Scholarly Communications Bradley Hemminger Assistant Professor School of
Scholarly Communications • • • Bradley Hemminger Assistant Professor School of Information and Library Science University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill bmh@ils. unc. edu
Public Storehouse of Knowledge • Multiple open digital archives, holding all the world’s knowledge. A single logical universal archive, created by dynamic federation of all public archives. • Contains everything: archive holds grey literature (publicly deposited) and gold literature (refereed articles). • No barriers to access. Knowledge is freely available to anyone, any time, anywhere. • Access to information and knowledge correlates to society’s quality of life.
UNC Chapel Hill psycprints Virginia Tech ETD ar. Xix Harvester (Neo. Ref) University of California Electronic Repository
Archive Model (Neo. Ref) • All material and metadata are author contributed to a public OAI archive (author retains ownership). • OAI archives have automated or manual moderator to filter out “junk”. • Everything--articles, reviews, comments, indexings, etc. , are stored as digital content items on archive using the same mechanism. Reviews contain quantitative score, qualitative grade, qualitative comments. • All materials universally available via search engines that harvest metadata from OAI archives. • Retrieval is through Google like one stop shopping search interface, with dynamic filtering based on metadata and reviews to limit hits to manageable number to review.
Challenges are in Retrieval • All material is archived (good and bad) • Metrics (some new) are used to differentiate type, content, and quality. • Dynamic Searching allows quickly finding material of most interest. Search on – Type article=Review AND date > 1950 – Content (schizophrenia AND Gene. X) – Quality: Peer reviewed {journals}, citation rate > XYZ
How Peer Review might work… • Author submits article to her institution’s open archive (DOI uncch: sils/0007548. pdf). • Author “submits” to journal EMEDICINE by providing DOI of article. • Journal Editor schedules two reviewers. Reviewers review article, and submit their reviews (cornell: 0191. pdf, ucb: 0084. pdf). • Author revises, and places revised article (DOI uncch: sils/0007957. pdf) on archive, and submits this final version to EMEDICINE. • Journal submits review (EMED: 0023424. pdf) which is final statement from journal (editor), and indicates acceptance of uncch: sils/0007957. pdf as EMED article).
Scholarly Communications Process Today’s Example Idea V 1 Referees Revision for journal V 5 Present to colleagues Present at conference V 2 V 3 Journal Final Revision to update analysis V 6 V 7 Submit to journal V 4 Revision to include additional new results V 8
Scholarly Communications Process: What’s Captured Today Journal Final Revision V 6 Only one version is captured, and the same community then pays to buy back access to article
Scholarly Communications Process formulate Idea V 1 discussion Present to colleagues Present at conference V 2 V 3 comments Author revision Referees Revision for journal V 5 V 6 Copyproofing Two peer reviews comments Journal Final Revision discussion, revision Submit to journal V 4 Revision to correct analysis V 7 Criticisms, new thoughts, revision Revision to include additional new results V 8 new results, revision
Scholarly Communications Process: What I’d like to see saved! formulate discussion, Idea V 1 Present to colleagues Present at conference V 2 V 3 comments Author revision Referees Revision for journal V 5 V 6 Copyproofing Two peer reviews Submit to journal V 4 comments Journal Final Revision revision Revision to correct analysis V 7 Criticisms, new thoughts, revision Revision to include additional new results V 8 new results, revision
Change the Process! • Think of scholarly communication as continuous process instead of single product (journal publication). • Capture significant changes/versions of a work. • Include all criticisms and comments about work (all stages). • Support normal scholarly discourse, including authors responses as well as others comments. • Add reviewer’s quantitative rating of material to allow better filtering based on absolute quality metric during retrieval. • Add machine (automated) reviews.
