sennoma's Feed

News - STM

sennoma — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:12:00 -0500

A follow up to the 2006 report, 'Scientific publishing in transition: an overview of current developments,' 'The STM Report' collected the available evidence and provides a comprehensive picture of the trends and currents in scholarly communication. Tagged by sennoma under scholarlycommunication, oa, oaos,

BioMed Central Blog : What is original research?

sennoma — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:06:00 -0500

growth in web technologies and increased transparency in the literature - and data - may be contributing to a shift in our perceptions of what constitutes a prior publication. Innovative online journals with virtually unlimited space provide researchers with opportunities to produce novel (original) contributions to the literature that are clearly and transparently linked to previously published articles. These include significantly extended/re-analysed reports of previously published summary findings in journals such as Trials and legitimate or incremental updates to previous studies in BMC Research Notes. Tagged by sennoma under science, openscience, scholarlycommunication,

Patterns of information use and exchange: case studies of researchers in the life sciences | Research Information Network

sennoma — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:03:00 -0500

This report by the British Library and the Research Information Network (RIN) provides a unique insight into how information is used by researchers across life sciences. Undertaken by the University of Edinburgh’s Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation, and the UK Digital Curation Centre and the University of Edinburgh’s Information Services, the report concludes that ‘one-size-ﬁts-all’ information and data sharing policies are not achieving scientiﬁcally productive and cost-efﬁcient information use in life sciences. The report was developed using an innovative approach to capture the day-to-day patterns of information use in seven research teams from a wide range of disciplines, from botany to clinical neuroscience. The study undertaken over 11 months and involving 56 participants found that there is a signiﬁcant gap between how researchers behave and the policies and strategies of funders and service providers. This suggests that the attempts to implement such strategies have had only a limited impact. Key ﬁndings from the report include: * Researchers use informal and trusted sources of advice from colleagues, rather than institutional service teams, to help identify information sources and resources * The use of social networking tools for scientiﬁc research purposes is far more limited than expected * Data and information sharing activities are mainly driven by needs and beneﬁts perceived as most important by life scientists rather than ‘top-down’ policies and strategies * There are marked differences in the patterns of information use and exchange between research groups active in different areas of the life sciences, reinforcing the need to avoid standardised policy approaches Tagged by sennoma under scholarlycommunication, oa,

SSRN-Whose Metrics? On Building Citation, Usage and Access Metrics as Information Service for Scholars by Chris Armbruster

sennoma — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:39:00 -0400

As the Internet has enhanced the collection and provision of citation, usage and access metrics, the challenge lies neither in the technology nor the method, but in constructing databases that deliver services of value to the scholar. However, the development of metrics has hitherto been driven by the needs of external research assessment (governments and funders), while publishers and libraries have focused on their own needs (e.g. journal impact and usage factors). Scholars often criticize research assessment and the use of particular metrics as a zero-sum game whose undesirable consequences far outweigh the benefits. However, this is not to be confused with a general prejudice against metrics, which are principally compatible with the scholarly recognition and rewards system. But it does indicate that current metric information services often do not serve the needs of scholars. The question everybody should be asking is: What kind of metric information services would serve scholars? The argument proceeds in six steps. First, the problematic and controversial nature of assessment metrics is discussed. Second, the limited value of current metric information services is outlined. Third, the notion of metrics as research information services is clarified. Fourth, some examples of such services are offered. Fifth, the potential value is sketched from the perspective of a postdoc. Sixth, it is indicated that societies and publishers could begin building more metric information services since tried-and-tested technology and methods are available already. Tagged by sennoma under scientometrics, bibliometrics, scholarlycommunication, publishing,

Science Pipes

sennoma — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:05:00 -0400

SciencePipes is an environment in which students, educators, citizens, resource managers, and scientists can create and share analyses and visualizations of biodiversity data. It is built to support inquiry-based learning, allowing analysis results and visualizations to be dynamically incorporated into web sites (e.g. blogs) for dissemination and consumption beyond SciencePipes.org itself. For more information: * further introduction * presentations * status of the site * NSDL article about SciencePipes.org Alpha functionality demos: * uploading and running a Kepler workflow * editing a pipe in the SciencePipes.org authoring environment SciencePipes is a project of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Information Science Program and is funded by the National Science Digital Library. Tagged by sennoma under scholarlycommunication, openscience, webtools,

Communicating knowledge: How & why UK researchers publish & disseminate their findings : JISC

sennoma — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:09:00 -0400

Researchers are driven by a desire to enhance our knowledge and understanding of the world we inhabit, and to communicate their findings to others. But both governments and other funders are increasingly interested in demonstrating the social and economic returns from their investments in research, and in assessing research performance. The many different criteria for success, and the lack of any consensus on how success should be assessed or measured, however, mean that researchers often find themselves in receipt of confused or conflicting messages. And they are pulled in different directions in deciding which channels of communication they should adopt. This report is complimented by four supporting papers which provide detailed descriptions of the methods used, a full analysis of the data, and further details of the findings. Tagged by sennoma under RIN, JISC, scholarlycommunication,

Science and the Commons

sennoma — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:02:00 -0400

Tagged by sennoma under oaos.talks, johnwilbanks, scholarlycommunication,

PLoS ONE: Empirical Study of Data Sharing by Authors Publishing in PLoS Journals

sennoma — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:23:00 -0400

Tagged by sennoma under opendata, openscience, scienceisasnakepit, scholarlycommunication,

About Rapid Research Notes

sennoma — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:08:00 -0400

The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), a division of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) at NIH, is a national resource for molecular biology information and as such has a mandate to develop new products and services to meet the needs of the biomedical research community. Upon the recommendation of public advisors, NCBI developed an archival service to support research shared through new venues for rapid communication enabled by the internet. Introduced in August 2009, the archive, called Rapid Research Notes (RRN), allows users to access and cite research that is provided through participating publisher programs designed for immediate communication. The RRN archive was prompted in part by the spring 2009 worldwide outbreak of H1N1 influenza and the call for a means to quickly share research information about this critical and emergent public health threat. To address the influenza information sharing need, the Public Library of Science developed PLoS Currents: Influenza, the first collection being archived in RRN. NCBI expects the RRN archive to expand over time to include additional collections in other biomedical fields and other critical topics. Tagged by sennoma under oaos.tools, publishing.models, scholarlycommunication,

David Bollier on the (Entrepreneurial) Value of Sharing | GOOD

sennoma — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:01:00 -0400

The real challenge is to develop new business models that can exploit the capacities of the internet in new ways, and to start to shed or migrate away from the old business models of the 20th century. Tagged by sennoma under collaboration, scholarlycommunication, scienceasabusiness,

What You Might Not Know About Scientific Journals « My Dominant Hemisphere

sennoma — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:56:00 -0400

Tagged by sennoma under publishing, scholarlycommunication,

Whitworth

sennoma — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:33:00 -0400

Tagged by sennoma under readthis, brianwhitworth, robfriedman, publishing.models, scholarlycommunication,

Yes! and no. : Christina's LIS Rant

sennoma — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:27:00 -0400

Tagged by sennoma under open.foo, scholarlycommunication, think,

On the Design and Implementation of a Market Mechanism for Peer Review and Publishing

sennoma — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 04:38:00 -0400

Traditional methods of peer review are coming under strain as the volume of manuscripts and the number of forums for manuscript submission rise. These pressures can result in poorer quality reviews, extended publication times, and higher costs to the organisations that fund research. In this paper we describe a method for reducing reviewing burden, expediting feedback and shortening publication times. Furthermore, by its nature, the method produces leading (as opposed to lagging/trailing) publication metrics for authors and the manuscripts they write, and we show how these metrics can be used by search engines to provide more useful orderings of search results. Finally, we briefly discuss the potential to apply the underlying mechanism of the method to application domains beyond research publishing, such as the web as a whole. Tagged by sennoma under scholarlycommunication, publishing.models, peerreview, readthis,

Fair Use Evaluator

sennoma — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 03:07:00 -0400

via: http://digital-scholarship.org/digitalkoans/2009/07/23/fair-use-evaluator-and-exceptions-for-instructors-etool-released/ Tagged by sennoma under copyright, scholarlycommunication, intellectualproperty, fairuse,

Scholarly Communications @ Duke » That pesky checklist

sennoma — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:34:00 -0400

Tagged by sennoma under kevinsmith, fairuse, scholarlycommunication, copyright,

Don't Format Manuscripts :The Scientist [2009-07-01]

sennoma — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 03:41:00 -0400

Journals should use a generic submission format until papers are accepted. Tagged by sennoma under publishing, scholarlycommunication,

Create Change

sennoma — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:33:00 -0400

"In the age of the Internet, the ways you share and use academic research results are changing — rapidly, fundamentally, irreversibly. There’s great potential in change. After all, faster and wider sharing of journal articles, research data, simulations, syntheses, analyses, and other findings fuels the advance of knowledge. It’s a two-way street — sharing research benefits you and others. But will the promise of digital scholarship be fully realized? How will yesterday’s norms adapt to tomorrow’s possibilities? This website will help you understand the changing landscape and how it affects you and your research. It also offers practical ways to look out for your own interests as a researcher. A scholarly revolution is underway. It enables you to get a greater return from your research. All you have to do is share it." Tagged by sennoma under oa, publishing, publishing.models, scholarlycommunication,

The State of Scholarly Publishing Challenges and Opportunities Albert N. Greco, Editor

sennoma — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:16:00 -0400

For decades, university presses and other scholarly and professional publishers in the United States played a pivotal role in the transmission of scholarly knowledge. Th eir books and journals became the “gold standard” in many academic fi elds for tenure, promotion, and merit pay. Th eir basic business model was successful, since this diverse collection of presses had a unique value proposition. Th ey dominated the scholarly publishing fi eld with preeminent sales in three major markets or channels of distribution: libraries and institutions; college and graduate school adoptions; and general readers (i.e., sales to general retailers). Yet this insulated world changed abruptly in the late 1990s. What happened? This book contains a superb series of articles originally published in The Journal of Scholarly Publishing, by some of the best experts on scholarly communication in the western hemisphere, Europe, Asia, and Africa. Th ese authors analyze in depth the diverse and exciting challenges and opportunities scholars, universities, and publishers face in what is a period of unusual turbulence in scholarly publishing. The topics given attention include: copyrights, the transformation of scholarly publishing from a print format to a digital one, open access, scholarly publishing in emerging nations, problems confronting journals, and information on how certain academic disciplines are coping with the transformation of scholarly publishing. This book is a must read for anyone interested in the scholarly publishing industry’s past, its current focus, or future plans and developments. Tagged by sennoma under scholarlycommunication, publishing, publishing.models,

NEJM Beta

sennoma — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:08:00 -0400

On the Journal's beta site, we pursue new ideas in publishing and showcase innovative ways to present information for use in medical education, research, and clinical practice. This beta site is part of our commitment to physicians who "Never Stop Learning". Please check back often. Tagged by sennoma under publishing, publishing.models, scholarlycommunication, NEJM,