August 2007 | Main | October 2007
September 24, 2007
Publishing Trends of Top Economic Scholars
I came across this entry in Dani Rodrik's blog that discusses an NBER White Paper by Glenn Ellison. Ellison takes a look at the publishing trends of Harvard economists and recounts his findings on their increasing use of the Internet to publish research findings versus the use of peer reviewed journals. The comments on the blog are interesting and discuss the necessity of publishing to achieve a tenured rank, the "problem" of revisions, and the value of peer review.
To access the actual white paper, please access the UT Library Database page for Business and Economics and scroll down to NBER Working Papers. The Ellison paper was published during July 9-16, 2007 and is entitled Is Peer Review In Decline?
--posted by Robbi De Peri
Posted by colldev at 11:10 PM
September 23, 2007
Response to Publishers attacks on Open Access
SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #113 September 2, 2007 by Peter Suber
Will open access undermine peer review?
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/09-02-07.htm#peerreview
In this article Peter Suber gives a response to publishers claims that Open Access Journals will undermine and eventually destroy Peer Review Toll-Access Journals.
Suber begins by saying, "As soon as governments started contemplating policies to ensure open access to publicly-funded research, publisher trade associations and lobbying coalitions objected that the policies would undermine peer review." He gives 15 responses to these fears and closes with, "I'm saying that publishers have not even come close to making good on either of their claims, that OA archiving would kill TA journals or that killing TA journals would kill peer review."
--posted by Gypsy Moody
Posted by colldev at 05:16 PM
September 18, 2007
Wikis and Professional Knowledge Sharing
In an article written in Volume 1, Issue 1 of the Journal of Web Librarianship Anne-Marie Deitering and Rachel Bridgewater present the Library Instruction Wiki. Their goal with this wiki was to capture the curiosity and knowledge that librarians' today share.
Anne-Marie Deitering and Rachel Bridgewater set up the Librarian Instruction Wiki for the Oregon Library Association's Library Instruction Round Table (OLA/LIRT) and used this article, titled "Stop reinventing the Wheel: Using Wikis for Professional Knowledge Sharing," to chronicle their process. They chose a wiki in an effort to eliminate the gatekeeper effect that can occur in other forms of knowledge sharing and chose to limit the number of barriers for those contributing (i.e. they did not make it a members only site). Their feelings were that they were dealing with a group of people who may never meet or interact with each other, but who still had an abundant amount of information to share and this technology provided the best opportunity for these geographically disperse group to share their knowledge. They use this article to weigh out the pros and cons of several wiki engines; ultimately choosing MediaWiki partially because it is the engine used by Wikipedia. The information they put out there regarding their selection criteria will be useful for anyone wishing to attempt a similar project in the future. Also of use are their implementation techniques, which were heavily dependent on feedback from their future user group, and the ultimate outcome of the project. The wiki was officially launched in the summer of 2005 and had immediate positive feedback and was written up in several journals and websites. However, since it's unveiling, use of the wiki has flagged. This could be blamed on the lack of publicity since its initial launch, but the schedules of those contributing the wiki and what the feel will be gained from it are also important factors to take into consideration. The authors are re-evaluating the use of the wiki and hopefully will see a rise in use of it with an increase of publicity in the future.
You can click here to take a look at the Library Instruction Wiki.
-- posted by Lauren Seney
Posted by colldev at 10:30 PM
Sink or swim: Are academic libraries ready to head upstream?
Would we face rough waters if we work our way upstream or would the current carry us along? The latest issue of D-Lib Magazine includes two articles by Anna Gold of MIT that explore the cyberinfrastructure of scientific research and data dissemination. An especially provocative suggestion made by Gold is that while the historical role of academic libraries in the support of scientific progress was to provide access to published scientific materials (downstream in the publication cycle), there is also an opportunity for libraries to manage and provide access to prepublished scientific data (upstream in the publication cycle). Bonita Wilson's editorial in that same D-Lib issue points to an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education that those among us who want to learn more about the ways in which scientific research has changed since World War II and the subsequent impact on uses of research data will want to read in addition to the Gold articles. (UT's login and password for the online Chronicle are available through the e-journals section of the UT library website.)
