Archive for the 'faculty liaison' category

Whither Science Publishing?

About a month ago The Scientist published an interesting set of interviews with a set of scientists, publishers and LIS faculty on the future of scholarly publishing.

They called it Whither Science Publishing? with the subtitle "As we stand on the brink of a new scientific age, how researchers should best communicate their findings and innovations is hotly debated in the publishing trenches."

It's a pretty good set of questions and answers, provocative and thought provoking, with a few good shots especially from the scientist side of things. Unfortunately, I think it lacks a bit in terms of having an honest-to-goodness librarian as part of the panel.

Guess what? I'm taking a crack at the questions too!

Now, I'm far from the ideal librarian to throw his or her hat into the ring on this one, so if you think you have better answers to these questions than I do please feel free to chime in in the comments or on your own blog post. The more the merrier!

QUESTION 1: What are the main problems with the existing system for publishing scientific research?

There's lots of money floating around in the science publishing ecosystem, it's just not properly allocated. If we want a more open publishing ecosystem, we need to start spending our money to make that happen instead of spending our money to make it more closed.

The trick is to rejig the ecosystem such that the main players that are currently funding the ecosystem -- institutions via their libraries -- have a path forward that allows them to rationally reallocate their scarce resources from paying the current players (ie. mostly publishers) to keep articles closed to paying some new set of players to support an open system.

QUESTION 2: Are there problems with the existing peer-review system?

I think it's useful sometimes to see organizing peer review as separate from organizing publishing. Disconnecting them can take a bit of the heat out of the discussion. No matter what happens with publishing, peer review can happen just the same as before, it could happen differently or it could not happen at all. In that spirit, I'll refrain from answering this one.

QUESTION 3: Is open-access publishing the wave of the future? What problems plague open-access publishing as practiced now?

Yes, definitely. It solves too many problems with the existing ecosystem not to be fairly inevitable in at least some imaginable time frame.

Problems? Mainly that the incentive structure built into the scientific enterprise -- the way that prestige is awarded, mainly -- isn't aligned with promoting increased openness. Researchers behave in a rational way to maximize their own career returns which means favouring the incumbent publishers with their entrenched prestige regime.

QUESTION 4: Is there an as-yet-untried alternative to subscription-based or open-access publishing?

The goal of the OA movement is to make original scholarly research freely available to anyone that wants to read it -- and there is a wide range of OA business models to provide funding, such as institutional support, author fees and many others. The goal of toll access publishing is to make readers pay for reading that scholarship, either directly through personal subscriptions or per-article fees or indirectly through institutional subscriptions of some sort.

What is the third way? I guess that would revolve around finding a new source of funding for supporting science communication that isn't libraries or individual but that doesn't provide open access. I'm not sure what that is, but I imagine that it could entail government funding agencies.

QUESTION 5: Should the source of funding for scientific research determine how manuscripts arising from that work are published?

To a large degree, yes. Publicly funded research should be publicly available. Funding agencies who use tax payer money should ultimately require that all the tax payers who funded the research should be able to read it. That all the billions of citizens of the world who didn't pay taxes in a particular jurisdiction can also freely access the research funded within that jurisdiction is a huge bonus. Research that's funded through private foundations or for-profit corporations wouldn't be bound by those same requirements, although one would imagine that most non-profit foundations would see the benefit of Open Access in a way that we wouldn't expect of for-profits.

QUESTION 6: If you could change one thing about how scientific research is published right now, what would it be?

If I could snap my fingers and change everything all at once, I would automatically convert the funding model of all scholarly publishing to a mix of the arXiv and SCOAP3 models. As far as platform is concerned, I would implement a range of disciplinary and institutional repositories such at arXiv or SSRN, hosted by consortia of libraries. The repositories would hold iterative versions of articles, atom-level research reports, figures, data, audio, video and gray literature such a presentations and code and whatever else you can imagine. Local support for data curation and other services would be provided by local libraries.

Peer review and community building could be provided by some sort of overlay journal/blogging/social network system but that would vary by discipline. Prestige allocation would be managed by a system of metrics that would be open, diverse, flexible and discipline-based.

QUESTION 7: What will the scholarly publishing landscape look like in 10 years?

In a 10 year time frame, sometimes it looks simultaneously like everything has changed and that nothing has changed. I suspect we'll still have that feeling in 10 years. In my view, the most important piece of the puzzle is the incentive structure of science that is so intimately tied to the legacy publishing system. Sadly that's the kind of thing that tends to change one funeral at a time.

