). doi.org/10.1045/november2016-peng




A Data Citation Roadmap for Scholarly Data Repositories

Authors: Martin Fennera, Merce Crosasb, Jeffrey S. Grethec, David Kennedy, Henning Hermjakobe, Phillippe Rocca-Serraf, Robin Berjong, Sebastian Karcherh, Maryann Martonei, Tim Clark


Abstract: This article presents a practical roadmap for scholarly data repositories to implement data citation in accordance with the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles (Data Citation Synthesis Group, 2014), a synopsis and harmonization of the recommendations of major science policy bodies. The roadmap was developed by the Repositories Early Adopters Expert Group, part of the Data Citation Implementation Pilot (DCIP) project (FORCE11, 2015), an initiative of FORCE11.org and the NIH BioCADDIE (2016) program. The roadmap makes 11 specific recommendations, grouped into three phases of implementation: a) required steps needed to support the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles, b) recommended steps that facilitate article/data publication workflows, and c) optional steps that further improve data citation support provided by data repositories.


Citation: Fenner, M., Crosas, M., Grethe, J., Kennedy, D., Hermjakob, H., Rocca-Serra, P., … Clark, T. (2016). A Data Citation Roadmap for Scholarly Data Repositories. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/097196