Open access and social networking readings seem to be coalescing around the “idea” of reading carefully!
The Pew Research Center documents that usage of social media is increasing. Two other articles question whether social media or open access have any impact on scholarly communications.
Social Media and Its Impact on Medical Research by Phil Davis
Is Open Access a Cause or Effect? by Phil Davis
Read carefully! It’s all in the methodologies.
Have you noticed a new slide inserted into many presentations lately? “What keeps me/you – insert field or job here – awake at night?”
Librarians might say it is the high costs and complexity of content subscriptions. Today’s article Slow and Steady – Taking Time to Think in the Age of Rapid Publishing Cycles by Kent Anderson from The Scholarly Kitchen touches on many intertwined issues inducing librarian sleeplessness. The author discusses the case for rapid publication; the increase in research retractions; peer review; the increasing quantity of published research; corrections and credibility and cost issues. Are we seeing an “industrialization of research?”
Pushing for speed within the publication process may be putting a greater onus on our readers, eroding our brands, increasing skepticism/cynicism around the publication process, and diminishing the role of editors and publishers through a corrosive/erosive process. Maybe we should pause, rethink, and reassess the value of the filters we have created and how best to support, strengthen, and sustain them. Will a week longer make a huge difference? In which direction? Whose risk increases?
Just a note as we begin our new academic year. This blog space seeks highlight issues in scholarly communication including open access publishing, research data and alt-metrics.
Here is something to think about this week: Is Google the next big player in scholarly publishing?
How ‘Google Science’ could transform academic publishing
In part, whether Google is or is not ready to be the open access platform for scholarly communication, there are two hurdles 1) researchers’ practices and 2) the peer review process.
From the article, Timo Hannay, Managing Director of Digital Science is quoted:
The problem, he says, is not that there are too few options to publish in an open access format. It’s that most academics don’t think about it too much. “Most [academics] don’t particularly care about open access, in part because they are not incentivised to do so. This is changing, but only slowly, and right now most still care more about publishing in established, high-profile journals and in gaining a lot of citations.”
If Google, or another company, had a secret weapon to disrupt the peer review process, now that would be worth getting excited about.
US Department of Energy Public Access Plan was released on July 24, 2014. [Plan]
The Department of Energy (DOE) has implemented their own Public Access Gateway for Energy and Science (DOE PAGES – Beta) as a repository for federally funded research.
In US Department of Energy Announces Public Access Plan (David Crotty, Aug. 4, 2014), copyright issues, text and data mining access, and use of data management principles are discussed. These issues and more will need to evolve through communication and practice.
Will the DOE Public Access Plan constitute “major shift in the scholarly publishing landscape” as Crotty writes?
Update: From DOE/Office of Scientific and Technical Information
The Department of Energy’s Office of Science has issued a “Statement on Digital Data Management“<http://science.energy.gov/funding-opportunities/digital-data-management/>. The new requirements regarding management of digital research data will appear in funding solicitations and invitations issued by the Office of Science beginning Oct. 1, 2014. Other Energy Department research offices will implement data management plan requirements within the next year.