But I think it's safe to say that in 10 year's time we will definitely start to see attachment to journals and individual articles per se starting to fade, with a move to a looser, more iterative, more atomic system. We will definitely see vastly more open access, open data and open notebooks although perhaps not yet to any sort of ultimate tipping point. Although I would hope that at least a few tipping points will be within view in that time frame.

Libraries will still have a vital role in the teaching and learning missions of higher education, but our role in the scholarly communications ecosystem is less secure. It's our job to make sure we find a role in funding, promoting, curating and in building the technical and social infrastructure of the coming Open Access universe. The opportunities are vast and within our reach.

5 responses so far

Welcome to Information Culture, the latest blog at Scientific Amerincan

I'd like to extend a huge science librarian blogosphere welcome to Information Culture, the newest blog over at Scientific American Blogs!

This past Sunday evening I got a cryptic DM from a certain Bora Zivkovic letting me know that I should watch the SciAm blog site first thing Monday morning. I was busy that morning but as soon as I got our of my meeting I rushed to Twitter and the Internet and lo! and behold!

Information Culture: Thoughts and analysis related to science information, data, publication and culture.

I'm always happy to see librarians invading faculty and researcher blogs networks and this is no exception.

What's even happier is that one of the bloggers at the new site is Bonnie Swoger, long-time blogger at Undergraduate Science Librarian. Bonnie is a super blogger and a terrific colleague who I'm always glad to see at Science Online. I'm sort of wondering what's taken so long for a blogging network to snap her up and I guess it's not surprising that Bora's the one to finally get it done.

Joining Bonnie is an equally wonderful but new-to-me blogger, Hadas Shema. Hadas is an Info Sci grad student at Bar-Ilan University in Israel and formerly blogged at Science blogging in theory and practice.

Here's what Bora has to say in his Introductory post: Welcome Information Culture - the newest blog at #SciAmBlogs

How to do an efficient search? How can a librarian help you find obscure references? What is this "Open Access" thing all about? Why is there a gender gap among Wikipedia editors? How do science bloggers link to each other? Can tweeting a link to a paper predict its future citations? How to track down an un-linked paper mentioned in a media article? What is going on with eTextbooks?

And from the new blog itself, a taste of the first three posts:

Introduction post - Hadas Shema

Two questions I get asked now and then are A. "What do you study?" And B. "What is it good for? (as in "Why should my tax money fund you?"). Now that I have an excellent platform like this SciAm blog, I might as well take advantage of it to answer at least the first question (I'll let you decide if it's worth the taxpayer's money).

I study Information or Library Science, and my sub-field is what used to be called Bibliometrics, "the application of mathematical and statistical methods to books and other media of communication," (Pritchard, 1969). The term was invented back in 69′, when official scientific communication involved dead trees. The Russian version, "Scientometrics" was coined around that time as well. Today we have a variety of other terms, perhaps more appropriate for the net age: Cybermetrics, Informetrics, Webometrics and even Altmetrics. But for now, let's stick with Bibliometrics.

Bibliometricians measure, analyze and record scientific discourse. We want to learn what impact scientific articles, journals, and even individual scientists have on the world. Until recently "the world" meant "other articles, journals and individual scientists" because it was next to impossible to research the way scientific discourse affect the rest of the world, or even how scientists affect it when they're not in "official" capacity (publishing a paper or speaking at a conference). Now Bibliometricians not only need a new name, but new indices. That's what I (and plenty of other people) work on. We ask what scientists are doing on the Web, how and why they're doing it and the most important thing - can we use it to evaluate the impact of their work.

You have to share (by Bonnie Swoger)

Understanding how scientists share their results is my job. I am a science librarian.

I work with scientists at my college to make sure that they have access to the information they need to do their work. I teach undergraduates - novice scientists - how the scientific literature works: What kinds of information are available? Where can you find what you need? How can you use the different types of information? I work with researchers to help them understand new developments in scholarly communication: What is a DOI and how can it make your research just a bit easier? Are you allowed to post a copy of your recent article on your website and what are the advantages if you do?

And as I work with students and faculty at my institution, this blog will be a place for me to share some of these concepts with you. I'll share tips to help you find information faster, explain basic concepts related to the publication of scientific results and try to figure out how recent scholarly comunication news

*snip*

It's hard to stand on the shoulders of giants if the giants are hiding under the bed.

