1. Societal Impact or, Meet the New Metric, Same as the Old Metric
Funders are increasingly demanding measurements of "real world" impact from researchers. But while the idea of measuring real world impact makes sense, objectively measuring it is not a simple or straightforward process, and it raises some red flags about falling into the same sorts of traps they are already in from the ways they already do research assessment, notes David Crotty, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Real world impact can be subtle and slow. It took decades for the real payoff from the initial experiments. RO1 grants are offered for 1 to 5 years. How does that time scale gibe with the course of these experiments? In the current funding environment, would Luria and Bertani have kept their grants, their jobs? Altmetrics are often mentioned as a way to measure real world impact. The key to understand why Altmetrics, or any metrics are problematic comes down to a concept that's so important it has been codified under three separate names (Campbell’s Law, Goodhart's Law, the Lucas Critique) - essentially, if you make a measurement into a goal, it ceases to be an effective measurement. As currently constructed, Altmetrics measure as much the level of publicity efforts from the publisher and author as they do the actual attention paid to the work………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. How small open access monograph presses can make the most of an increasingly rich data landscape
Until recently the ability to exploit new data for open access books was restricted to large publishers or content aggregators with the resources to invest in its collection, management, and analysis. However, Lucy Montgomery, Cameron Neylon, Alkim Ozaygen and Tama Leaver, in their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, describe how barriers to engaging with data are falling, with open access monograph publishers now having growing access to data relating to usage and engagement.
The blog post says (quote): The data arising from digital distribution of OA monographs presents real opportunities to better understand how people find and access HSS books, and the most effective strategies for widening reach and impact. Readily available data has the potential to help publishers understand how individual titles are performing, where scarce promotion resources might best be deployed, and how a press is performing on its social mission. The challenges of making the most of this data are real; finding the resources to capture, manage, and engage with data that arrives in different formats may be especially daunting for smaller presses. However, these challenges need not be insurmountable………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Essential Resources for Life Sciences Organisations Undergoing Digital Transformation
For life sciences organisations to undergo successful digital transformation, they need tools that facilitate fluid access to relevant data. Deborah Soule, in her post in the CCC Blog, takes a look at the two categories of emerging tools that support the data-intensive and collaborative activities prevalent in the life sciences.
The blog post says (quote): Content management tools, which are configurable to the enterprise organisational structure and incorporate decision engines, can overlay licensing arrangements and ensure that, within an enterprise, content is both limited but also easily visible and accessible to authorised researchers and other professionals. For an individual researcher, the content management interface must be transparent, giving them flexible access to all the relevant input sources available through their enterprise license. Effective content management tools give researchers the ability to seamlessly search, annotate, print or share content with collaborators within the natural flow of their research activities. Workflow support tools also address the data and collaboration needs of the life sciences by contextualising content used in characteristic activities such as grant applications, FDA submissions and article publication………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Little White Lies in Healthcare Publishing
How much of what they do - or don't do - in their daily jobs affects science and medicine globally in healthcare publishing? In her guest post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Phaedra Cress explores the increased acceptance of unethical behaviour in scholarly publishing.
The blog post says (quote): There seems to have been a proliferation of remedies that have evolved from the standard erratum and retraction options. Within the past 10 years, a "Statement of Concern" was introduced and now they are seeing the "retract and replace" method along with the National Library of Medicine's shade of grey tag called "corrected and republished." How is the average reader supposed to decipher the nuances of these levels of "fixing?" A "white lie" here and there may be necessary in the mind of some; but, they can pile up, and lead to accuracy questions for the academic literature. As scholarly publishing moves to a culture of accepting constant revision (and loads of versions housed in multiple places), what are the responsibilities as editors and publishers in making sure the reader gets the truth with each and every read?………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply