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

Drawing the line: Why we publish where we publish

Author: Eamon Tewell

Introduction: A colleague of mine was recently wondering which journal she should submit her article to. There were a few possibilities, and she knew wanted to publish in an open access journal. My colleague is near the end of her tenure clock and she wants to contribute her hard work to open access journals instead of publishers making obscene profits off of scholars’ free labor—labor which encompasses creating scholarship, reviewing it, and editing it. My colleague’s email made me wonder: where is the line we draw for our participation in a scholarly communication system that is predicated on, and profits immensely from, the unpaid work of researchers? That line will be different for everyone, and it is worth considering for all librarian-researchers.

Citation: Tewell, E. (2018). “Drawing the line: Why we publish where we publish.” The Librarian Parlor. https://libparlor.com/2018/02/07/drawing-the-line-why-we-publish-where-we-publish/

Source: The Librarian Parlor

Spotlight on Digital Government Information Preservation: Examining the Context, Outcomes, Limitations, and Successes of the DataRefuge Movement

Author: Eric Johnson and Alicia Kubas

Abstract: Access and preservation of online government data and information has been a long-standing and complex issue for librarians in government information librarianship, but it has recently started to receive attention on a larger level from the media, public, and libraries in general. The most recent initiative to archive digital government data was the DataRefuge movement in 2016 and 2017, which sponsored DataRescue events where people came together to capture static webpages and harvest dynamic online content for preservation purposes. This article examines the history and context of print and digital government information preservation initiatives and then focuses in on the DataRefuge movement to discuss its outcomes, limitations, and successes in light of long-term preservation and public access.

Citation: Johnson, E. and Kubas, A (2018). “Spotlight on Digital Government Information Preservation: Examining the Context, Outcomes, Limitations, and Successes of the DataRefuge Movement”. In The Library With The Lead Pipe. http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2018/information-preservation/

View

Source: In the Library With The Lead Pipe

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

Predatory publishing from a global south perspective

Author: Reggie Raju

Abstract: The unilateral determination of a definition of predatory publishing, by Jeffrey Beall, has sent the research publishing world into a tizz. Even though Beall has withdrawn his list, unfortunately in the current technological age this list is not cleared from the web archive nor is there a prevention of the rehashing of the list by someone else. Nor, has there been subsequently an adequate reconceptualization of predatory publishing to ensure that it is not discriminatory to open access or the global south.

Writing as a Fellow of the LPC from the global south, I feel a sense of obligation to follow the call that African academics and intellectuals (not that I am either), on the continent and in the diaspora, play a role in countering the prejudice and misinformation about Africa. Be that as it may, I think there are significant lessons for both the global south and north by interrogating the concept of predatory publishing. The recently published article by Olivarez and others (2018) highlight the need for interventions to remedy the insensitive generalization of predatory publishing.

Citation: Raju, Reggie (2018). ““Predatory publishing from a global south perspective.” Fellows Journal, LPC Blog. https://librarypublishing.org/predatory-publishing-global-south-perspective/

View

Source: librarypublishing.org

Open Access and the Humanities: Contexts, Controversies, and the Future

Author: Martin Paul Eve

Abstract: If you work in a university, you are almost certain to have heard the term ‘open access’ in the past couple of years. You may also have heard either that it is the utopian answer to all the problems of research dissemination or perhaps that it marks the beginning of an apocalyptic new era of ‘pay-to-say’ publishing. In this book, Martin Paul Eve sets out the histories, contexts and controversies for open access, specifically in the humanities. Broaching practical elements alongside economic histories, open licensing, monographs and funder policies, this book is a must-read for both those new to ideas about open-access scholarly communications and those with an already keen interest in the latest developments for the humanities. This title is also available as Open Access via Cambridge Books Online.

Citation: Eve, Martin P., 2014. “Open Access and the Humanities: Contexts, Controversies, and the Future”. Humanities Commons. DOI: 10.17613/M68W2B.