Understanding the Journal Impact Factor - Part One (by Hadas Shema)

The journals in which scientists publish can make or break their career. A scientist must publish in "leading" journals, with high Journal Impact Factor (JIF), (you can see it presented proudly on high-impact journals' websites). The JIF has gone popular partly because it gives an "objective" measure of a journal's quality and partly because it's a neat little number which is relatively easy to understand. It's widely used by academic librarians, authors, readers and promotion committees.

Raw citation counts emerged at the 20′s of the previous century and were used mainly by science librarians who wanted to save money and shelf space by discovering which journals make the best investment in each field. This method had a modest success, but it didn't gain much momentum until the sixties. That could be because said librarians had to count citations by hand.

Run on over and say Hi to Bonnie and Hadas!

3 responses so far

Open Data & The Panton Principles: Thoughts on a presentation to librarians

As I mentioned last week, on Tuesday, April 17 I was part of a workshop on Creative Commons our Scholarly Communications Committee put on for York library staff. My section was on open data and the Panton Principles. While not directly related to Creative Commons, we thought talking a bit about an application area for licensing in general and a specific case where CC is applied would be interesting for staff. We figured it would be the least engaging part of the workshop so I agreed to go last and use any time that was left.

Rather unexpectedly, the idea of data licensing and in particular CC0 licensing for data ended up being the topic that most energized the crowd! So we bumped up my part and I ended up going second-to-last. My section sparked a lot of very interesting conversations and feedback from a pretty packed house.

So much so, that while riding home on the bus on Friday with a colleague, she mentioned that the issues I'd talked about on Tuesday had come in handy at the conference she'd attended on campus earlier on Friday. She'd been able to speak intelligently and provocatively about the usefulness of open data to public policy!

So, a huge win.

Lessons learned? I think if I were doing the presentation over again tomorrow, I'd emphasize the practice of making data openly accessible should be considered as outside the normal scholarly communications system. It isn't just for pirates and thieves. The goal is to make data sharing a standard practice. The means to that end is to ensure data sets are cited in the literature and by extension to have data sharing become an accepted part of the normal academic reward and incentives structure. You create data, you share it, someone else uses it for their research, they cite your data set in their paper, that citation is counted with the same weight as a citation to a paper.

And within that understanding, I think I also would have emphasized more that it's just the right thing to do. Sure, you can fear being scooped with your own data, that someone will replicate your claims and try and take the credit, sure someone might even try and claim that they created your data themselves. But these "risks" should be seen as no different from the risks of publishing anything -- a journal article, a blog post, some code.

But those are far outweighed by the great potential of making scientific data open.

In any case, that's for next time. And hopefully there will be a next time. We're definitely hoping to take our workshop to a conference somewhere.

I don't believe any of the other presentations by my colleagues are online, but I'll link to them here if I find them.

And speaking of presentations, here are my slides:

I'll note that I'm waiving all rights to the slides and releasing them with a CC0 waiver. So have at them!

Also, here are the resources I used for my presentation as well as a few more that have come to light since my original post.

And some new ones:

As before, any suggestions for further resources would be greatly appreciated in the comments.

One response so far

Around the Web: Some resources on the Panton Principles & open data

As part of a workshop on Creative Commons, I'm doing a short presentation on Open Data and The Panton Principles this week to various members of our staff. I thought I'd share some of the resources I've consulted during my preparations. I'm using textmining of journal articles as a example so I'm including a few resources along those lines as well.

Please feel free to suggest additional resources in the comments.

Update 2013.01.30: Some followup posts with more resources and presentations I've done here, here, here and here.

2 responses so far

Reading Diary: Marketing for Scientists by Marc J. Kuchner

It's probably best to start with what Marc J. Kuchner's new book -- Marketing for Scientists: How to Shine in Tough Times -- isn't.

It isn't a social media jackass recipe book for "Success through Twitter." It isn't a detailed treatise on marketing theory. It doesn't come with a guarantee of grants, publications and prizes if you follow it's instructions. In fact, it's hardly about Twitter or blogs or Facebook or Pinterest or any of that stuff at all.

Instead, it's a primer on why getting your message out is a good idea.

Marketing for humans, in other words, where humans = scientists.

Kuchner's approach is quite straightforward and logical, meant to appeal to logical and rational science-types. He starts with a few chapters on the general principles of marketing -- why it's a good idea, how to approach it, what the main elements are of a good marketing plan.

And to make the medicine go down, the spoonful of sugar is some lively examples and experiences from his parallel career as a country music songwriter in Nashville.

