3.1 Measuring the Impact of Research – from Scholarly Communication to Broader Impact

2021 ◽  
pp. 135-148
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Tennant ◽  
Tom Crick

When the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak began on January 31, 2020, no-one could have anticipated the impact that it would have on our scholarly communication and publishing systems. That is, perhaps, unless you work on open source software. Right now, global research communities are united to collaborate on solving the threat of the pandemic, sharing resources and knowledge more efficiently and effective than ever before, a process broadly described as ‘open scholarship’ (Dunleavy, 2020). This is essentially akin to how free and open source software (FOSS) communities have been operating now for decades (Willinsky, 2005). Recently, we participated in a “massively open online paper”, or MOOP, that explored the intersections between FOSS and open scholarship (Tennant, Agarwal, et al., 2020). Here, we want to summarise our key findings from that project, and place them in the context of the current outbreak. Critically, this pandemic shows us that many of the pervasive and systemic issues surrounding the evaluation, valuation, use and operationalisation of “openness” in scholarship can be extremely easily bypassed when the social demand and urgency is there, thus showing that the primary barriers towards open scholarship are inherently political and not technical.


Author(s):  
G. Saroja

Scholarly communication involves publishing the research findings by academics and researchers in order to share and make available the academic or research output to the global community of researchers. Emergence of Internet and World Wide Web has brought revolutionary changes in the process of scholarly communication. Increasing price of serial publications, time lag in the publication and readership and other associated problems were addressed by the electronic journals and open access initiatives. Other models like – Consortia and Institutional Repositories have evolved as a cost saving models and improving communication. The social networking sites on the Internet are also promoting scholarly communication to a great extent. In the light of the changing technological environment this chapter depicts the history of scholarly publishing and reviews the changes that took place in the process of scholarly communication. Further, the impact of the changing models on Library and Information Centres (LICs) is examined.


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 159
Author(s):  
Melissa Goertzen

A Review of: Riehle, C. F., & Hensley, M. K. (2017). What do undergraduate students know about scholarly communication?: A mixed methods study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 17(1), 145–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.2017.0009 Abstract Objective – To examine undergraduate student researchers’ perception and understanding of scholarly communication practices and issues. Design – Mixed method study involving a survey and semi-structured interviews. Setting – Two major undergraduate universities in the Midwest region of the United States. Subjects – Undergraduate students who participated in or had completed undergraduate research experiences with faculty mentors. Method – The method was first approved by Institutional Review Board offices at both campuses involved in the study. Then, students received invitations to participate in a survey via email (Campus 1 = 221 students; Campus 2 = 345 students). Identical online surveys ran separately on each campus; both remained open for a period of three weeks. All respondents received a reminder email one week before the survey closed. Participants answered twelve questions related to demographics and scholarly communication practices. The survey examined knowledge and experience across five areas: the peer review process, author and publisher rights, publication and access models, impact of research, and data management. All students who completed the survey were entered in a drawing for a $50 Amazon card. The response rates were 34.8% (Campus 1) and 18.6% (Campus 2). Surveys on both campuses were administered using different software: campus 1 utilized Qualtrics survey software while campus 2 used an institution-specific survey software. Data sets were normed and merged later in the study to enable comparison and identify broad themes. Survey respondents were also invited to participate in a 15 to 20 minute follow-up interview and were compensated with a $20 Amazon gift card. The interviews consisted of four open-ended questions that further examined students’ knowledge of scholarly communication practices. The researchers coded interview transcripts and identified themes. Qualitative software was used to analyze the surveys and assess coder agreement. Finally, connections and anomalies between survey and interview results were explored. Main Results – Quantitative and qualitative data collected during the study indicate that students were most confident in their understanding of the peer-review process and data management but felt less confident in their knowledge of author and publisher rights, publication and access models, and determining the impact of scholarly research publication. In addition, they value instruction related to scholarly communication topics like the peer-review process, publication models, and data management. However, few students feel confident in their current level of knowledge or ability surrounding the previously mentioned topics. Study findings suggest that this knowledge gap is based on a lack of training or discussion of scholarly communication topics in relation to students’ research activities. Results also suggest that undergraduate students have difficulty articulating their rights as authors and their scholarly communication practices. In many cases, skill sets like data management are learned through trial and error while students progress through the research process. In some cases, faculty mentors have misperceptions and assumptions about undergraduate students’ knowledge and abilities regarding scholarly communication practices. This can create challenges for undergraduate students as they attempt to make informed decisions about research activities based on a limited foundation of experience or information. Finally, results indicate that undergraduate student researchers do not currently view the library as a place to learn about scholarly communication practices. The authors suggest that by forming strategic relationships with undergraduate research program directors, faculty, and graduate student mentors, librarians are in a prime position to incorporate scholarly communication practices into information literacy sessions or provide point-of-need coaching. Conclusion – The researchers conclude that academic libraries are in a unique position to support overarching research, teaching, and learning goals within the academic community. By developing programs that support information literacy and scholarly communication, libraries demonstrate value and align goals with teaching and learning priorities within the higher education community as a whole. Through this work, librarians support students as knowledge creators and advocate for training that emphasizes data literacy, copyright and authors’ rights, and the impact of research within specific disciplines.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Micah Altman ◽  
Philip N. Cohen ◽  
Jessica Polka

The COVID-19 pandemic is an exemplar of how scholarly communication can change in response to external shocks, even as the scholarly knowledge ecosystem is evolving rapidly, and many argue that swift and fundamental interventions are needed. However, it is much easier to identify ongoing changes and emerging interventions than to understand their immediate and long term impacts. This is illustrated by comparing the approaches applied by the scientific community to understand public health risks and interventions with those applied by the scholarly communications community to the science of COVID-19. There are substantial disagreements over the short- and long- term benefits of most proposed approaches to changing the practice of science communication, and the lack of systematic, empirically-based research in this area makes these controversies difficult to resolve. We argue that the methodology of analysis and intervention developed within public health can be usefully applied to the science-of-science. Starting with the history of DDT application, we illustrate four ways complex human systems threaten reliable predictions and blunt ad-hoc interventions. We then show how these four threats apply lead to the last major intervention in scholarly publication -- the article publishing charge based open access model -- to yield surprising results. Finally, we outline how these four threats may affect the impact of preprint initiatives, and we identify approaches drawn from public health to mitigate these threats.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
Bonnie Lawlor

This paper offers an overview of the highlights of the 2021 NISO Plus Annual Conference that was held virtually from February 22 – February 25, 2021. This was the second NISO Plus annual conference. The first one was held in 2020 and replaced what would have been the 62nd Annual NFAIS conference, but with the merger of NISO and NFAIS in June 2019 the conference was renamed NISO Plus and took on a new format. Little did they know that the second conference would have to be held virtually while the world was battling a global pandemic. The 2021 audience represented a 400% increase over the 2020 in-person attendance. There was no general theme, but there was a topic for everyone working in the information ecosystem - from the practical subjects of standards and metadata quality to preprints to information privacy and ultimately to the impact of Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning on scholarly communication. With speakers from around the world and across time zones and continents, it was truly a global conversation!


2017 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Spezi ◽  
Simon Wakeling ◽  
Stephen Pinfield ◽  
Claire Creaser ◽  
Jenny Fry ◽  
...  

Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific “soundness” and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document