Teaching with Data: Visualization and Information as a Critical Process

Authors: Andrew Battista, Jill Conte

Abstract: This chapter is published in the Critical Library Pedagogy Handbook, Volume Two: Lesson Plans. It focuses on teaching with data, posing visualization and information as a critical process.

Citation: Battista, Andrew,and Jill A Conte 2017. “Teaching with Data: Visualization and Information as a Critical Process”. LIS Scholarship Archive. July 20. doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/AMS2F

View

Source: LIS Scholarship Archive

De-Centering and Recentering Digital Scholarship: A Manifesto

Authors: Carolyn Moritz, Rachel Smart, Aaron Retteen, Matthew Hunter, Sarah Stanley, Devin Soper, Micah Vandegrift

Abstract: Digital scholarship is an evolving area of librarianship. In this piece we propose 10 theses, statements about what this kind of work DOES, rather than trying to define with it IS. We believe that digitally-inflected research and learning, and the characteristics they employ, are essential to the recentering of our profession’s position in/across the academy. We also believe that the “digital scholarship center” has served its time, and that the activities and models for digital scholarship work are core to librarianship. This manifesto is meant to serve as a starting point for a necessary discussion, not an end-all, be-all. We hope others will write and share counter-manifestos, passionate responses, or affirming statements.

Citation: Moritz, Carolyn, Rachel J Smart, Aaron Retteen, Matthew Hunter, Sarah Stanley, Devin Soper, and Micah Vandegrift 2017. “De-centering and Recentering Digital Scholarship: A Manifesto”. LIS Scholarship Archive. August 7. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/T7HFU.

View

Source: LIS Scholarship Archive

“Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals

Authors: Valerie Spezi, Simon Wakeling, Stephen Pinfield, Jenny Fry, Claire Creaser, Peter Willett

Abstract:
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to better understand the theory and practice of peer review in open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs typically operate a “soundness-only” review policy aiming to evaluate only the rigour of an article, not the novelty or significance of the research or its relevance to a particular community, with these elements being left for “the community to decide” post-publication.

Design/methodology/approach
The paper reports the results of interviews with 31 senior publishers and editors representing 16 different organisations, including 10 that publish an OAMJ. Thematic analysis was carried out on the data and an analytical model developed to explicate their significance.

Findings
Findings suggest that in reality criteria beyond technical or scientific soundness can and do influence editorial decisions. Deviations from the original OAMJ model are both publisher supported (in the form of requirements for an article to be “worthy” of publication) and practice driven (in the form of some reviewers and editors applying traditional peer review criteria to OAMJ submissions). Also publishers believe post-publication evaluation of novelty, significance and relevance remains problematic.

Originality/value
The study is based on unprecedented access to senior publishers and editors, allowing insight into their strategic and operational priorities. The paper is the first to report in-depth qualitative data relating specifically to soundness-only peer review for OAMJs, shedding new light on the OAMJ phenomenon and helping inform discussion on its future role in scholarly communication. The paper proposes a new model for understanding the OAMJ approach to quality assurance, and how it is different from traditional peer review.

Citation: Valerie Spezi, Simon Wakeling, Stephen Pinfield, Jenny Fry, Claire Creaser, Peter Willett (2018). ““Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals.” Journal of Documentation, Vol. 74 Issue: 1, pp.137-161. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2017-0092.

View

Source: Journal of Documentation

Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-Deposit in Institutional Repositories

Author: Ruth Kitchin Tillman

Abstract: INTRODUCTION: The literature of institutional repositories generally indicates that faculty do not self-deposit, but there is a gap in the research of reported self-deposit numbers that might indicate how widespread and common this is.
METHODS: This study was conducted using a survey instrument that requested information about whether a repository allowed self-deposit and what its rates of self-deposit were, if known. The instrument contained additional questions intended to gather a broader context of repositories to be examined for any correlations with higher rates of self-deposit. It also included questions about the kinds of labor required to populate an IR as well as satisfaction with the rates of self-deposit.
RESULTS: Of 82 respondents, 80 were deemed to fall within the study’s parameters. Of these, 55 respondents’ institutions allowed self-deposit, and 10 reported rates of self-deposit of more than 20 items per month. More than half the total respondents reported using at least three methods other than relying on self-deposit to add content to their repository. Respondents are generally unsatisfied with their deposit profiles, including one at a school reporting the highest rate of self-deposit.
DISCUSSION: From the responses, no profile could be formed of respondents reporting high rates of self-deposit that did not entirely overlap with many others reporting little or no self-deposit. However, the survey identifies factors without which high rates are unlikely.
CONCLUSION: The results of this survey may be most useful as a factor in administrative prioritizations and expectations regarding institutional repositories as sites of scholarly self-deposit.

