1. Old Media, New Media, Data Media: Evolving Publishing Paradigms
We typically classify publishers as Old Media and New Media, but now we have companies that are part of a new paradigm, the Dat Media company. Such companies sit above both Old and New, studying patterns in usage and in the databases of information aggregated by publishers, notes Joseph Esposito, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Into this debate about Old and New steps a new candidate, the model of the data science company, which neither creates content (the prerogative of the Old) nor aims to serve as a platform for third-party content (the aim of the New). The Data Media model is something of a meta-model: it is about other content and the software that drives it; it sits above both Old and New, observing them with a cold eye, and deriving new inferences from them. An Old Media company wants to create a movie; a New Media company wants to create a hosting platform for individuals to upload their own movies (the realisation of which is YouTube); a Data Media company wants to study the movies and videos, especially large collections of movies and videos, and identify the emergent properties of these collections, not to mention the activities and identities of the people who watch them.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Caught in the Middle - Can Publishers Resolve Contradictory Expectations?
A session at ALPSP shines a light on why publishers are caught in an impossible situation - satisfying customers who demand different things at different times, and who are not aligned around the ultimate benefit they all seek to deliver. This session echoed thoughts and evidence seen before in reports from STM and elsewhere, shining a soft light on why publishers take the brunt of blame for things readers, authors, reviewers, editors, and academics don't like, while also suggesting a solution, notes Kent Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): In the middle of these and other contradictory desires sits the publisher, trying to somehow reconcile, balance, resolve, and moderate these expectations. It is clearly impossible to satisfy every constituent role and expectation - a true no-win situation. Put another way, it's like the old contractor maxim — I can do it cheaply, quickly, or well; you can choose which two of the three you want..……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. The current system of knowledge dissemination isn't working and Sci-Hub is merely a symptom of the problem
That Sci-Hub’s activities are illegal is not disputed. However, according to Iván Farías Pelcastre and Flor González Correa, in their post in The Impact Blog, the issue at the core of the debate is the current publishing and knowledge dissemination system and how it widens socioeconomic inequalities in academia and constrains its collective progress.
The blog post says (quote): According to Sci-Hub's creator, Alexandra Elbakya, and other researchers and librarians, the actual problem to be addressed is not the website itself. It is instead the structure of the current academic publishing and knowledge dissemination system that led to the creation, popularisation, and widespread use of Sci-Hub. Under the current system, the financial burden of research is mostly borne by governments, or other public or private research institutions. In general, publishers do not monetarily compensate authors and reviewers for their editorial or published work. Instead, scholars are expected to give out their work for free (or a token payment) to academic publishers, in exchange for their help in disseminating the scholar's findings across the scientific community. The primary incentive for authors or reviewers is, then, the dissemination of their research. Dissemination enhances the researcher's reputation, and their prospects of maintaining or improving their position in the academic job ladder. It also increases their impact on the scientific community.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. What do syllabi-based altmetrics actually mean?
Altmetric recently partnered with the Open Syllabus Project in order to track mentions of books in syllabi. In her post in the Altmetric Blog, Stacy Konkiel shares some of the scientometrics research that inspired their decision.
The blog post says (quote): As for journal articles mentioned in syllabi, a 2008 study showed that "the articles that were most recommended in academic syllabi tended to be reasonably highly cited but that the converse was not true", pointing to educational impact for journal articles that is often unrelated to scholarly impact. The same study also found that "online syllabus citations [to journal articles] were sufficiently numerous to be a useful impact indicator in some social sciences, including political science and information and library science, but not in others, nor in any sciences." Put another way, mentions of journal articles in political science and information/library science articles are a useful impact indicator, but not so for other disciplines (as too few mentions can be found)……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Recognition for review: rewarding contribution
Many reviewers feel that some form of public acknowledgment is more valuable than monetary payment when it comes to their services. In this podcast in the BioMed Central Blog, Elizabeth Moylan discusses how publishers can recognise and reward the work that peer reviewers do.
The blog post says (quote): There are many benefits to being a peer reviewer, some researchers feel that peer review has helped improve the quality of their work by informing them of flaws and helping them correct problems. Overall, it seems that most just want to contribute something back to science, noting that peer review is simply part of their role as a researcher. The question is, what can publishers do to recognise the work that people do? This doesn't just mean that those who review the most must be commended the highest.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply