Moving from Colonialism and Paternalism to Equity and Cooperation in Scholarly Communication

Authors: Josh Bolick, Ada Emmett, Marc Greenberg, Town Peterson, Brian Rosenblum

Abstract: An idealist might believe that communications among scholars represent open, clear, reasoned debate, and that all involved will share certain base values. While we realize that significant barriers, such as to women and people of color, have long existed, one might wish that equality would be on the list of such shared values… that is, one would like to believe that all scholars have the same range of opportunities open to them, regardless of their race, country of origin, economic status, or whatever, so that all of the relevant data and the best minds might be brought to bear on solving problems of interest to science and scholarship. One might wish that–whatever the details might be–all scholars would share the idea of equality as an underlying and overarching assumption. Here we examine this idea of equality in scholarly communication via the example of a recent exchange about open access in the Journal of Wildlife Management.

Citation: Bolick, Josh, Ada Emmett, Marc Greenberg, Town Peterson, and Brian Rosenblum. Moving from Colonialism and Paternalism to Equity and Cooperation in Scholarly Communication.” OAnarchy [blog] (April 20, 2017).

View

The Johns Hopkins Libraries open access promotion fund: An open and shut case study

Author(s): Robin N. Sinn, Sue M. Woodson, and Mark Cyzyk

Abstract: This article details the history and outcomes of the open access promotion fund at Johns Hopkins University. It concludes with lessons learned from the experience of opening and closing the fund.

Citation: Sinn, Robin N., Sue M. Woodson, and Mark Cyzyk. “The Johns Hopkins Libraries open access promotion fund An open and shut case study.” College & Research Libraries News 78.1 (2017): 32-35.

View

Source: The Johns Hopkins Libraries open access promotion fund: An open and shut case study

The Digital Archiving of Endangered Language Oral Traditions: Kaipuleohone at the University of Hawai‘i and C’ek’aedi Hwnax in Alaska

Author: Andrea L. Berez

Abstract: This essay compares and contrasts two small-scale digital endangered language archives with regard to their relevance for oral tradition research. The first is a university-based archive curated at the University of Hawai‘i, which is designed to house endangered language materials arising from the fieldwork of university researchers. The second is an indigenously-administered archive in rural Alaska that serves the language maintenance needs of the Ahtna Athabaskan Alaska Native community.

Citation: Berez, Andrea L. “The Digital Archiving of Endangered Language Oral Traditions: Kaipuleohone at the University of Hawai’i and C’ek’aedi Hwnax in Alaska.” Oral Tradition 28.2 (2013).

View

The Open Access Movement and Activism for the “Knowledge Commons”

Author: Jackie Smith

Abstract: Over the last 25 years, the publication industry has seen a more than 70 percent growth in its scholarly content. Yet today, far fewer companies control the bulk of publication. By continuing to publish in traditional ways, sociologists are participating in the enclosure of the knowledge commons, whether we intend to or not. As the American Sociological Association begins its own OA journal, members need to be informed about the issues at stake. Many scholars may be attracted to the ideas and values behind OA. Yet, this means a fundamental re-thinking of the publishing industry and groups like the American Sociology Association that rely on revenues from publishing.

Citation: Smith, Jackie. (2014) “The Open Access Movement and Activism for the Knowledge Commons.” American Sociological Association Footnotes, May/June 2014.

View

Reproducible research in descriptive linguistics: integrating archiving and citation into the postgraduate curriculum at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa

Author: Andrea L. Berez

Abstract: The notion of reproducible research has received considerable attention in recent years from physical scientists, life scientists, social and behavioural scientists, and computational scientists. Some readers will be familiar with the criterion of replicability as a tenet of good execution of the scientific method, in which sound scientific experiments or studies are those that can be recreated elsewhere leading to new data, and in which sound scientific claims are those that are confirmed by the new data in a replicated study.

Citation: Berez, A. (2015). Reproducible research in descriptive linguistics: integrating archiving and citation into the postgraduate curriculum at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. In A. Harris, N. Thieberger & L. Barwick (Eds.) ‘Research, records and responsibility: ten years of PARADISEC’ (pp. 39-51). Sydney: Sydney University Press.

View

Not the Beall and end-all* – Assessing quality publications from multiple perspectives

Authors: Dr. Andy Pleffer & Susan Shrubb

Abstract: Assessing reputable places to publish is a shared responsibility; one that should (ideally) be dispersed among academic authors and their institution(s). Those who have a stake in such assessment may include – but by no means be limited to – researchers and trusted colleagues, students and supervisors, research administrators and research librarians.

Citation: Pfeffer, A., & Shrubb, S. (2017, March 27). Not the Beall and end-all*. Australasian Open Access Strategy Group blog.

View

Source: Not the Beall and end-all* – Assessing quality publications from multiple perspectives

arXiv e-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships

Authors: Vincent Larivière, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Benoit Macaluso, Staša Milojević, Blaise Cronin, and Mike Thelwall

Abstract: Since its creation in 1991, arXiv has become central to the diffusion of research in a number of fields. Combining data from the entirety of arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS), this paper investigates (a) the proportion of papers across all disciplines that are on arXiv and the proportion of arXiv papers that are in the WoS, (b) elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication, and (c) the aging characteristics and scientific impact of arXiv e-prints and their published version. It shows that the proportion of WoS papers found on arXiv varies across the specialties of physics and mathematics, and that only a few specialties make extensive use of the repository. Elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication has shortened but remains longer in mathematics than in physics. In physics, mathematics, as well as in astronomy and astrophysics, arXiv versions are cited more promptly and decay faster than WoS papers. The arXiv versions of papers — both published and unpublished — have lower citation rates than published papers, although there is almost no difference in the impact of the arXiv versions of both published and unpublished papers.

Citation: Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., Macaluso, B., Milojević, S., Cronin, B. and Thelwall, M. (2014), arXiv E-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships. J Assn Inf Sci Tec, 65: 1157–1169. doi:10.1002/asi.23044, arXiv:1306.3261

View

How to Scuttle a Scholarly Communication Initiative

Author: Dorothea Salo

Abstract: Since Clifford Lynch’s infamous call to arms (2003), academic libraries have been wasting their time trying to change the scholarly communication system on the feeblest of rationalizations. Proper librarians know that the current system is obviously the most sustainable, since it’s lasted this long and provided so much benefit to libraries (Rogers, 2012a) and profit to organizations as diverse as Elsevier, Nature Publishing Group, and the American Chemical Society, as well as their CEOs (Berrett, 2012). Moreover, faculty have proclaimed loudly and clearly that they believe libraries’ central role is to be the campus’s collective knowledge wallet (Schonfeld & Housewright, 2010; Lucky, 2012), so who are librarians to argue?

Citation: Salo, D., (2013). How to Scuttle a Scholarly Communication Initiative. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 1(4), p.eP1075. DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1075

View

Open Science: a revolution in sight?

Author: Bernard Rentier

Abstract: Purpose
This paper aims to describe the evolution of scientific communication, largely represented by the publication process. It notes the disappearance of the traditional publication on paper and its progressive replacement by electronic publishing, a new paradigm implying radical changes in the whole mechanism. It aims also at warning the scientific community about the dangers of some new avenues and why, rather than subcontracting an essential part of its work, it must take back full control of its production.

Design/methodology/approach
The paper reviews the emerging concepts in scholarly publication and aims to answer frequently asked questions concerning free access to scientific literature as well as to data, science and knowledge in general.

Findings
The paper provides new observations concerning the level of compliance to institutional open access mandates and the poor relevance of journal prestige for quality evaluation of research and researchers. The results of introducing an open access policy at the University of Liège are noted.

Social implications
Open access is, for the first time in human history, an opportunity to provide free access to knowledge universally, regardless of either the wealth or the social status of the potentially interested readers. It is an essential breakthrough for developing countries.

Originality/value
Open access and Open Science in general must be considered as common values that should be shared freely. Free access to publicly generated knowledge should be explicitly included in universal human rights. There are still a number of obstacles hampering this goal, mostly the greed of intermediaries who persuade researchers to give their work for free, in exchange for prestige. The worldwide cause of Open Knowledge is thus a major universal issue for the twenty-first century.

Citation: Bernard Rentier, (2016) “Open science: a revolution in sight?”, Interlending & Document Supply, Vol. 44 Issue: 4, pp.155-160, doi: 10.1108/ILDS-06-2016-0020

View