Source: Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

Citation: Tillman, R.K., (2017). “Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-Deposit in Institutional Repositories”. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 5(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2203

View

A journal is a club: a new economic model for scholarly publishing

Authors: John Hartley, Lucy Montgomery, Cameron Neylon, Jason Potts, Ellie Rennie

Abstract: A new economic model for the analysis of scholarly publishing – journal publishing in particular – is proposed that draws on club theory. The standard approach builds on market failure in the private production (by research scholars) of a public good (new scholarly knowledge). In this model, publishing is communication, as the dissemination of information. But a club model views publishing differently: namely as group formation, where members form groups in order to confer externalities on each other, subject to congestion. A journal is a selfconstituted group, endeavouring to create new knowledge. In this sense, a journal is a club. The knowledge club model of a journal seeks to balance the positive externalities of a shared resource (readers, citations, referees) against the negative externalities of crowding (decreased prospect of publishing in that journal). A new economic model of a journal as a knowledge club is elaborated. We suggest some consequences for the management of journals and financial models that might be developed to support them.

Citation: John Hartley, Lucy Montgomery, Cameron Neylon, Jason Potts, Ellie Rennie. . “A journal is a club: a new economic model for scholarly publishing”, Humanities Commons. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6V52C

View

Scholarly Publishing, Freedom of Information and Academic Self-Determination: The UNAM-Elsevier Case

Authors: Juan Pablo Alperin, Stephen Eglen, Domenico Fiormonte, Laurent Gatto, Alex Gil, Ricardo Hartley, Stuart Lawson, Corina Logan, Erin McKiernan, Ernesto Miranda-Trigueros, Ross Mounce, Alejandro Posada, Ernesto Priego, Natalia Pérez, Adela Ramos, Nuria Rodríguez-Ortega

 

Abstract: On February 1, 2015, the global information and analytics corporation Elsevier and the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) established the agreement UNAM-Elsevier contract DGAJ-DPI-39-081114- 241, which saw the transfer from UNAM to Elsevier for the “production and hosting, advertising and support” of 44 Mexican open access academic journals published by UNAM. This article documents said contract and describes a Freedom of Information Request enquiring the total cost of the contract and its corresponding response. It also shares a series of considerations that, based on this case, can be helpful to other institutions that may face similar circumstances in the future. We conclude scholarly publishing and academic self-determination are interdependent and a crucial point of future debate for the future of University presses and Open Access worldwide.

 

Citation: Juan Pablo Alperin, Stephen Eglen, Domenico Fiormonte, Laurent Gatto, Alex Gil, Ricardo Hartley, Stuart Lawson, Corina Logan, Erin McKiernan, Ernesto Miranda-Trigueros, Ross Mounce, Alejandro Posada, Ernesto Priego, Natalia Pérez, Adela Ramos, Nuria Rodríguez-Ortega. “Scholarly Publishing, Freedom of Information and Academic Self-Determination: The UNAM-Elsevier Case.” Humanities Commons. http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6ZN6N

 

View

 

Source: Scholarly Publishing, Freedom of Information and Academic Self-Determination: The UNAM-Elsevier Case

Dissertation to Book? A Snapshot of Dissertations Published As Books in 2014 and 2105, Available in Open Access Institutional Repositories

Authors: Anna Marie Johnson, Tyler Goldberg, Robert Detmering

Abstract:
INTRODUCTION: Graduate students sometimes express consternation about whether the presence of their dissertation in an open access institutional repository (IR) will harm their chances of being able to publish the manuscript as a book. Several studies have addressed the question from different perspectives, but the avenue of examining what had actually been published had not been explored.
METHODS: This study examines books published in 2014 and 2015 that were listed as dissertations in one large book vendor database. A list of books was downloaded and searched in both ProQuest’s Dissertations & Theses Global database and Google to identify a matching dissertation.
RESULTS: Only a small percentage of books published as dissertations were found in ProQuest and then subsequently in IRs. The number of libraries holding book titles with corresponding dissertations in IRs dropped between 2014 and 2015. The lists of publishers who published dissertations as books was very similar between 2014 and 2015 data and included large, commercial publishers.
DISCUSSION: Students should be aware that only a small percentage of the total number of dissertations produced in a year are subsequently published as books, that the time between dissertation and book publication is substantial, and that some subject areas are more likely to be published than others.
CONCLUSION: These findings provide nuance to the discussions of dissertations in open access repositories and a starting point to monitor trends in this area. They should also provide librarians who are providing supplementary guidance to graduate students with information about the publishing landscape.