First of all, he gives an introduction to general marketing principles like building relationships, selling, branding and the marketing archetypes that apply to science. These sections are quite well done as they bring some marketing concepts directly to bear on how a scientist can make her work better known.

He then applies those general principles to some specific areas where scientists would find it useful to have themselves and their work better known and better regarded: job offers, funding decisions, proposal writing, getting papers read and recognized, maximizing the conference experience, spreading the work about your work online, outreach to the public and government and finally, advancing the public understanding of science.

Yeah, I guess the common preconception about a book like this is, "Hey, I'm a scientist, what do I need to know marketing for? I exist in a world of pure thought and devoid of human emotion."

Not so much.

Kuchner emphasizes those areas of science that are the most human -- establishing and creating a rewarding career path, getting your ideas known and appropriately recognized. These are problems of human relationships and human systems.

If I can quibble a bit about the book, I do have a few small complaints. Island Press is obviously not a huge publisher. The book could have used a stronger editorial hand. It's a bit diffuse and repetitive at times, especially at the beginning when Kuchner is setting the stage. Sections that are supposed to be "theoretical" end up mostly practical, for example. Still, small quibbles in a generally very good book.

Another small quibble would be his approach to specific marketing tools and strategies. I appreciated that he didn't make this book solely about social media strategies but I felt he short-changed his audience a little by taking a bit of the other extreme. I really think he could have made a case that online tools are probably the best way to spread the word.

Who would I recommend it too? First of all, virtually any working academic scientist would find value here, except perhaps for the most wired and plugged in. Certainly any library that supports a community of academic researchers would find value. It's aimed at scientists but most of the lessons are generalizable.

Kuchner, Marc J. Marketing for Scientists: How to Shine in Tough Times. Washington: Island Press, 2011. 248pp. ISBN-13: 978-1597269940

(Book provided by publisher.)

No responses yet

My exciting new job at Elsevier: Inaugural editor-in-chief of The Journal of Applied Publishing Experiments

Hi everybody,

It is with great pride and excitement that I'm finally able to announce something that's been in the works for a few months now. I will be accepting the role of inaugural editor-in-chief of an exciting new journal to be published by Elsevier: The Journal of Applied Publishing Experiments.

This amazing opportunity arose a few months ago, initiated by a blog post of mine that congratulated Elsevier on their wise marketing and publishing moves and this one a bit later, where I declare my undying loyalty to the Elsevier brand. The publisher of Elsevier immediately contacted me after that post to see if there was a way we could work together to advance the cause of scholarly publishing.

Of course, I jumped at the opportunity.

And thus began the discussions around the best way to do that. And before too long, this amazing JAPE was conceived.

The scope of the new journal is going to be very broad. It will be about the intersection between publishing, authoring and business models. And while the focus will be on practical solutions to difficult theoretical and economic problems, we will get into some high-falutin' theorising too.

Some sample articles we have already solicited from some of the most important members of the online scholarly communications community:

  • Alt-Metrics, Schmalt-Metrics
  • Open Access for Fun and Profit
  • How Institutional Open Access Declarations Are the Tools of the Devil
  • Open Notebook Science: Just Say No!
  • Data Wants to Be Free -- Not!
  • Why Depositing Articles in Your Institutional Repository Is a Bad Idea
  • Librarians Are Not Your Friends
  • Citizen Science: Would You Let Your Kids Operate the Large Hadron Collider?
  • Journals Articles as Data Worth Mining: Fuhgeddaboudit!
  • $60 an Article? Cheap at any Price
  • Elsevier Are the Pink Fluffy Bunnies of Publishing
  • The Best Libraries of Science Shouldn't Belong to the Public

I can't tell you who the superstars are who have written these articles are yet, but see if you can guess! And please feel free to pitch articles in the comments!

The first quarterly issue is scheduled for April 1, 2013. Of course the journal will be included in all major Elsevier journal bundles. The annual subscription rate will be US$100 for individuals and $US10,000 for libraries.

I'm incredibly proud to announce the first set of appointments to the editorial board. There are a stellar bunch to say the least! I am actively recruiting further members for the board amongst the librarian, scientific and publishing communities. Please feel free to apply in the comments.

Our initial meeting is on the tropical island of Belize this coming June.

I know this might come as a surprise to many who have perhaps known me as an open access supporter but really, perhaps it's time for all of us to grow up, put away our childish things and embrace reality. Show me the money, and all that.

