Projects across US Federal funding agencies are now searchable for the past 10 years. This tool, begun at NIH and now expanded across other agencies searches awarded grants. The value added for Universities is that we can now see all publications (and patents and citations) associated with a grant project.
In the future, datasets associated with grants will be found here.
Are we worried about too much Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) or the death of the humanities – or both? At many universities, including ours, we are having the conversations about making science more accessible to undergraduates in exploratory courses; and we are having the conversations about how science researchers can be better at communicating and creativity. We are also having a troubling conversation about how often a web site needs to be redesigned – yes, six years is way too long!
The following articles from many perspectives highlight the dichotomy between the humanities and sciences in higher education today that, hopefully, will inform higher education in the future.
Two excellent articles outline out the case for the importance of both humanities and sciences.
“A broad general education helps foster critical thinking and creativity. Exposure to a variety of fields produces synergy and cross fertilization. Yes, science and technology are crucial components of this education, but so are English and philosophy.”
“Turning to events internal to the intellectual world, we notice that during the last 150 years the humanities became radically eclipsed, even delegitimized, by the phenomenal success of their great intellectual rival, the hard sciences. The latter have rapidly built up an unprecedented edifice of knowledge. It is not only intellectually or theoretically superior to everything before — precise, systematic, and empirically verifiable — but also superior in its practical utility, generating unimagined new technologies for the improvement of human life. Today scientific knowledge is equated with real knowledge, all the rest seeming like folklore. All modern intellectuals suffer from physics envy. But even the extraordinary rise of modern science cannot adequately explain the current fate of the humanities. Empirical science is competent in the realm of measurable facts, but not in the realm of values. The wisdom of life and knowledge of the self that we desperately need come, not from scientific data, but from reflective accounts of the inner experience of being alive as a human being, and especially of being most fully, intensely, and authentically alive. The sciences eclipse the humanities in one way, but render them more necessary in another. By vastly expanding our power for good and ill, the rise of modern science greatly increases our need for self-knowledge and moral clarity.”Continue reading “Digital Scholarship @ CUA: Humanities or Sciences?”→
Notable in the STM trends analysis is the emphasis on research data. They also highlight the need for reputation management, both for individual researchers and institutions as they reply to mandates from funding entities. The trend of the changing research product (or the research article +) will impact researchers, publishers and libraries.
“… the developing form of the scholarly article as published output encompasses a variety of non-textual forms of content (video, data, software methods, other media, etc.). Those elements will ultimately be packaged, presented, and preserved in a smart network of connections that more effectively meet the needs of specific communities. In such a smart network, is the traditional article still recognized as in the print environment? Not necessarily, and even the term “article” may be a misnomer of sorts. But whatever those packaged elements may be called, it is clear that STM publishers are thinking about what form the evolving scholarly record may take in science and in academia.”
Newly Published will periodically highlight research produced at The Catholic University of America. These entries are indexed from the Web of Science (Arts & Humanities Index; Social Science Index; and Science Citation Index.) The entries below were indexed from April 1 – April 16, 2015.
The University Libraries at The Catholic University of America provides access to digital scholarship in multiple forms. This month, we are pleased to announce the acquisition of additional access to Web of Science back files! This expands access to the Arts & Humanities Index, the Social Sciences Index and the Science Index to more than 20 years of connected research.
Find new routes to discovery by tracing research backward in time and explore citing and cited articles that have influenced foundational research.
Calculate an accurate h-index by ensuring the full extent of an author’s past research is taken into account.
Open your institutions’ intellectual vault and increase the visibility of your full text collection and the value of your investment. [Source]
Web of Science collectively indexes … the world’s most influential scholarly journals, providing users with complete bibliographic data, searchable author abstracts, and cited references. The unique Web of Science feature–cited reference searching–allows users to navigate forward, backward, and through the multidisciplinary literature to uncover all the information relevant to their work. Cited reference searching also allows researchers to learn who is citing their work, and the impact they, or their colleagues, are having on the global research community. [Source]
The scholarly ecosystem gets more complicated every day. As this graphic depicts- click for larger size – there are new tools being used by researchers every day to discover, access, and use scholarly research.
Until the Open Access movement gains ground, most researchers are beholden to content providers, services, and academic libraries for their access to scholarly research in e-content form. And that access could be better!
To adapt, publishers, libraries, and intermediaries need to examine not only the usability of their own platforms and how they can continue to be improved, but also how they are in practice used in scholarly research alongside other platforms and services. To do so, they cannot bring researchers into their usability labs, but instead they must engage researchers in their workplaces, in campus offices, labs, libraries, and dorms, and equally in off-campus homes and housing.
At the main information desks of research libraries, desktop workstations are used to test access and services to e-resources; while our researchers are living in a multi-device digital world of mobile, laptop, and tablet access. We will be examining parts of this scholarly ecosystem in the coming months and its impact on our users.
There should be a course for this! Open Access does not mean free. The Public Library of Science (PLoS) defines Open Access as “unrestricted access and unrestricted reuse.” The Open Access movement founding is often attributed to the Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) and Peter Suber has written and presented in detail about Open Access. For the most informative and concise overview please read Open Access Overview by Peter Suber.
Digital scholarship is a complex world of subject content, technology tools and research skills. It may be time to slow down and read more than a tweet or post about the connections between the screen and the subject.
Scholarly communication is the art of understanding Open Access, Research Data Services, Copyright & Fair Use, Institutional Repositories and Author’s Rights! These two new books puts these serious, connected, complex subjects in perspective for educators, libraries and researchers.
The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) encourages libraries to celebrate Fair Use Week February 23 – 27 because “…fair use is employed on a daily basis by students, faculty, librarians, journalists, and all users of copyrighted material.” http://www.arl.org/component/events/event/148
The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
Fair Use Week blog chronicles case studies and frequently asked questions on Fair Use from the Harvard Libraries Office of Scholarly Communication; and follow the Fair Use Week web site from ARL and on Twitter via @fairuseweek and #fairuseweek2015.