The main product of upstream scientific work is data; with or without metadata, large-scale or small, raw or in context. Upstream involvement would require libraries to develop the staff, the digital storage solutions, the policies and procedural guidelines, and the carefully articulated role needed to successfully incorporate such prepublication research data into existing collections. Because there are known issues with format of data in this context (including preservation tribulations and interoperability concerns to say the least), positioning academic libraries as data repositories in addition to storehouses of finished research reports in the form of journal articles in a time when the future of libraries' role in the present scholarly communication model is already dangerously uncertain is a bold suggestion.
As Gold suggests, libraries might be the best institutions for such an undertaking due to the skills and information-processing framework that libraries already possess. This could be just the opportunity that academic libraries need to secure their place in tomorrow's scholarly communication cycle, and if they were successful the result could be a more deeply rooted, systemic, and stable role than the one held today. Libraries with close ties to the researchers whose work they help organize, promote, and preserve might be in a position to contribute to the blossoming of scientific learning to an even greater extent than libraries in the current publication-based collection model.
Gold identifies some specific liabilities that libraries have as possible custodians of upstream data. Are libraries really prepared to staff and fund such an ambitious undertaking? Do they have a talent pool of individuals with training in both information science and the various scientific fields in which research is taking place, or the ability to develop such a labor force in time? Is there funding for planning and development to allow for a well-designed upstream transition? Is there funding available for the sustenance of an upstream initiative once it is in place? The benefits of providing access to research data through the familiar portal of academic libraries may be significant, but for institutions that are fighting for the funding to maintain their current collections, the bottom line is the bottom line. The money just might not be available.
What will it really take for libraries to manage collections of prepublication data, including raw data and massive datasets? What place would scholarly associations and commercial publishers have if libraries received such prepublication data directly from researchers? Is the possibility of holding research data really not that different from routine library materials processing if each dataset is considered as an archive of sorts for each individual research project? There are more questions than answers at this point, but that's precisely why libraries have such an opportunity to determine their fate.
posted by Maria Sochor
Posted by colldev at 10:10 PM
September 06, 2007
Clarification by Definition
I love dictionaries and was thrilled to be introduced to ODLIS - Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science through Dr. Allard in IS 530. I turn to definitions for the comforting peace of knowing what specifically a term means, especially when it pertains to a school assignment.
-- posted by Gypsy Moody
scholarly communication
The means by which individuals engaged in academic research and creative endeavor inform their peers, formally or informally, of the work they are engaged in or have accomplished. Following a tradition that began with the Academy in ancient Athens, scholars communicate by writing monographs and journal articles for publication, presenting conference papers that may subsequently be published in proceedings and transactions, submitting reports in fulfillment of grant requirements, creating and maintaining Web sites for the academic community, and corresponding with peers via e-mail and electronic mailing lists. Broadly defined, the process includes not only the creation and dissemination of scholarly works but also evaluation of quality (peer review) and preservation for future use. One of the goals of academic libraries is to facilitate scholarly communication in all its forms. Click here to read the statement of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) on Principles and Strategies for the Reform of Scholarly Communication (C&RL News, September 2003). See also: Information Access Alliance and SPARC.
With this definition in hand I go investigating...
-- posted by Gypsy Moody
Posted by colldev at 04:55 PM
September 05, 2007
Author discusses pros and cons of internet
This article was forwarded to me on a reference listserv I am subscribed to. Although the overall topic is information literacy, I found it interesting that the focus of the interview, Mark Herring, states that one pressing need for today's academic library is the need to "figure out a way to provide information that is scholarly and peer reviewed for students." He goes on to mention how much his library pays for proprietary databases like Lexis-Nexis.
The more I read about the move for Open Access, the more I believe it will only help and not hurt. If we could give internet ease-of-access combined with high level scholarly communication it seems it would be a win-win situation. What are your thoughts?
Once again, here is the link to the article.
-- Posted by Lisa Burley
Posted by colldev at 03:21 PM