digital scholarship: how open publication and co-creation could transform science

  • Published on
    19-Aug-2014

  • View
    5.186

  • Download
    2

DESCRIPTION

According to Wikipedia: Open science is the umbrella term of the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society, amateur or professional. It encompasses practices such as publishing open research, campaigning for open access, encouraging scientists to practice open notebook science, and generally making it easier to publish and communicate scientific knowledge. Here (in this remixed on purpose) we will explore some of the key dimensions and opportunities behind the open science and its opportunities for digital scholars.

Transcript

  • digital scholarship: how open publication and co-creation could transform science @cristobalcobo Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford University, England 1
  • 2
  • 3 JISC. (2012, September 4). Amberthomas openness he. Technology. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/16znWvI
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 7
  • 10
  • 9
  • 11
  • 8
  • 13 Ron Mader. (2013, July 21). Set the default to open #openaccess #oer #openjournalism. Technology. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/14BTtRN
  • 17
  • 28
  • 37 Cameron Neylon. (2011, July 4). Open Research: Pipedream or growing reality. Education. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/16zm85S
  • 38
  • 39
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 18 Source: Cameron Neylon. (2009, January 29). Open Access, Open Data. Open Research? Retrieved from http:// www.slideshare.net/CameronNeylon/open-access-open-data-open-research-presentation?from_search=1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26 Julien Sicot. (20131). Open Science, Open Access, Science2.0: de nouvelles modalits pour... Technology. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/14BSxNm
  • 29 Carl-Christian Buhr. (2012, October 22). Open Science at the European Commission. Technology. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/14BTKEm
  • 30
  • Two features dene an open-access publica3on: 1. Published contents are freely accessible through Internet. 2. Readers are given copyright permission to republish or reuse the content as they like so long as the author and publisher receive proper aOribu3on. Why Full Open Access Ma
  • 31
  • 32 john wilbanks. (2010, March 2). Nfais Wilbanks. News & Politics. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/14BUs4o
  • 33
  • 34 Open data Open source software Open discussion Open resources Open review
  • Two relevant dimensions: knowledge generation (wikis, e-science, online education, distributed R&D, open innovation, open science, peer-based production, UGC) + new models of knowledge distribution (e-journals, open repositories, open licenses, dataweb archive). 50
  • Today's initiatives in cyber- infrastructure, e- Science, e-Humanities or e-Learning emerged from a period combining technological advances and economic-institutional redefinitions (Borgman, 2007) 51
  • Exponential transformation of information is remarkable from the quantitative perspective, but also there fragmentation of mechanisms to create, access and distribute information. 52
  • New modes of scholarship of collaborative, trans-disciplinary and computationally engaged research, teaching and publication. (Burdick, et al, 2012). 53
  • Digital scholarship communities collaborate in dynamic, flexible/open-ended networks, exchanging in innovation, creativity/co-authoring. (i.e open Science Federation) 54
  • Radical decentralization: Open values, ideology and potential of technologies born of peer-to- peer networking and wiki-ways. (Benkler, 2006) i.e. BioMed Central, Public Library of Science 55
  • connect supply and demand
  • Publishing journals Publishing books Post in conferences Blogging Tweeting DOAJ - OCW YouTube Channel Webinar Print-on-demand
  • First Monday: (1ST of its kind) 15-year-old open access journal about the internet. PLoS ONE: peer-reviewed, open-access resource from the Public Library Of Science
  • SciELO - ScienAc Electronic Library Online (1998): facilitate coopera3ve electronic publishing of scien3c (peer review) journals. SiELO network (federa3on) is based on na3onal infrastructures (future sustainability). Goal: To foster the na3onal scien3c research (expanding the visibility, accessibility and credibility) of the LA&C scien3c publica3ons. SciElo enables: - Searching, - Preserving and - Monitoring scien3c literature. It includes over 760 journals, ~300,000 ar3cles. Impact factor: Over 6 million granted cita3on. Over than 12 million ar3cles accessed per month. SiELO: Compa3ble with interna3onal standards (Web of Science, Scopus, Crossref, Google Scholar, PubMed, DOAJ). 15 na3ons + South-South Coopera3on
  • hOp://gshare.com/
  • 59 Source: Cameron Neylon. (2010, January 22). Science in the Open. Business & Mgmt. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/CameronNeylon/science-in-the-open?from_search=2
  • 60
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 78
  • 79 Scientific publishing
  • 80 Jonathan Eisen. (2012, July 13). Jonathan Eisen talk on Open Science at #BOSC2012 #ISMB. Entertainment. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/16znpdq Existing Barriers: Impact Factor Money raising efforts Immobilism Lobby False positive: 1. Lack of peer review or quality 2. Only Journal copyright protects authors 3. Poor distribution
  • 81
  • 82 Bjrn Brembs. (2011, August 30). What s wrong with scholarly publishing today? II. Business & Mgmt. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/14BT7L5
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86 Where you publish is more important to us than what you publish Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted
  • 35
  • 87 Current tensions that face the academic community: Tradition (800 centuries and counting......) Proprietary value of information. Revenues (sure?) Plagiarism (yes, but...) Misunderstanding (access vs open or quality) Funding model hOp://www.ickr.com/photos/franganillo/3554010670/sizes/z/in/photostream/ Cornelius Puschmann. (2008). New Paradigms In Scholarly Communication (Ibm). Technology. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/16zocuJ
  • 88 How is 'impact' measured? Your article was published in a journal with an Impact Factor of X hOp://www.ickr.com/photos/macrj/7678960512/sizes/l/in/photostream/
  • 89 How could 'impact' be measured? Authority 3.0 (Michael Jensen) X citations (de-duped from Google Scholar, Scopus, WoSc) prestige of the publisher + peer pre-reviewers, commenters citations (scholarly, hyperlinks, social bookmarks) expert ratings (f1000.com; Peer Reviewers) community rating& commenting (Digging; Rating) social media coverage (bookmarked/discussed/commented) it was viewed X times in X journal/communities proportion-quoted-by-others: out in Web/ valued-links author's participation in other valued projects inclusion in in syllabi and other indexes Authority 2.0 and 3.0 (PDF) originally presented at 50th anniversary celebra3on of Hong Kong University Press, 11/2006. hOp://bit.ly/17jDV1f Bjrn Brembs. (2009, January 21). Reputation, authority and incentives. Or: How to get rid of the Imp... Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/16zoylf
  • drivers 90
  • EU Commission + ESRC: Accelerate open access. OA journals + databases facilitating mechanism of open peer revision + visibility/impact (avoid duplication). 1. Technology: Coordination mechanisms - exchange and codification of tacit knowledge, simplifying its translation into more findable and interchangeable resources (Heimeriks & Vasileiadou, 2008). (i.e. PeerJ, Rubriq) 91
  • Books become a dialogical tool not simply finished + published but open to dynamics + iterations (i.e. versioning, crowd-source, peer reviewed, remix). Burdick (et al., 2012) 2. Co-creation: Networking +Coordination +Cooperation + Collaboration. (Rheingold, 2012) The higher the level of negotiation the more complex the set of skills required. (i.e. Flat World Knowledge, Creative Crowdwriting) 92
  • Do-it-yourself publishing: Blogs, photos + videos (Nielsen, 2011). Less clear distinction between popular and more specialized scholarship (Burdick, 2012). 3. Dissemination: New open-access policies (open repositories/journals) almost anyone anywhere. If it doesn t spread, it s dead Jenkins et al. (2010). 4 R: reuse, revise, remix and redistribute. (Wiley, 2010). (i.e. CreateSpace or Blurb) 93
  • ~20 mill. papers over 50y: cross Disciplinary teams dominate solo authors and frequently more cited than individuals (Wuchty, 2007) 4. Co-Authorship/beta: From solitary genius toward the virtually boundless community of digital scholars (Burdick, et al, 2012)). 94
  • a) the existing practices of peer-review to assure the quality of knowledge creation / dissemination b) Mode 2, post-normal science + technoscience (Burdick, et al, 2012). Critique: Need to recognize distinction between DIY scholarship and high scholarship. (i.e Wikipedia) 95
  • Stick or the carrot: academic mechanisms of recognition (in many cases) are limited to metrics such as h-index' affecting to possibilities to facilitate peers based collaboration (Hirsch, 2005) 96
  • the current academic assessment systems which reward scholarship are dysfunctional and potentially cause more harm than good. (Adler and Harzing, 2009) 97
  • Due to these elements of exclusiveness/ individualism, knowledge-sharing in academic organizations are often inefficient (Seonghee and Boryung, 2008) The highly competitive environment enhance lack of partnership (Kanwar, Kodhandaraman, and Umar, 2010). 98
  • Will universities institutionalize approaches (learning and research) grounded in collaboration instead of celebrity and competition? 99
  • The shift in knowledge landscape is disturbing to people familiar with the earlier paradigm . Chesbrough (2006) 100
  • More appropriate institutional recognition are needed (i.e. A tenure evaluation system that recognizes the value of more flexible mechanisms of knowledge creation and new publication formats). Is not easy to determine to what extent...