October 2007 | Main | December 2007
November 27, 2007
Ever wondered where institutional repositories are located?
If you've ever wanted to know where in the world institutional repositories are located, look no further than Repository 66 Repository Maps. As of November 27, 844 IRs are represented on a Google maps mashup that includes not only the location but information about specific repositories. When you first visit the site, you'll see a world map with 844 (or more!) colored dots scattered seemingly randomly around the globe.
The full map might be too unwieldy to use effectively, but you can filter it by platform (e.g. DSpace vs. EPrints), registration date range, or repository size. The dot color indicates platform, and you can also change the dots to show the size of the IR. When you hover over a dot, it shows the name of the repository, and then when you click on it, more information pops up. For instance, I clicked on the Vanderbilt University e-Archive dot and learned the type, platform, date registered, size, and description of Vanderbilt's IR. It also allowed me to search the particular IR using Google, Google Scholar, or Microsoft Live. Very cool.
The information comes from ROAR (the Registry of Open Access Repositories) and OpenDOAR (the Directory of Open Access Repositories) and is constantly updated through those sites. More information about the maps and the project is available on the Repository 66 Map Blog. One caveat is that the location isn't always 100% accurate, but it still gives a nice visual picture.
If a visual representation of known IRs is easier for you to use than a list of IR links, I highly recommend checking out this website. It's also a great way to procrastinate...
- Marla Ballou
Posted by colldev at 11:26 AM
November 25, 2007
Students and Scholarly Communications
Gavin Baker, scholarly communications consultant with Baker Open Strategies, LLC, outlines several ways that students make use of the scholarly communications system, primarily through journal use. He also discusses the growing involvement of students in the serials crisis and how librarians can more effectively involve this group in open access and scholarly communications issues.
Since 2003, students have been taking a more active role in the scholarly communications issues. There has been a growing involvement of student government organizations in the serials crisis. At least one group has made an official statement supporting open access.
Although student organizations have less influence than faculty members in this area, it is important for librarians to recognize this group when seeking out allies for open access support. It is also important that librarians present open access to students when introducing library services and not solely focus on library-purchased materials such as electronic journal articles.
SPARC as an organization is also enhancing its outreach to this group. They are promoting open access through campaigns and video contests intended to target students.
For more information, please see the full article, Baker, Gavin. "Student Activism: How Students Use the Scholarly Communications System." C&RL News, Vol. 68, No. 10, November 2007.
-posted by Annie Powell
Posted by colldev at 12:08 PM
November 20, 2007
Law journals are going to the comics...
Apparently law education journals aren't spiffy enough for law students anymore.
The September 28, 2007, Chronicle of Higher Education edition includes an article entitled "Bam! Pow! Footnote!" that mentions a new direction in law journal communications.
Two California Western School of Law professors decided to use the comic book format for their essay in the Journal of Legal Education. In fact, the article itself was about branching out of the somewhat stiff and dry legal essay writing style that has prevailed for over a hundred years--the essay is called "The Orthodoxy of Format: Some Sketches on Legal Scholarship."
The illustrations depict two professors walking and talking about the "scholarly merits of illustrated essays." (Oddly enough, the art was drawn by two Chileans, which makes me wonder how the authors got in touch with them.)
Is this the future of legal journal communications? I don't think so, nor do I think the authors are really advocating it. They are exploring how to get more law students actually reading the scholarly communication. Many of the complex concepts in law would be difficult to explain in this format, but it's definitely a fun side trip and experiment along the way.
Before considering the format for other journals, I'd like to know how many law students are interested in comic books or manga and whether or not generational differences come into play. It'd also be interesting to know how many people actually read the essay and what were their responses. However, a comic book style does stand out from the long paragraphs of normal legal essays, so this might be the perfect format to catch a lot of readers' attention. Journals in other fields may want to branch out and try this format, especially with simpler concepts than the law.
I personally am not a fan of comic books or manga, but if I were living the daily grind of a law student, this essay might be a nice change of pace.
-- Marla Ballou
Article available via LexisNexis Academic at the UTK Libraries.
Posted by colldev at 09:31 PM
Scholarpedia vs. Wikipedia
For years, teachers and professors for all grades have complained about the perceived but unproven authority of Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org), which is perpetuated by their students, who use the contributor-derived entries as sources for projects and papers. Now, professional knowledge workers and their peers have an alternative for publication and research- Scholarpedia (http://scholarpedia.org/).