15 responses so far

Elsevier boycott: Time for librarians to rise up!

A little while back the Cost of Knowledge site started up a boycott pledge list in response to mathematician Timothy Gowers' pledge to stop contributing to Elsevier's operations by ceasing writing, reviewing and editing for them.

Here is the call to action:

Academics have protested against Elsevier's business practices for years with little effect. These are some of their objections:

  1. They charge exorbitantly high prices for subscriptions to individual journals.
  2. In the light of these high prices, the only realistic option for many libraries is to agree to buy very large "bundles", which will include many journals that those libraries do not actually want. Elsevier thus makes huge profits by exploiting the fact that some of their journals are essential.
  3. They support measures such as SOPA, PIPA and the Research Works Act, that aim to restrict the free exchange of information.

The key to all these issues is the right of authors to achieve easily-accessible distribution of their work. If you would like to declare publicly that you will not support any Elsevier journal unless they radically change how they operate, then you can do so by filling in your details on this page.

More information:

It then asks signatories to sign the pledge with their name, affiliation and discipline and pledge not to publish, referee or do editorial work for Elsevier.

I have done so. In fact, I've recently declined an opportunity to publish in an Elsevier professional newsletter in the library field and cited the Research Works Act in my refusal.

I would ask all the librarians and library/information science people reading this to consider adding their names to the boycott as well.

I've hesitated to ask this so directly before since there was no way for librarians and other library people to sign the pledge explicitly stating their affiliation with libraries and information science as a subject. We either had to put "Other" or chose perhaps the discipline from our non-library degrees.

Fortunately, the organizers of The Cost of Knowledge have recently added Library and Information Sciences to the list of subjects. They've also set it up so that if you signed up previously, you can update your subject just by re-signing with the same email address.

Librarians and other library/information science people can now directly support the boycott as it pertains to our own professional literature. By our participation, we can also clearly state that we support faculty, researcher and other scholars in their quest to make their professional and scholarly literature less the subject of excessive commercial avarice.

Most importantly, we can send a message that we are united, that we stand together.

I could make this a much longer post, explaining my rationale for singling out Elsevier, explaining the goals of the boycott and various other points.

For that, I'll point you to:

And some of my own thoughts along similar lines:

6 responses so far

Around the Web: Research Works Act & Elsevier boycott

Note: this post is superseded by: Around the Web: Research Works Act, Elsevier boycott & FRPAA.

This post has superseded my previous post which focused solely on the Research Works Act. I have added some coverage of the Elsevier boycott which at least partially grew out of opposition to the RWA. I'm not attempting to be as comprehensive in coverage for the boycott as for the RWA.

Some relevant resources:

It's worth noting that this post represents a massive update to the previous one.

It's worth watching pretty well everthing Peter Suber is writing on this issue on Google+.

Of course, if I've missed any, please let me know in the comments. In particular, if there are any important posts or articles I've missed on the Elsevier boycott, please let me know. This has become a very large list. If I've doubled up on something or picked up something at a content scraper instead of the original location, please let me know so I can fix it.

For those that are interested, I'm using this Google Doc as a scratch file to hold links in between updates.

3 responses so far

Science Online 2012: Library and librarian sessions

With the final countdown underway and the conference less than a week away, this post follows my post on library people in attendance at Science Online 2012 from a few weeks ago.

And I'd like to start off with another best-tweet-ever, this time Marieclaire Shanahan retweeting Colin Schutze:

+ they'll be fascinating! RT @_ColinS_: #Scio12 Newbie Tips: You will meet more librarians in one day than you thought existed in the world.

And that's long been one of my goals, to promote the integration of librarians into faculty and researcher conferences and social networks. And Science Online has always been a great example of how librarians and other library people could successfully integrate themselves into our patron community. My reflections on the success of last year's libraryish sessions lead me to propose some ideas for this year and ultimately to issue a kind of manifesto.

Related to that, I have an idle thought. Or question, rather.

Is there any other non-librarian conference out there with as much librarian presence and involvement as Science Online? I suspect it might be something in the Digital Humanities, but would love to hear about people's experiences.