View

Source: Humanities Commons

Scaling Research Data Management Services Along the Maturity Spectrum: Three Institutional Perspectives

Authors: Cinthya Ippoliti, Amy Koshoffer, Renaine Julian, Micah Vandegrift, Devin Soper, Sophie Meridien

Abstract:  Research data services promise to advance many academic libraries’ strategic goals of becoming partners in the research process and integrating library services with modern research workflows. Academic librarians are well positioned to make an impact in this space due to their expertise in managing, curating, and preserving digital information, and a history of engaging with scholarly communications writ large. Some academic libraries have quickly developed infrastructure and support for every activity ranging from data storage and curation to project management and collaboration, while others are just beginning to think about addressing the data needs of their researchers. Regardless of which end of the spectrum they identify with, libraries are still seeking to understand the research landscape and define their role in the process. This article seeks to blend both a general perspective regarding these issues with actual case studies derived from three institutions, University of Cincinnati, Oklahoma State University, and Florida State University, all of which are at different levels of implementation, maturity, and campus involvement.

Citation: Ippoliti, C., Koshoffer, A. E., Julian, R., Vandegrift, M., Soper, D., & Meridien, S. (2018, January 12). Scaling Research Data Management Services Along the Maturity Spectrum: Three Institutional Perspectives. Retrieved from 10.17605/OSF.IO/WZ8FN.

View

Source: LIS Scholarship Archive

Harvesting the Academic Landscape: Streamlining the Ingestion of Professional Scholarship Metadata into the Institutional Repository

Author: Jonathan Bull and Teresa Auch Schultz

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Although librarians initially hoped institutional repositories (IRs) would grow through researcher self-archiving, practice shows that growth is much more likely through library-directed deposit. Libraries must then find efficient ways to ingest material into their IR to ensure growth and relevance. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM Valparaiso University developed and implemented a workflow that was semiautomated to help cut down on the time needed to ingest articles into its IR, ValpoScholar. The workflow, which continues to be refined, makes use of practices and ideas used by other repositories to more efficiently collect metadata for items and upload them to the repository. NEXT STEPS The article discusses the pros and cons of this workflow and areas of ingesting that still need to be addressed, including adding full-text items, checking copyright policies, managing student staffing, and dealing with hurdles created by the repository’s software.

Source: Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

Citation: Bull, J. & Schultz, T.A., (2018). “Harvesting the Academic Landscape: Streamlining the Ingestion of Professional Scholarship Metadata into the Institutional Repository.” Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 6(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2201

View

Artificial intelligence and copyright

Author: Andres Guadamuz

Abstract: Robotic artists have been involved in various types of creative works for a long time. Since the 1970s computers have been producing crude works of art, and these efforts continue today. Most of these computer-generated works of art relied heavily on the creative input of the programmer; the machine was at most an instrument or a tool very much like a brush or canvas. But today, we are in the throes of a technological revolution that may require us to rethink the interaction between computers and the creative process. That revolution is underpinned by the rapid development of machine learning software, a subset of artificial intelligence that produces autonomous systems that are capable of learning without being specifically programmed by a human.

A computer program developed for machine learning purposes has a built-in algorithm that allows it to learn from data input, and to evolve and make future decisions that may be either directed or independent. When applied to art, music and literary works, machine learning algorithms are actually learning from input provided by programmers. They learn from these data to generate a new piece of work, making independent decisions throughout the process to determine what the new work looks like. An important feature for this type of artificial intelligence is that while programmers can set parameters, the work is actually generated by the computer program itself – referred to as a neural network – in a process akin to the thought processes of humans.

Creating works using artificial intelligence could have very important implications for copyright law. Traditionally, the ownership of copyright in computer-generated works was not in question because the program was merely a tool that supported the .process, very much like a pen and paper. Creative works qualify for copyright protection if they are original, with most definitions of originality requiring a human author.

Source: WIPO Magazine

Citation: Guadamuz, Andres. “Artificial intelligence and copyright.” WIPO Magazine, No. 5/2017(October), pp. 14-19.