But wait there's more...
According to their main page, Scholarpedia works on the same technology as its popular counterpart amateur encyclopedia, allowing writers to modify and add articles to the collection with a few simple steps. Unlike Wikipedia though, each article is contributed by a field expert, who is either invited or elected by a public poll, and then anonymously peer reviewed for accuracy and authentication. All modifications to an article must be approved by the author, who acts as a curator for the article and is held primarily responsible for its content.
This offers not only an opportunity for grand variety in individualized and scholarly reviewed information sharing, like in Institutional Repositories, but also makes way for current and timely updates via the open source network of experts working together. One must ask the question, though, why reinvent the wheel?
Wikipedia is readily available for scholars and experts and their vast expanse of knowledge. If they adopted this popular venue, they would reach a greater audience and the dissemination of information would spread to amateur and inspiring scholars who may bring a different perspective on studies and research than the traditional and academic.
There could be two reasons why Scholarpedia has opened its own venue rather than adding to the large compendium readily available. Firstly, the authors could be focused on preserving peer review as a means of professional advancement in an open source environment than traditional expensive scholarly publications. While Institutional Repositories could provide one such venue, Scholarpedia is more global, touching experts from all over the world.
Alternately, Scholarpedia could be seen as a branch off of the Wikipedia trunk, which hosts four particular subcollections- Encyclopedia of Computational Neuroscience, Encyclopedia of Dynamical Systems, Encyclopedia of Computational Intelligence and Encyclopedia of Astrophysics. On its homepage, it claims to not be a rival of Wikipedia, but rather a complementary source.
Whether it can be seen as the experts' answer to the open source authority question or simply a special collection within the larger scheme of the on-line "encyclopedia", Scholarpedia offers academics and educators an opportunity to authorize information published electronically. Perhaps one day, the Internet will be considered a mostly trustworthy source with Scholarpedia leading the trend.
- posted by Christi Underdown IS 560
Posted by colldev at 04:56 PM
November 08, 2007
Web 1.0, Web 2.0, Web... 3.0?
The amazing transformation--both in mindset and technology--of the internet in the last five years or so known as Web 2.0 has been the subject of an overwhelming amount of scrutiny and study. On one hand, the movement has really spurred a new attitude towards web interactivity, creating a more fluid web that brings accessibility to once-distant concepts such as social bookmarking. However, some very notable names, including the creator of the internet (can we say Web 1.0?), have discredited the term as a flimsy attempt to capitalize on innovations that others have already made. Web 2.0, these people say, is nothing more than a bunch of shiny icons accompanied by domain names that cleverly misspell words in order to make a buck. In fact, they criticize, Web 2.0 is actually dumbing down the internet: sure, Myspace is a great social tool and connectivity medium, but it's a downright awful website, reversing years of security implementations in one fell swoop. Why create a Web 2.0, these founders ask, when Web 1.0 was not only working well... but working better?
More after the jump...
In the midst of this argument about the versioning off of such a massive giant, a blogger named Jeffrey Zeldman quietly introduced a term to the blogosphere and stood back to watch what would happen. What if, he asked, we just quit all this 2.0 business and "jump to Web 3.0?" Those who did not eat Zeldman alive for his impropriety simply ignored his creation. There is already an active debate as to the validity of Web 2.0, they said; why should we give any stock to such an obvious attempt to make a buzzword out of thin air?
But perhaps he's on to something, and a few others have bought the hype, too. What was Web 2.0? It was novel, and cool, and altogether sloppy. What self-respecting computer techie would let himself stoop so low as to get a Facebook page? But then again, who doesn't own a facebook nowadays? This sort of separation of utility from quality is a step in the right direction, but true next-gen social bookmarking on the web will only come when websites stop forsaking what they can do for what they've done, and reach out for a new approach to interconnection on the internet... one that doesn't just group a bunch of sub-par websites together and call it the "future".
There are some shining points on the horizon, these supporters of the Web 3.0 concept say. Sites such as twitter are starting to create a stable social platform that reaches far outside the boundaries of the internet. There are plenty more emerging technologies that will one day allow us to use the internet as a desktop to our own virtual computer. Whether or not this will be Web 2.0 or 3.0 is unclear, but we do know that it is a thing of tomorrow, not a thing of today. For so long we have thought that we reached the future, that Web 2.0 was the tomorrow of yesterday promised for so long, but what if Web 2.0 is more than just the ends to the means?