SourceJournal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

Citation: Johnson, A.M., Goldberg, T. & Detmering, R., (2017). “Dissertation to Book? A Snapshot of Dissertations Published As Books in 2014 and 2105, Available in Open Access Institutional Repositories”. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 5(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2177

View

A landscape study on open access and monographs: Policies, funding and publishing in eight European countries

Author: Eelco Ferwerda, Frances Pinter, and Niels Stern

Abstract: Knowledge Exchange is continously active in promoting Open Access by bringing together Open Access experts from all six KE-countries. This study was initiated by Knowledge Exchange and financed by Knowledge ExchangeFWFCRIStin and Couperin, and together with the skilled expertise of Eelco Ferwerda, Frances Pinter and Niels Stern, we can now publish the biggest landscape study on the conditions and potentials for Open Access books yet.

The field of OA monographs is still in its early evolution and therefore 73 in-depth conversations were conducted to understand the different developments among three stakeholder groups: Publishers, funders and libraries. The importance of author attitudes, scholarly reward and incentive systems is also raised throughout the study by numerous interviewees.

Our study shows that although the main OA policies do not include monographs, conversations about OA and monographs are surfacing and are expected to be accelerating over the next few years.

The general explanation for monographs not being included in policies is the global focus on journal publishing and the perception that monographs are more complex to deal with than journals. Some also point to a lack of demand yet from authors.

In general, OA book publishers will comply with gold OA policies from funders and institutions. This is not the case for green OA. It appears that the current self archiving policies from publishers for books are largely restricted to book chapters.

The report also points towards the fact that funding schemes for books are lagging behind schemes for articles and their availability to fund the publishing process is somewhat ad hoc across the countries we’ve surveyed. Nevertheless the authors are ‘cautiously optimistic’ about the prospects for OA and monographs.

The report creates an overview of both the OA monographs policies, funding streams and publishing models for all eight countries for the first time. This is used to point towards areas of future efforts.

Citation: Eelco Ferwerda, Frances Pinter, and Niels Stern. (2017). A landscape study on open access and monographs: Policies, funding and publishing in eight European countries.  Knowledge Exchange. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.815932.

View

Changing publishing ecologies: A landscape study of new university presses and academic-led publishing

Authors: Janneke Adema and Graham Stone, with an introduction by Chris Keene

Abstract: In this report, we have captured the current landscape of new university presses (NUPs) and academic-led presses (ALPs) emerging within the UK. Taking different approaches for these two types of press we have captured the take-up, reasoning and characteristics of these initiatives, as well as future plans. The report concludes with a series of recommendations to help support and foster new developments in this space, to share best practice and collaboration and to identify the tools and services that will facilitate further innovation.

Citation: Janneke Adema and Graham Stone. “Changing publishing ecologies: A landscape study of new university presses and academic-led publishing.” JISC.

View

Access, ethics and piracy

Author: Stuart Lawson

Abstract: Ownership of intellectual property rights for a large proportion of the scholarly record is held by publishers, so a majority of journal articles are behind paywalls and unavailable to most people. As a result some readers are encouraged to use pirate websites such as Sci-Hub to access them, a practice that is alternately regarded as criminal and unethical or as a justified act of civil disobedience. This article considers both the efficacy and ethics of piracy, placing ‘guerrilla open access’ within a longer history of piracy and access to knowledge. By doing so, it is shown that piracy is an inevitable part of the intellectual landscape that can render the current intellectual property regime irrelevant. If we wish to actively construct a true scholarly commons, open access emerges as a contender for moving beyond proprietary forms of commodifying scholarly knowledge towards the creation of an open scholarly communication system that is fit for purpose.

Citation: Lawson, Stuart (2017). Access, ethics and piracy. Humanities Commons. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M62V24

View