1. Ask The Chefs: How Can We Increase Diversity In Scholarly Communications?
It’s easy to recognise the importance and value of diversity, but seemingly difficult to make diverse an industry or organisation that is not. Ann Michael in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, discusses Chefs' view about why the increasing diversity in scholarly communications seems so difficult, and what they should be doing differently.
The blog post says (quote): Diversity in scholarly communications can be considered with a variety of intentions and metrics. And the author applauds the efforts toward extending all sorts of cultural, economic, and functional diversity in the industry. At the heart of it, scholarship and science rely on thorough consideration of data from an exhaustive array of perspectives and inputs. It is consistent that affiliated organisations reflect the breadth and depth of human experiences, in both the production and dissemination of scholarly communications, as well as the contents of those communications themselves. For publishers, diversity is only possible if they operate outside the comfort zones, to include disparate voices of scholars without competitive English proficiency, welcome insights from all ages, races, genders, etc., and ensure accessibility of the resources for those with sensory or learning disabilities……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Metrics, recognition, and rewards: it's time to incentivise the behaviours that are good for research and researchers
Researchers have repeatedly voiced their dissatisfaction with how the journals they publish in are used as a proxy for the evaluation of their work. However, those who wish to break free of this model fear negative consequences for their future funding and careers. In her post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Rebecca Lawrence emphasises the importance of addressing researchers' recognition and reward structures, arguing it is time to move to a system that uses metrics and indicators that incentivise the types of behaviours that are good for research and researchers.
The blog post says (quote): Without tackling incentives, recognition, and rewards structures, little will change despite the growing frustration of this generation of postdocs. While much discussion is often focused on rewarding open science behaviours (publishing open access, making your data FAIR, contributing to open peer review), this is not a means to an end in itself. Metrics and indicators that point to the quality, value, use, and potential impact of a research output are clearly of crucial importance. However, we need to move to a system that uses metrics and indicators that incentivise the types of behaviours that are good for research and researchers; that is what will benefit science more broadly……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Semantic Search vs. Keyword Search
Ever tried searching for medical papers using a standard search engine? Happy with results you get? Probably not. There are serious limitations to using keyword search in the pharmaceutical industry. Phil Verdemato, in his post in the CCC Blog, explains how they can be overcome with the power of semantic search.
The blog post says (quote): Semantically enabled search is as good as the vocabularies it's built on. An excellent vocabulary with a huge number of synonyms means that typing in the brand name of a drug also brings up papers associated with its clinical name. And there you have it - pitted against the depth and breadth that semantic search offers, keyword search simply cannot compete in terms of accuracy, full awareness, or efficiency. Semantic search allows you to buy back valuable time that would otherwise be spent sifting through huge amounts of documents, and even convert textual data into something you can integrate across your systems, due to entity recognition……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. What Should the Scientific Community of Tomorrow Look Like?
If you could change one thing about the scientific culture right now, what would it be? The collective vision of women for the scientific community of tomorrow is one where there’s no stereotypical scientist; where science is communicated directly and openly; where being a scientist is compatible with securing a mortgage and starting a family, irrespective of gender, notes Isla Watton, Nathalie Pettorelli & Seirian Sumner, in their guest post in the Digital Science Blog.
The blog post says (quote): To build a more diverse science community requires looking at all the aspects of scientific culture that contribute to the contentment of its workforce. Making science open to everyone thus means starting to listen to the needs of scientists, especially those from underrepresented groups. Interviewing the people who have decided to forge a career in science, figuring out which hurdles they have, or will have to overcome and which aspects of scientific culture are the most worrying for them, may provide an indication of why certain types of people are less likely to choose, and succeed, in science. It is particularly important to view each issue as part of a wider culture, as the way that the different aspects connect together might be the key to understanding how to best eliminate the hurdles that stand in people's way……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Top Five Misconceptions About Approval Plans - Debunked
There are many misconceptions about approval plans, but ultimately approval plans are a discovery mechanism that helps you find the right books for your library. A post in the EBSCOpost Blog debunks five misconceptions about approval plans.
The blog post says (quote): An approval plan cannot be compared to other much-discussed acquisition models. Instead, it should be looked at as a discovery mechanism that can accommodate various acquisition models. The No Shelf Required article, "The Approval Plan: A Sorting Hat That Discovers the Right Books for the Right Libraries," states that "a more appropriate way of understanding its relationship to DDA is to think of the Approval Plan as the primary support tool for DDA. In fact, it is likely that without vendors having included DDA, DDA would probably have become a significantly more challenging model for academic libraries." An approval plan is essentially a discovery tool that acts as the primary filter between the vast number of books published each year and the delivery of those books, no matter which acquisition model they choose……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply