Upload
elaine-malone
View
221
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Keith WebsterUniversity Librarian and Director of Learning Services
Berenika M. WebsterCentre for Information Behaviour and Evaluation of Research, University College London
Scholarly communication and electronic resources
Some questions
Scholarly communication What is the process? Who are the actors?
How is behaviour of scholars changing?How can libraries respond?
Structure
Changes in scholarshipResearch fundingE-researchScholarly communication crisisNew forms of scholarly communication and the academic response
Scholarly communication… technological and institutional means by which theories, interpretations, and findings are submitted to the scrutiny of expert disciplinary communities and then critiqued, endorsed, disseminated, synthesized and archived on behalf of broad community of teachers and learners
(Fyffe, 2001)
Informal – social/professional networks
Formal – publishing and making available
Players in the formal process
Funders establish research priorities provide resources,
Scholars do research write articles and provide quality assurance through peer review,
Publishers and learned societies accumulate copy-edit provide quality assurance through peer review produce market distribute,
Academic libraries buy archive provide access.
Drivers of changeShift in knowledge production mode
Funding structures and requirements
ICT
Crisis in scholarly publishing system
Shifts in knowledge production
Mode 1 and Mode 2“Traditional science” and reflexive researchTriple helix of overlapping interests (university, government and industry)
Modes of knowledge production
Driven by end-usersInterdisciplinary knowledgeCollaborative across sectorsTransitory research teamsAccountability (social and economic) to range of stakeholdersQuality control (academic merit, cost effectiveness, economic and social relevance)
(Gibbons [et al], 1994)
Driven by academic disciplineKnowledge framed by disciplinary normsDeeply institutionalisedAccountability to peersScientist is expertQuality control by peer review and contribution to discipline
Mode 1 Mode 2
Diverse location of research (university, hospital, industry, research institutes)Collaboration amongst teamsInterdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarityFocus on problems rather than techniquesChanging modes of communication (more informal and ICT based)Guarding of intellectual property
Emerging practice
Implications for libraries
Broad-based collectionsGreater need for information specialistInformation skills training in disciplinary landscapesRemote access – sometimes overseasLicence issues for collaborators
Funding structures and requirements 1External fundingDiverse source of funding
Government Not-for-profit Industry
Economic outcomes increase wealth creation & prosperity improve nation’s health, environment & quality of life
InnovationImproved competitiveness“Commercialisation” of researchLess “curiosity-driven” activity
Funding structures and requirements 2
Evaluation, evaluation, evaluation… intellectual merit cost-effectiveness or “value for money” economic and social relevance
Requirements of research assessment increased quantity of published outputs increased “quality” of outputs
Compliance requirements published outputs in open access storage and re-use of data sets
UK Research Assessment Exercise (1980s)New Zealand Performance Based Research Fund (2003/2006)Australia Research Quality Framework (2008)Portfolio of evidence; metrics
Research assessment exercises
Percentages of UK biomedical papers acknowledging support from five main sectors, 1989-2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
No funding ack. UK Govt UK PNP Industry Foreign International
% o
f al
l U
K R
OD
pap
ers
1989-92 1993-96 1997-00
Numbers of UK biomedical papers and authors per paper, 1989-2000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Pape
rs p
er y
ear
5+
4
3
2
1
Percentage of UK biomedical papers co-authored internationally, 1989-2000
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
% o
f al
l U
K p
aper
s
Other addAustralia addwith US addwith EU add
Implications for libraries
Institutional focus on research may reduce funding to support teachingPressure on researchers may require libraries to become more student focussedEmergence of e-learningGreater demand for research collectionsFocus on collections for immediate use rather than “just-in-case”Licence issues for overseas collaboration
ICT and e-research (1)
Democratisation of informal networks“De-formalisation” of formal networks open publishing and self-archiving open peer review blogs and discussion boards
ICT and e-research (3)Decrease in the use of physical librariesAccess to wider range of materials
depth (backfiles) breadth (interdisciplinary databases; aggregator services) digital access to primary resources federated searching across various formats and
institutional collections (libraries/archives/museums) new ways of knowledge discovery (data mining) and
hyperlinking
Citation studies: low uptake of web-only materials. Questionnaires and interviews: web-only materials are important.
Implications for libraries
Changing pattern of use – what future the physical library?Need for broad ICT infrastructureNever-ending demand for e-contentNever-ending supply of e-contentData curation and repositoriesInformation literacyBudget pressures
Crisis in scholarly publishing system (1)
Numbers of titles are soaring publish or perish research assessment
Death of scholarly monograph? new breed of journals e-publishing only universities/funders subsidise costs for some
titles
Inflation rates for books and journal are soaringLibraries cannot keep up
Crisis in scholarly publishing system (2)
Scholars have lost control of the formal communication system learned societies sell off titles peer review process secretive and biased;
unable to detect fraud
Commercial publishers have taken over scholarly information as commodity scholars freely giving away their research
outputs; libraries buying it from publishers; funders pay twice
Crisis in scholarly publishing system (3)
Problems with publishing in a traditional model
space constraints and high rejection rates from premium journals
slow to produce fewer monographs published no money to pay page charges no appropriate outlet for
multidisciplinary research
Crisis in scholarly publishing system (4)
Electronic publications Faster turn-around of submission/revision/publication
Models As a supplement to traditional print journal (with full content or
part content in e-format); subscription based (majority of commercial publications)
Electronic only publication; subscription based Open access
Digital versions of print journals “free to air” (e.g. BMJ) Open access e-only journals (PubMedCentral) Who pays?
Self-archiving institutional or subject repositories pre-print archives poor knowledge of copyright slow uptake by researchers
Implications for libraries
Budget pressuresBalance between print and electronicBalance between journal and bookPromotion of open accessFuture sustainability of open access
Academic behaviour: disciplinary differences
Science, technology and medicine •Rapidly changing user needs•Digital everything – especially big data sets•Electronic journals – bundling•New scholarly comms models emerging – especially open access
Social Sciences•Diverse users including theoreticians and practitioners •Research needs vary from big data sets to traditional monographs•Collection has patchy strengths but has been less prominent historically•Resource discovery challenges
Arts and Humanities•Not just traditional academic researchers•Increasing interdisciplinarity and collaboration•Fewer foreign-language literate researchers•Changing user needs in digital age – some disciplines ‘going digital’ more quickly than others
Sources of information
JISC, 2005
Medical and biological sciences
Physical sciences
and engineering
Social sciences
Languages and area studies
Arts and humanities
Pre-prints 5.8% 1.4% 1.0%
Post-prints 6.3% .9% 3.9%
Journal articles 90.7% 71.6% 69.3% 28.0% 27.2%
Conference proceedings
5.8% .5% 1.0%
Books .6% 1.4% 9.2% 50.0% 35.9%
Datasets 4.3% 3.4% 7.8% 2.0% 2.9%
Technical reports 1.0%
Govt or NGO reports
1.2% 2.3%
Legal sources .5%
Other textual 3.7% 10.0% 14.6%
Non-textual .6% .5% 2.0% 8.7%
Other 2.5% 4.8% 4.1% 8.0% 4.9%
Informal mechanisms of locating information
Asking a colleague
Emailing a colleague or peer
Reading email
newsletters
Posting an enquiry to an email
list
Reading blogs
Medical and biological sciences
80.2% 87.0% 17.9% 11.7% 4.3%
Physical sciences and engineering
81.9% 81.9% 21.9% 12.4% 4.3%
Social sciences
76.0% 78.2% 35.6% 15.1% 7.1%
Languages and area studies
74.0% 80.0% 16.0% 12.0% 2.0%
Arts and humanities
76.7% 79.6% 31.1% 21.4% 6.8%
JISC, 2005
Resource discovery tools
Medical and biological sciences
Physical sciences and engineering
Social sciences
Languages and area studies
Arts and humanities
Other 13.0% 5.7% 6.7% 8.0% 3.9% Subject-specific abstracts and indexes
18.5% 20.6% 22.4% 6.0% 13.6%
Subject-specific online gateways
22.8% 3.3% 6.7% 2.0% 2.9%
General bibliographic resources
9.9% 11.5% 15.2% 46.0% 29.1%
Citation databases
21.0% 21.5% 9.9% 4.0% 3.9%
Search engines 14.8% 36.4% 35.9% 24.0% 36.9% Work of reference
0% 1.0% 3.1% 10.0% 9.7%
JISC, 2005
Availability of resources
A lot of what I want is in Baghdad… (Cuneiform studies)
Archives are widely scattered. Library holdings of journals and printed sources are patchy even in London. It all means much travelling and time wasted. (Naval and maritime history)
The list of journals taken by our University Library is reduced each year; this is certainly not peculiar to my particular interests (Economics)
Availability of e-content (arts and humanities)
Yes Some No
Journals 55.5 25.4 10.1
Books 6.4 14.4 78.2
Manuscripts 4.5 19.3 76.1
Archives 3.6 0 96.4
Editions and sources 46.2 19.2 34.6
Maps 32.0 24.0 44.0
Newspapers 50.0 27.8 22.2
Rare books 16.7 44.4 38.9
Government documents
5.0 31.2 18.2
New opportunities opened up by e-resources
I am beginning to explore using 3-D modelling of buildings and computer replications of lighting effects. (Byzantine art history)
Interactive survey data, newspaper archives world wide. (Sociology, Anthropology)
Digital versions of government documents allow one to perform your own analysis on them (e.g. coding voluminous documents for subsequent quantitative analysis. (Public policy and administration).
Electronic data sources are essentially new in their richness and scale. (Economic and social history)
The A2A site has opened up a wealth of searchable catalogues for archives a cross the country. This has made locating interesting material much more convenient. (Early modern history)
Neuro-imaging databases such as the one at Dartmouth in US. (Psychology)
What do academics want ?More electronic content from desktopContinuing/long-term accessMaintaining authenticity and integrity of e-resourcesElectronic access to primary materialsMore backfiles (e.g. popularity of JSTOR)Reliable IT Explain the maze (I&A; full-text; aggregator; OPAC; etc.)Seamless access/transitionsCustomisation “In-time” service
Informal communication networks
Libraries cannot (and should not) ignoreWhat is our role?Blogs, wikis, emailWeb 2.0 and social networking
Implications for librariesLiaisonPublishers of contentSupport for Cyberinfrastructure
Online access to complete back-archives of literature.
Stewardship and curation services for enormous collections of scientific data.
Digital repositories for diverse digital objects as instructional material and works in progress.
Digitized special collections.
More continuous (vs. batch) and open forms of scholarly communication.
Individual and community customization information services.
Licensing and accessCostPublisher practices: bundling
Some issues for librarians
Users want e-everythingBut still want print as back-upHow do we provide technology to navigate e-landscape?How do we cope with budget pressures?