What if these are just growing pains?
:: Jamion Williams
Posted by colldev at 07:30 PM
November 07, 2007
Helpful Hints for Librarians
"Scholarly Communication: Science Librarians as Advocates for Change" by Elizabeth C. Turtle and Martin P. Courtois published in Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship Summer 2007 (http://www.istl.org/07-summer/article2.html).
Turtle and Courtois wrote this article for science librarians. However, the principles within this article can be used for all librarians who are concerned about the future of scholarly communication. What started out as subscription price increases ended up encompassing "a complex set of issues that includes legislation, public policy, authors rights, institutional repositories, access to scholarship, and new publishing models." This article provides helpful hints for librarians who wish to become advocates for scholarly communication. Tips include staying informed and educating library users (including faculty) about open access, authors rights, copyright, institutional repositories, etc.
This article mentions many of the concepts we have covered in class.
--posted by Beth Stanley
Posted by colldev at 09:19 PM
November 04, 2007
This Business of Information Science
"Merchandising, merchandising, merchandising!", exclaims one of Mel Brooks' characters from the 1987 film, "Spaceballs". Library and Information Science has produced its own merchandising subculture ripe with quirky sayings, both encouraging and discouraging stereotypes and, of course, fantastic graphics. These days, to truly know one's library patrons and colleagues means to not only provide access and preservation, but also t-shirts, bookbags, and baseball caps, as well.
In my own closet, I have two shirts announcing loyalty to both Simmons and University of Tennessee's Schools of Information Science, as well as a t-shirt proclaiming, "She Blinded Me with Library Science", which features a mousy, but coy, bespectacled, book-laden librarian.
Cafepress, an on-line middleman, provides an generalized venue for all individual and capitalist adventures, which are born from such random catchphrases and ideas. Using its format, Library Avengers was founded by Erica Olsen to fund her own IS Master's Degree in 2001. Olsen writes "Librarians: more powerful than a Google search, friendlier than AskJeeves, and the best natural language processor on the market." For profit and propaganda, she has the cook's aprons, panel prints, and hooded sweatshirts to advertise her point.
Mild-mannered LIS schlock can produce controversy, as well as profit. To promote user patronage, Wyoming Libraries are using podcasts as well as clever bumper stickers, some of which feature the traditionally Mac truck limited image of "Mud Flap Girl". Accroutrements depiction of the sensible shoe-wearing, bun-bedecked librarian action figure, based on the real-life information professional Nancy Pearl, complete with Sshing action, has caused both highly defensive and good-natured humorous reactions.
Speaking of getting a few laughs, who would have suspected two "guybrarians" to have gleaned a daily on-line and print readership for their comic strip about the workings of a public library in the small fictional town of Mallville. 22,197 people receive "Unshelved" via e-mail subscription, RSS feed or LiveJournal every day. In addition, Bill Barnes and Gene Ambaum produce not only original characters, but sell book collections, prints, and jackets.
To explore more creative products of the LIS world, pull out your credit card and click here:
Librarian Avengers Store: http://www.cafepress.com/librarian
Wyoming Public Library System: http://www.cafepress.com/wyominglibrary/3537232
Archie McPhee (for Librarian tattoos and more): http://www.mcphee.com/cgi-bin/mcphee/archie-search.cgi
Cafepress- with the search word "librarian". Themes include "Library Worship", "Baby's Got Book",
"This is My Librarian Costume", etc.:
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/librarian/-/cfpt2_/copt_/cfpt_/source_searchBox/x_0/y_0
Unshelved: http://www.unshelved.com/store.aspx
Christi Underdown
IS 560
3 November 2007
Posted by colldev at 12:49 PM
November 02, 2007
Open Access, But Who Really Pays?
"Open Access, But Who Really Pays?" notes that nothing is free, and that open source scholarly journals will be successful only if a successful business model is developed to accompany the movement. Submitted by Gene D. Sprouse (Editor-in-Chief of the American Physical Society) and H. Frederick Dylla (Executive Director and CEO of the American Institute of Physics), this opinion piece was published in the online edition of The Harvard Crimson on October 12, 2007. The piece was sent as a response to a Crimson staff editorial that was previously published on October 2 entitled "All for Open Access."
The debate goes on...
--Posted by Kay Mann
Posted by colldev at 04:50 PM