Can we save the Gold and Grey? formulate Idea V 1 discussion Present to colleagues Present at conference V 2 V 3 comments Author revision Referees Revision for journal V 5 Copyproofing Two peer reviews discussion, revision Submit to journal V 4 comments Journal Final Revision to correct analysis V 6 V 7 Criticisms, new thoughts, revision Revision to include additional new results V 8 new results, revision
Neo. Ref Storage Model Auto-indexing Material expressing content Revision to include Author Journal Final additional results and Indexing Revision V 6 analyses V 8 Comments on V 3 Journal Submission V 4 Comments on Conference V 6 paper (v 3) Local powerpoint Presentation v 2 Filter (Moderate) Machine Review Author Grey Literature Top Tier (Keep Forever) Two peer reviews Automated Content Item Recognized Expert Open (anyone)
Challenges • Self Contribution – Author indexed – Author supplied metadata (Dublin Core) – Archive file(s) must be in standard open format Neo. Ref: PDF/A with DC elements in tags for automatic extraction of metadata
Challenges • Archive Hosting – Off the shelf computer system with lots of disk space and public domain archiving application (DSpace, Eprints). – Who maintains the material? {Library (MIT DSpace), Grad School, University (California), Publisher (PLo. S, Bio. Med. Central), Society (ar. Xiv)} – Where are comments and reviews held (after the fact content items that reference original)?
Challenges • Make content universally available – Export OAI items so they can be harvested – Have public domain quality harvesters that support quick and simple searching (i. e. Google for metadata).
Challenges • Searching – DC metadata to allow coarse discovery. – Specialized searching within domain after locating material (based on metadata field indicating appropriate search interface). – Interactive searching to allow refinement to most desirable set within a few seconds. Use reviews to help filter search (Facultyof 1000). – Google searching on full text (covers all materials, but generates large number of hits, lower specificity). – Automated agents to bring material of interest to your attention (California digital library). • Example: article scores > 7. 0, refereed, citation count above 10, type=research article, search terms = schizophrenia, gene. X)
Challenges • Knowledge Representation – Extend DC to include “concepts” and “claims” to allow higher level searching compared to simple indexing. – Make OAI and DC representation more robust by always supporting DOI to uniquely identify materials. – Support unique identification of authors as well. – Making all content items submitted permanent – Use DC fields to link related items, new version of paper to old version.
Challenges • Rights Administration – Support mechanisms to allow authors to set permissions as they desire, and enforce this. – Example is OAI recent support of rights administration using Creative Commons.
Challenges • Peer Review – Make more public. Make available comments on articles. – Add quantitative scoring as well as qualitative.
Overview of Peer Review Qualitative Quantitative Grade Score (1 -10) Quantitative Filter Review Peer, Open, Machine Article submitted Send elsewhere Reject Published Article Accept, reject, revise with respect to XYZ standards Comments to Author
General Review Model Parallels • In general, you have sample (material) which is judged/scored quantitatively and qualitatively by an identified observer with respect to some standard.
Neo. Ref for Movies, Products, … • The same process used by Neo. Ref to support Scholarly Communication could be used for most any communication of informaiton purpose. All that is required is storage of Digital Content Items, and linking of reviews, comments, etc to them. • Doc. South: self cataloged and indexed items are Grey; librarian/archivist cataloged and indexed items are Gold. • Movies: Grey is everyone’s reviews; Gold is Siskel and Ebert reviews. • Consumer Products: product reviews by Consumer Reports (gold), user reviews (grey).
Current Peer Review Options • Human Judgement – – Expert peer review (status quo) Certified expert peer review Open Peer Review BMJ, Bio. Med Open comment review psycprints Quantitative Qualitative √ √ √ (relative) √ (absolute) √ √ • Computer Judgement – Computer peer review • Human Usage – Citation-based (Cite. Seer) – Usage counts (Cite. Seer) Example – Quantity of discussion • Coarse Categorization – Two Tier (grey/gold) – Moderator (current ar. Xiv) – No review (old ar. Xiv) √ √ √
What do users want? ALPSP survey was intended to discover the views of academics, both as authors and as readers. Some 14, 000 scholars were contacted across all disciplines and all parts of the world, and with almost 9% responding. Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown. Authors and Electronic Publishing: The ALPSP Research Study on Authors' and Readers’ Views of Electronic Research Communication. (West Sussex, UK: The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, 2002). http: //www. alpsp. org/pub 5. htm
Importance of journal features
Importance of the peer review process
Importance of publishers’ roles Factor Responses as authors Responses as readers Peer review 81 80 Gathering articles together to enable browsing of content 64 49 Selection of relevant and quality-controlled content 71 54 Content editing and improvement of articles 60 39 Language or copy editing 50 34 Checking of citations/adding links 46 28 Marketing (maximising visibility of journal) 44 20
Additional Surveys (Project Romeo) • Authors want quick and convenient dissemination of their work – Free access to others papers – Not overly concerned about copyright unless it stops them from freely distributing their work or accessing others.
