Conceptualizing Data Curation Activities Within Two Academic Libraries

Authors: Lafferty-Hess, S., Rudder, J., Moira, D., Ivey, S., & Darragh, J.

Abstract
: A growing focus on sharing research data that meet certain standards, such as the FAIR guiding principles, has resulted in libraries increasingly developing and scaling up support for research data. As libraries consider what new data curation services they would like to provide as part of their repository programs, there are various questions that arise surrounding scalability, resource allocation, requisite expertise, and how to communicate these services to the research community. Data curation can involve a variety of tasks and activities. Some of these activities can be managed by systems, some require human intervention, and some require highly specialized domain or data type expertise.

At the 2017 Triangle Research Libraries Network Institute, staff from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University used the 47 data curation activities identified by the Data Curation Network project to create conceptual groupings of data curation activities. The results of this “thought-exercise” are discussed in this white paper. The purpose of this exercise was to provide more specificity around data curation within our individual contexts as a method to consistently discuss our current service models, identify gaps we would like to fill, and determine what is currently out of scope. We hope to foster an open and productive discussion throughout the larger academic library community about how we prioritize data curation activities as we face growing demand and limited resources.

Citation: Lafferty-Hess, S., Rudder, J., Moira, D., Ivey, S., & Darragh, J. (2018, May 29). Conceptualizing Data Curation Activities Within Two Academic Libraries. http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZJ5PQ

Source: Conceptualizing Data Curation Activities Within Two Academic Libraries

View

Source: LIS Scholarship Archive

Public Libraries and Knowledge Politics

Author: Stuart Lawson

Abstract: [Preprint of a forthcoming book chapter] To complement contemporary discussions on open access, this chapter considers public libraries as one element of the longer history of access to scholarly knowledge. A historical perspective reveals that access to knowledge has undergone a long, slow process of change, related to social, technical, and political developments in printing, mass literacy, universities, and libraries. Until the advent of the digital technologies which enable the open access movement, public access to the scholarly record required physical access to printed works. Public libraries helped facilitate this, fulfilling a vital role in extending access to scholarship beyond the academy. Yet the complex power dynamics at play in the dissemination of ideas are visible in the creation of public libraries, through the role of philanthropy, Enlightenment notions of self-improvement, and the class politics of the Victorian era. Examining these origins reveals that current debates around the consequences of widening public access to scholarship – and how this expansion should be paid for – are nothing new. The liberal ideals underpinning librarianship in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are still present in the digital era, and exploring the biases and contradictions contained within public libraries’ history may give us pause when considering the political context of scholarly publishing today.

Citation: Lawson, S. (2018). Public Libraries and Knowledge Politics [Preprint]. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from http://eprints.rclis.org/32361/

View

Source: Public Libraries and Knowledge Politics

Open Publication, Digital Abundance, and Scarce Labour

Author: Martin Paul Eve

Abstract: This article examines the challenges of labour provision in the open-access online scholarly publishing environment. Noting that the technological underpinnings of open access imply an abundance, it is also the case that the labour that remains necessary within the publishing processes are based upon a set of economics that are scarce. I here argue, with a demonstration of some of the labours of XML typesetting, that we are unlikely to realise the transformations of abundant proliferation of scholarship without a change and re-distribution of labour functions to authors. The resultant outputs are, I argue, less likely to be machine readable and semantically rich, thereby conflicting with other imagined digital possibilities.

Citation: Eve, Martin P., 2017. “Open Publication, Digital Abundance, and Scarce Labour”. LIS Scholarship Archive. October 25. doi:10.3138/jsp.49.1.26.

View

Source: LIS Scholarship Archive

Guidelines for Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) in Journal Policies and Practices “The TOP Guidelines”

Authors: Brian Nosek et al

Abstract: The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Committee met in November 2014 to address one important element of the incentive systems – journals’ procedures and policies for publication. The outcome of the effort is the TOP Guidelines. There are eight standards in the TOP guidelines; each move scientific communication toward greater openness. These standards are modular, facilitating adoption in whole or in part. However, they also complement each other, in that commitment to one standard may facilitate adoption of others. Moreover, the guidelines are sensitive to barriers to openness by articulating, for example, a process for exceptions to sharing because of ethical issues, intellectual property concerns, or availability of necessary resources.

