The research life cycle and the health sciences librarian: responding to change in scholarly communication

Authors: Andrea M. Ketchum

Abstract: The Internet and digital technologies have profoundly affected scholarly communication, publishing, collaborative research, literature searches, and management of digital assets and data. In turn, our views of the research life cycle have changed. What does this mean for librarians in the health sciences who support or even actively participate in clinical research?

Citation: Ketchum AM. The research life cycle and the health sciences librarian: responding to change in scholarly communication. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA. 2017;105(1):80-83. doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.110.

View

Source: Journal of the Medical Library Association

Analyzing Citation and Research Collaboration Characteristics of Faculty in Aerospace, Civil and Environmental, Electrical and Computer, and Mechanical Engineering

Author: Li Zhang

Abstract: This article investigates citation and research collaboration habits of faculty in four engineering departments. The analysis focuses on similarities and differences among the engineering disciplines. Main differences exist in the use of conference papers and technical reports. The age of cited materials varies by discipline and by format. Regarding faculty connection with other subjects, the study finds that aerospace and mechanical engineering faculty collaborate more often with researchers outside their fields, while civil and environmental faculty, as well as electrical and computer engineering faculty, are more likely to cooperate with peers in their fields. Lists of highly cited journals are generated. The paper also provides suggestions for collection management, research assistance, and outreach efforts.

Citation: Zhang, Li. (2018). Analyzing Citation and Research Collaboration Characteristics of Faculty in Aerospace, Civil and Environmental, Electrical and Computer, and Mechanical Engineering. College & Research Libraries News, 79(2), 158. doi: 10.5860/crl.79.2.158

View

Source: College & Research Libraries News

Extending the social justice mindset: Implications for scholarly communication

Author: Michelle Baildon

Abstract: In 2016, the Collections Directorate of the MIT Libraries convened a Diversity, Inclusion, and Social Justice (DISJ) Task Force to explore ways to manifest DISJ values in our daily work. Eight staff from archives, technical services, preservation, scholarly communication, and collections strategy focused on this question: How can we operationalize the values of diversity, inclusion, and social justice in our policies, routines, and processes?

Citation: Baildon, M. (2018). Extending the social justice mindset: Implications for scholarly communication. College & Research Libraries News, 79(4), 176. doi: 10.5860/crln.79.4.176

View

Source: College & Research Libraries News

Faculty Attitudes toward Open Access and Scholarly Communications: Disciplinary Differences on an Urban and Health Science Campus

Author: Odell, J., Palmer, K. & Dill, E.

Abstract: Access to scholarship in the health sciences has greatly increased in the last decade. The adoption of the 2008 U.S. National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy and the launch of successful open access journals in health sciences have done much to move the exchange of scholarship beyond the subscription-only model. One might assume, therefore, that scholars publishing in the health sciences would be more supportive of these changes. However, the results of this survey of attitudes on a campus with a large medical faculty show that health science respondents were uncertain of the value of recent changes in the scholarly communication system.

Citation: Odell, J., Palmer, K. & Dill, E., (2017). Faculty Attitudes toward Open Access and Scholarly Communications: Disciplinary Differences on an Urban and Health Science Campus. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 5(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2169

VIEW

Source: Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

Coherence of “Open” Initiatives in Higher Education and Research: Framing a Policy Agenda

Author(s): Corrall, Sheila; Pinfield, Stephen.

Abstract: “Open” approaches have the potential to advance significantly the mission of higher education and research institutions worldwide, but the multiplicity of initiatives raises questions about their coherence and points to the need for a more coordinated approach to policy development. Drawing on the European e-InfraNet project, we adopt a broad definition of Open, including activity alongside content, and identify the different Open domains, their salient characteristics and relationships. We propose a high-level typology and model of Open to inform policy design and delivery, and employ Willinsky’s framework for open source and open access to discuss the theoretical underpinnings of openness, finding important commonalities among the domains, which suggests that the framework can extend to all the Open areas. We then examine potential shared benefits of Open approaches, which reinforce the argument for a unified policy agenda. We conclude with some observations on limits of openness, and implications for policy.

Citation: Corrall, S., & Pinfield, S. (2014). Coherence of “Open” Initiatives in Higher Education and Research: Framing a Policy Agenda. In iConference 2014 Proceedings (p. 293 – 313). doi:10.9776/14085

View

Source: iConference 2014 Proceedings

Data We Trust—But What Data?

Author: Jennifer Golbeck

Abstract: The Obama administration’s time saw massive amounts of government data shifting online. It can be hard to remember the landscape back in 2008, when very few people had smartphones, and Facebook had fewer than 150 million users—less than 10 percent of its current size.1 We were just starting to grapple with all the data that was becoming available. The administration embraced the trend. They launched data.gov, a project designed to serve as a repository of important data sets from the federal government. Agencies followed suit, uploading their data or creating their own repositories. Databases, websites, and all sorts of content became accessible online. It appeared we were entering a golden age of open data, where citizens would have access to the raw data that their tax dollars funded, that fueled policy decisions, and that affected their lives. The movement of government data to the web improved transparency and fueled research to complement official sources.

Citation: Golbeck, Jennifer. “Data We Trust—But What Data?” Reference & User Services Quarterly 57, no. 3 (March 16, 2018): 196–99. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.57.3.6605.

View

Source: Data We Trust—But What Data?

Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability

Author: Björn Brembs

Abstract: In which journal a scientist publishes is considered one of the most crucial factors determining their career. The underlying common assumption is that only the best scientists manage to publish in a highly selective tier of the most prestigious journals. However, data from several lines of evidence suggest that the methodological quality of scientific experiments does not increase with increasing rank of the journal. On the contrary, an accumulating body of evidence suggests the inverse: methodological quality and, consequently, reliability of published research works in several fields may be decreasing with increasing journal rank. The data supporting these conclusions circumvent confounding factors such as increased readership and scrutiny for these journals, focusing instead on quantifiable indicators of methodological soundness in the published literature, relying on, in part, semi-automated data extraction from often thousands of publications at a time. With the accumulating evidence over the last decade grew the realization that the very existence of scholarly journals, due to their inherent hierarchy, constitutes one of the major threats to publicly funded science: hiring, promoting and funding scientists who publish unreliable science eventually erodes public trust in science.

Citation: Brembs B (2018) Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 12:37. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037

View

Authorial and institutional stratification in open access publishing: the case of global health research

Authors: Kyle Siler, Stefanie Haustein, Elise Smith, Vincent Larivière, Juan Pablo Alperin

Abstract: Using a database of recent articles published in the field of Global Health research, we examine institutional sources of stratification in publishing access outcomes. Traditionally, the focus on inequality in scientific publishing has focused on prestige hierarchies in established print journals. This project examines stratification in contemporary publishing with a particular focus on subscription vs. various Open Access (OA) publishing options. Findings show that authors working at lower-ranked universities are more likely to publish in closed/paywalled outlets, and less likely to choose outlets that involve some sort of Article Processing Charge (APCs; gold or hybrid OA). We also analyze institutional differences and stratification in the APC costs paid in various journals. Authors affiliated with higher-ranked institutions, as well as hospitals and non-profit organizations pay relatively higher APCs for gold and hybrid OA publications. Results suggest that authors affiliated with high-ranked universities and well-funded institutions tend to have more resources to choose pay options with publishing. Our research suggests new professional hierarchies developing in contemporary publishing, where various OA publishing options are becoming increasingly prominent. Just as there is stratification in institutional representation between different types of publishing access, there is also inequality within access types.

Citation: Siler K, Haustein S, Smith E, Larivière V, Alperin JP. (2018) Authorial and institutional stratification in open access publishing: the case of global health research. PeerJ 6:e4269 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4269

View

An Evidence-Based Review of Academic Web Search Engines, 2014-2016: Implications for Librarians’ Practice and Research Agenda

Author: Fagan, Jody Condit

Abstract: Academic web search engines have become central to scholarly research. While the fitness of Google Scholar for research purposes has been examined repeatedly, Microsoft Academic and Google Books have not received much attention. Recent studies have much to tell us about the coverage and utility of Google Scholar, its coverage of the sciences, and its utility for evaluating researcher impact. But other aspects have been woefully understudied, such as coverage of the arts and humanities, books, and non-Western, non-English publications. User research has also tapered off. A small number of articles hint at the opportunity for librarians to become expert advisors concerning opportunities of scholarly communication made possible or enhanced by these platforms. This article seeks to summarize research concerning Google Scholar, Google Books, and Microsoft Academic from the past three years with a mind to informing practice and setting a research agenda. Selected literature from earlier time periods is included to illuminate key findings and to help shape the proposed research agenda, especially in understudied areas.

Citation: Fagan, Jody Condit. “An Evidence-Based Review of Academic Web Search Engines, 2014-2016: Implications for Librarians’ Practice and Research Agenda.” Information Technology and Libraries 36(2), 2017. DOI: 10.6017/ital.v36i2.9718

View

Source: An Evidence-Based Review of Academic Web Search Engines, 2014-2016: Implications for Librarians’ Practice and Research Agenda

Funding community controlled open infrastructure for scholarly communication: The 2.5% commitment initiative

Authors: David W. Lewis, Lori Goetsch, Diane Graves, Mike Roy

Abstract: In August 2017, a short paper, “The 2.5% Commitment,” was distributed on several email lists.1 The paper proposed that every academic library should commit to invest 2.5% of its total budget to support the common infrastructure needed to create the open scholarly commons. Somewhat to our surprise, the paper and the ideas it contained have generated widespread discussions and interest.

Citation: Lewis, D., Goetsch, L., Graves, D., & Roy, M. (2018). Funding community controlled open infrastructure for scholarly communication: The 2.5% commitment initiative. College & Research Libraries News, 79(3), 133. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.79.3.133

View