Additional Surveys (Zhang 1999 survey) • Permanence and Quality of electronically archived resources • Better (faster, more accurate) searching capabilities
CRADLE • Center for Research and Development of Digital Libraries – Electronic Theses and Disserations – Minds of Carolina – Neo. Ref
Extra Material….
http: //www. update-software. com/Cochrane/MR 000016. pdf
The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) Survey Authors and Electronic Publishing • Scholarly research communication has seen far-reaching developments in recent years. • Most journals are now available online as well as in print, and numerous electronic-only journals have been launched; • The Internet opens up new ways for journals to operate. • Authors have also become conscious of alternative ways to communicate their findings, and much has been written about what they ought to think.
Importance of future dissemination channels Dissemination method Very important plus important categories Ranking Traditional print + electronic journal 91 1 Discipline-based electronic reprint archive 78 2 Traditional print journal 77 3 Traditional electronic-only journal 66 4 Institution-based electronic reprint archive 60 5 New forms of electronic-only journal 49 6 Discipline-based electronic preprint archive 44 7 Institution-based electronic preprint archive 33 8
Cochrane Methodology Review • Despite its widespread use and costs, little hard evidence exists that peer review improves the quality of published biomedical research. • There had never even been any consensus on its aims and that it would be more appropriate to refer to it as ‘competitive review’. Caroline White, “Little Evidence for Effectiveness of Scientific Peer Review, ” BMJ 326 (February 1, 2003): 241 http: //bmj. com/cgi/reprint/326/7383/241/a. pdf
Cochrane Methodology Review • On the basis of the current evidence, ‘the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts, ' state the authors, who call for large, government funded research programmes to test the effectiveness of the [classic peer review] system and investigate possible alternatives. Caroline White, “Little Evidence for Effectiveness of Scientific Peer Review, ” BMJ 326 (February 1, 2003): 241 http: //bmj. com/cgi/reprint/326/7383/241/a. pdf
• Cochrane Methodology Review The use of peer-review is usually assumed to raise the quality of the endproduct (i. e. the journal or scientific meeting) and to provide a mechanism for rational, fair and objective decisionmaking. However, these assumptions have rarely been tested. Tom O. Jefferson, Phil Alderson, Frank Davidoff, and Elizabeth Wager, Editorial Peer-review for Improving the Quality of Reports of Biomedical Studies. (Middle Way, Oxford: Update Software Ltd, 2003). http: //www. update-software. com/Cochrane/MR 000016. pdf
• Cochrane Methodology Review The available research has not clearly identified or assessed the impact of peerreview on the more important outcomes (importance, usefulness, relevance, and quality of published reports) • … [G]iven the widespread use of peerreview and its importance, it is surprising that so little is known of its effects Tom O. Jefferson, Phil Alderson, Frank Davidoff, and Elizabeth Wager, Editorial Peer-review for Improving the Quality of Reports of Biomedical Studies. (Middle Way, Oxford: Update Software Ltd, 2003). http: //www. update-software. com/Cochrane/MR 000016. pdf
FURTHERMORE … • 16% said that the referees would no longer be anonymous • 27% said that traditional peer review would be supplemented by postpublication commentary • 45% expected to see some changes in the peer-review system within the next five years Fytton Rowland, “The Peer-Review Process, ” Learned Publishing 15 no. 4 (October 2002): 247 -258. Report version: http: //www. jisc. ac. uk/uploaded_documents/rowland. pdf
Provider Service Change • What is worth paying for? – Quality review (Faculty of 1000) – Proofing, citation linking, professional presentation (Cite. Seer, Cite-base) – Marketing – Archival (JStor) • Who hosts material: – Society (ar. Xiv) – Commerical Publishers (Elesiever, Bio. Med. Central)
- Slides: 41