Citation: Nosek, Brian A et al. “Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines.” Open Science Framework, 28 Aug. 2017. https://osf.io/9f6gx/

View

Wikipedia as a gateway to biomedical research: The relative distribution and use of citations in the English Wikipedia

Authors: Lauren A. Maggio, John Willinsky, Ryan Steinberg, Daniel Mietchen, Joe Wass, Ting Dong

Abstract: Wikipedia is a gateway to knowledge. However, the extent to which this gateway ends at Wikipedia or continues via supporting citations is unknown. Wikipedia’s gateway functionality has implications for information design and education, notably in medicine. This study aims to establish benchmarks for the relative distribution and referral (click) rate of citations, as indicated by presence of a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), from Wikipedia, with a focus on medical citations. DOIs referred from the English Wikipedia in August 2016 were obtained from Crossref.org. Next, based on a DOI presence on a WikiProject Medicine page, all DOIs in Wikipedia were categorized as medical (WP:MED) or non-medical (non-WP:MED). Using this categorization, referred DOIs were classified as WP:MED, non-WP:MED, or BOTH, meaning the DOI may have been referred from either category. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Out of 5.2 million Wikipedia pages, 4.42% (n=229,857) included at least one DOI. 68,870 were identified as WP:MED, with 22.14% (n=15,250) featuring one or more DOIs. WP:MED pages featured on average 8.88 DOI citations per page, whereas non-WP:MED pages had on average 4.28 DOI citations. For DOIs only on WP:MED pages, a DOI was referred every 2,283 pageviews and for non-WP-MED pages every 2,467 pageviews. DOIs from both pages accounted for 12% (n=58,475) of referrals, making determining a referral rate for both impossible. While these results cannot provide evidence of greater citation referral from WP:MED than non-WP:MED, they do provide benchmarks to assess strategies for changing referral patterns. These changes might include editors adopting new methods for designing and presenting citations or the introduction of teaching strategies that address the value of consulting citations as a tool for extending learning.

Citation: Maggio LA, Willinsky J, Steinberg R, Mietchen D, Wass J, and Dong T. 2017. Wikipedia as a gateway to biomedical research: The relative distribution and use of citations in the English Wikipedia. bioRxiv doi: 10.1101/165159

View

Learning Analytics and the Academic Library: Professional Ethics Commitments at a Crossroads

Authors: Kyle M.L. Jones and Dorothea Salo

Abtract: In this paper, the authors address learning analytics and the ways academic libraries are beginning to participate in wider institutional learning analytics initiatives. Since there are moral issues associated with learning analytics, the authors consider how data mining practices run counter to ethical principles in the American Library Association’s “Code of Ethics.” Specifically, the authors address how learning analytics implicates professional commitments to promote intellectual freedom; protect patron privacy and confidentiality; and balance intellectual property interests between library users, their institution, and content creators and vendors. The authors recommend that librarians should embed their ethical positions in technological designs, practices, and governance mechanisms.

Citation: Jones K and Salo D. (2017) Learning Analytics and the Academic Library: Professional Ethics Commitments at a Crossroads. College & Research Libraries (Preprints). Available at http://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/16603/18049

View

The State of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles

Authors: Heather Piwowar​​, Jason Priem​​, Vincent Larivière, Juan Pablo Alperin, Lisa Matthias, Bree Norlander, Ashley Farley, Jevin West, Stefanie Haustein

Abstract: Despite growing interest in Open Access (OA) to scholarly literature, there is an unmet need for large-scale, up-to-date, and reproducible studies assessing the prevalence and characteristics of OA. We address this need using oaDOI, an open online service that determines OA status for 67 million articles.

We use three samples, each of 100,000 articles, to investigate OA in three populations: 1) all journal articles assigned a Crossref DOI, 2) recent journal articles indexed in Web of Science, and 3) articles viewed by users of Unpaywall, an open-source browser extension that lets users find OA articles using oaDOI.

We estimate that at least 28% of the scholarly literature is OA (19M in total) and that this proportion is growing, driven particularly by growth in Gold and Hybrid. The most recent year analyzed (2015) also has the highest percentage of OA (45%). Because of this growth, and the fact that readers disproportionately access newer articles, we find that Unpaywall users encounter OA quite frequently: 47% of articles they view are OA. Notably, the most common mechanism for OA is not Gold, Green, or Hybrid OA, but rather an under-discussed category we dub Bronze: articles made free-to-read on the publisher website, without an explicit Open license.

We also examine the citation impact of OA articles, corroborating the so-called open-access citation advantage: accounting for age and discipline, OA articles receive 18% more citations than average, an effect driven primarily by Green and Hybrid OA. We encourage further research using the free oaDOI service, as a way to inform OA policy and practice.

