Bakhtin, digital scholarship and new publishing practices as carnival

Anna Mary Cooper, Jenna Condie

Abstract: Digital scholarship is causing disruptions to established academic practices that have long framed how we share knowledge and do research. The web is increasingly vital to all forms of academic scholarship. Using key theoretical concepts from the work of Mikhail Bakhtin, we question what it means in relation to social science when digital scholarship is considered by some to be ‘carnivalesque’ in relation to established academic practice. We draw upon our experiences of editing and curating a collection of works, commonly known as a Book of Blogs published online as Dialogues of sustainable urbanisation: Social Science Research and Transitions to Urban Contexts. The idea of the book was that it would encourage multivoicedness around the topic of sustainable urbanisation. We reflect upon how the Book of Blogs aims to foster a dialogical, unfinalised approach to social sciences research. Seventy chapters or ‘blogs’ from 83 researchers were included in the collection. Such engagement with the Book of Blogs format emphasised that this approach to scholarship spoke to many as a way to be heard. Therefore, we include our reflections on the implications of networked participatory scholarship in the digital sphere for our professional identities and academic careers, alongside example lessons and practicalities of curating and editing a Book of Blogs. We conclude with considering how social theory, particularly a dialogical epistemology, influences our digital scholarship and the ways in which we perform academia.

Cooper, A.M. & Candie, J. (2016). Bakhtin, Digital Scholarship And New Publishing Practices As Carnival. Journal of Applied Social Theory 1 (1).

View

Source: Bakhtin, digital scholarship and new publishing practices as carnival

All That Glisters: Investigating Collective Funding Mechanisms for Gold Open Access in Humanities Disciplines

Martin Paul Eve

Abstract: This article sets out the economic problems faced by the humanities disciplines in the transition to gold open access and outlines the bases for investigations of collective funding models. Beginning with a series of four problems, it then details the key players in this field and their various approaches to collective “procurement” mechanisms. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Open Library of Humanities seeks to instigate a collective funding model for an open access megajournal and multijournal system that should enable for a phased transition to a gold open access model that does not require author-facing article processing charges. Libraries who participate then have a governance stake in the platform. NEXT STEPS: The project is currently working towards sustainability and launch. Authors’ pledged papers are being called in and libraries are signing up to the model.

Eve, M.P., (2014). All That Glisters: Investigating Collective Funding Mechanisms for Gold Open Access in Humanities Disciplines. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 2(3), p.eP1131. DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1131

View

Source: All That Glisters: Investigating Collective Funding Mechanisms for Gold Open Access in Humanities Disciplines

Measuring Altruistic Impact: A Model for Understanding the Social Justice of Open Access

Authors: Margaret Heller, Franny Gaede

Abstract: Traditional assessment of ways in which open access initiatives and institutional repositories have provided a return on investment normally use pragmatic measures such as download counts and citation benefits. This pragmatic approach misses out on the powerful altruistic impact of improving access to international and/or marginalized communities. Using a frame of social justice, this article considers the importance of developing altruistic measures of repositories, particularly for institutions with missions specifically related to social justice and related themes. Methods: Using web analytics data for search keywords from eight institutions and geographic usage data from nine institutions, the authors were able to determine how well social justice related content is accessed by search engines and how much overall content is accessed internationally, particularly by lower-resourced countries. A social justice term list was developed to permit corpus overlap analysis with each institution’s search keywords, while the World Bank country income lists were used to determine international access by low and low-middle income countries. Results: Universities with mission statements explicitly mentioning social justice or Catholic social teaching had greater overlap with the social justice corpus. Low and low-middle income countries as defined by the World Bank were among the most engaged users. All institutions had at least one social justice search term in their top ten; Marquette University had five. Collection development in social science and environmental sustainability at Loyola University Chicago successfully increased this term overlap year-over-year and increased user engagement as measured by session length. Discussions: The results of this exploratory study indicate that it is possible to use repository data to evaluate the success of an institution’s open access and social justice initiatives. The year-over-year improvement of Loyola’s numbers suggest in addition that it is possible to increase social justice impact through collection development. Performing an analysis of social justice impact can be used as an overall strategy for repository success and outreach on campus, particularly for institutions where social justice is an important part of the campus identity. For repositories in need of further resources, the ability to quantify impact for university administrators and decision-makers may be of use. Conclusion: For institutions with a social justice mission, improving social justice content may improve repository ranking in social justice related search results. Collection development strategies should focus on departments and/or individuals who are working in social justice related areas, which defined broadly could encompass much of an institution. For institutions that emphasize social justice, it may be easier to approach faculty who might not otherwise have an interest in open access issues.

Citation: Heller, M. & Gaede, F. (2016). Appendix A: Social Justice Term Analysis & Appendix B: Social Justice Overlap Template & Geographic Usage. http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/XU5IBN

View

Research data explored: an extended analysis of citations and altmetrics

Authors: Isabella Peters, Peter Kraker, Elisabeth Lex, Christian Gumpenberger, Juan Gorraiz

Abstract: In this study, we explore the citedness of research data, its distribution over time and its relation to the availability of a digital object identifier (DOI) in the Thomson Reuters database Data Citation Index (DCI). We investigate if cited research data “impacts” the (social) web, reflected by altmetrics scores, and if there is any relationship between the number of citations and the sum of altmetrics scores from various social media platforms. Three tools are used to collect altmetrics scores, namely PlumX, ImpactStory, and Altmetric.com, and the corresponding results are compared. We found that out of the three altmetrics tools, PlumX has the best coverage. Our experiments revealed that research data remain mostly uncited (about 85 %), although there has been an increase in citing data sets published since 2008. The percentage of the number of cited research data with a DOI in DCI has decreased in the last years. Only nine repositories are responsible for research data with DOIs and two or more citations. The number of cited research data with altmetrics “foot-prints” is even lower (4–9 %) but shows a higher coverage of research data from the last decade. In our study, we also found no correlation between the number of citations and the total number of altmetrics scores. Yet, certain data types (i.e. survey, aggregate data, and sequence data) are more often cited and also receive higher altmetrics scores. Additionally, we performed citation and altmetric analyses of all research data published between 2011 and 2013 in four different disciplines covered by the DCI. In general, these results correspond very well with the ones obtained for research data cited at least twice and also show low numbers in citations and in altmetrics. Finally, we observed that there are disciplinary differences in the availability and extent of altmetrics scores.

Citation: Peters, I., Kraker, P., Lex, E. et al. (2016). Research data explored: an extended analysis of citations and altmetricsScientometrics 107: 723. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1887-4

View