Citation: Piwowar H, Priem J, Larivière V, Alperin JP, Matthias L, Norlander B, Farley A, West J, Haustein S. (2017) The State of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ Preprints 5:e3119v1 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3119v1

View

Transparency In Authors’ Contributions And Responsibilities To Promote Integrity In Scientific Publication

Authors: Marcia McNutt, Monica Bradford, Jeffrey Drazen, R. Brooks Hanson, Bob Howard, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Veronique Kiermer, Michael Magoulias, Emilie Marcus, Barbara Kline Pope, Randy Schekman, Sowmya Swaminathan, Peter Stang and Inder Verma

Abstract: In keeping with the growing movement in scientific publishing toward transparency in data and methods, we argue that the names of authors accompanying journal articles should provide insight into who is responsible for which contributions, a process should exist to confirm that the list is complete, clearly articulated standards should establish whether and when the contributions of an individual justify authorship credit, and those involved in the generation of scientific knowledge should follow these best practices. To accomplish these goals, we recommend that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) methodology for attributing contributions, include this information in article metadata, and encourage authors to use the digital persistent identifier ORCID. Furthermore, we suggest that research institutions have regular open conversations on authorship criteria and ethics and that funding agencies adopt ORCID and accept CRediT. Scientific societies should further authorship transparency by promoting these recommendations through their meetings and publications programs.

Citation: Marcia McNutt, Monica Bradford, Jeffrey Drazen, R. Brooks Hanson, Bob Howard, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Veronique Kiermer, Michael Magoulias, Emilie Marcus, Barbara Kline Pope, Randy Schekman, Sowmya Swaminathan, Peter Stang, Inder Verma. (2017). Transparency In Authors’ Contributions And Responsibilities To Promote Integrity In Scientific Publication.
bioRxiv 140228; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/140228

View

OpenAIRE survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers

Authors: Tony Ross-Hellauer; Arvid Deppe; Birgit Schmidt

Abstract: Open peer review (OPR) is a cornerstone of the emergent Open Science agenda. Yet to date no large-scale survey of attitudes towards OPR amongst academic editors, authors, reviewers and publishers has been undertaken. This paper presents the findings of an online survey, conducted for the OpenAIRE2020 project during September and October 2016 that sought to bridge this information gap in order to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about attitudes towards and levels of experience with OPR. The results of this cross-disciplinary survey, which received 3,062 full responses, show the majority of respondents to be in favour of OPR becoming mainstream scholarly practice, as they also are for other areas of Open Science, like Open Access and Open Data. We also observe surprisingly high levels of experience with OPR, with three out of four (76.2%) respondents reporting having taken part in an OPR process as author, reviewer or editor. There were also high levels of support for most of the traits of OPR, particularly open interaction, open reports and final-version commenting. Respondents were against opening reviewer identities to authors, however, with more than half believing it would make peer review worse. Overall satisfaction with the peer review system used by scholarly journals seems to strongly vary across disciplines. Taken together, these findings are very encouraging for OPR’s prospects for moving mainstream but indicate that due care must be taken to avoid a “one-size fits all” solution and to tailor such systems to differing (especially disciplinary) contexts. More research is also needed. OPR is an evolving phenomenon and hence future studies are to be encouraged, especially to further explore differences between disciplines and monitor the evolution of attitudes.

Citation: Ross-Hellauer, Tony, Deppe, Arvid, & Schmidt, Birgit. (2017, May 2). OpenAIRE survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.570864

View

Adapting sentiment analysis for tweets linking to scientific papers

Authors: Natalie Friedrich, Timothy D. Bowman, Wolfgang G. Stock, Stefanie Haustein

Abstract: In the context of altmetrics, tweets have been discussed as potential indicators of immediate and broader societal impact of scientific documents. However, it is not yet clear to what extent Twitter captures actual research impact. A small case study (Thelwall et al., 2013b) suggests that tweets to journal articles neither comment on nor express any sentiments towards the publication, which suggests that tweets merely disseminate bibliographic information, often even automatically. This study analyses the sentiments of tweets for a large representative set of scientific papers by specifically adapting different methods to academic articles distributed on Twitter. Results will help to improve the understanding of Twitter’s role in scholarly communication and the meaning of tweets as impact metrics.

Citation: Natalie Friedrich, Timothy D. Bowman, Wolfgang G. Stock, Stefanie Haustein. (2015). Adapting sentiment analysis for tweets linking to scientific papers. arxiv

View