Anyways, here's a list of all the librar* sessions at Science Online 2010:

Thursday, 4:00-5:00pm
D1S4c: Room 4. Undergraduate Education: Collaborating to Create the Next Generation of Open Scientists (discussion) - John Dupuis and Tanya Noel

Science faculty and librarians can collaborate on many aspects of undergraduate education - two ideas are the focus of this discussion. First: How can we best help undergrads understand and explore the scholarly information landscape? In addition to formal sources like journal articles, informal sources (e.g., blogs) are of increasing importance/relevance, which raises a question: How do we get students to think about what formal and informal really mean? How do we - faculty, librarians and others - work together to teach students to navigate the disciplinary landscape and become productive and critical consumers of - and contributors to - the disciplinary conversation? Second: How do we introduce students to the great big wide world of open science? How do the various players in higher education communicate to the next generation the incredible depth and complexity of what going on out there? How do we raise (inspire? support?) the next generation of Cameron Neylons, Steve Koches and Jean-Claude Bradleys (not to mention the next generation of Dorothea Salos and Christina Pikases)?

Friday, 10:45-11:45am
D2S2b: Room 3. Teaching Core Competencies in Science: Solving Algebraic and Word Problems (discussion) - Kiyomi Deards and Khadijah M. Britton

Math skills are necessary to the successful pursuit of science. Unfortunately, many students have not been given the tools to understand crucial core math concepts, or how they fit into the scientific process, by the time they enter a biology, physics, chemistry, or other science class. Co-moderated by a numeric dyslexic and a librarian, this session will be an adventure in communicating what we really mean by words like "logarithms," "meta-analysis," "distribution" or even "zero." We'll work through some word problems and analyze some graphs as a group, and try our hand at finding the shortest distance between a concept and a eureka. Bring your expertise, questions and creativity, and come out with new ways to communicate math simply, clearly and effectively.

Friday, 10:45-11:45am
D2S2d: Room 5. The Semantic Web (discussion) - Kristi Holmes and Antony Williams

Semantic Web-based projects are becoming increasingly more popular across a wide variety of disciplines. The session will provide a basic introduction to the topic and highlight different perspectives from people working in this space. We'll show *why* this technology is being used in so many areas - and demonstrate the benefits of linked data (especially in areas related to data reuse for visualizations, research discovery, and more). Open PHACTS, VIVO, and a number of the open government initiatives are good examples and there are many others. This session can serve as an introduction to the concept and highlight interesting and different ways that this technology is being used successfully.

Saturday, 9:30-10:30am
D3S1d: Room 5. Digital Preservation and Science Online (discussion) - Trevor Owens and Bonnie Swoger

Preserving Science Online? What should we be keeping for posterity? Science is now a largely digital affair. A lot of resources are being invested in ensuring that scientific datasets and digital incarnations of traditional scholarly journals will be around for the future. However, little effort has been spent on the preservation of new modes of science communication; like blogging and podcasting, or on things like citizen science projects. After a brief introduction to digital preservation, this session will serve to brainstorm and identify critical at-risk digital content and articulate why that content is important. Time permitting, we will kick around ideas for how we might go about putting partnerships together to collect and preserve this content. Come prepared to discuss what science is happening online that you think is important and why? How should we go about selecting what to preserve? Lastly, who should go about ensuring long term access to this content?

Saturday, 1:00-2:00pm
D3S3e: Room 6. Genomic Medicine: From Bench to Bedside (discussion) - Kristi Holmes and Sandra Porter

This session will serve as an introduction to the topic of personalized medicine from the perspective of major stakeholders including: scientists, physicians, patients and their advocates, community groups and media professionals. We'll begin with an introduction to the basic concepts and efforts in this area, followed by a discussion of information resources to serve stakeholder groups including relevant clinical, consumer health, and advocacy and policy resources. Various initiatives by government agencies, the commercial sector and academia will be discussed, including: Genetics Home Reference, 23andMe, PatientsLikeMe, and more

The Friday Blitz Talks & Demos also have some mini-sessions by library people or which are of interest from library perspective.

2:15-2:30pm - Writing for Robots: Getting your research noticed in the algorithmic era - William Gunn, Mendeley
With the volume of research output always rising, it's very hard to stay on top of what you need to read. Practically no one finds research articles anymore by going to the journal first and reading the table of contents. We all depend to some degree on algorithms to help us find what we should know. I'd like to talk a little about how some of the major algorithms work, how knowledge of the algorithms can make you a better writer, and how search and recommendation work together to bring you just the right paper at the right time. I'll present some specific examples of situations where these principles can be applied in three phases of research - starting a project, actively doing research, and writing up your results.

3:00-3:15pm - Research Discovery: Finding Networking Nirvana on the Semantic Web - Kristi Holmes
VIVO is an open source, open ontology research discovery platform for hosting information about scientists and their interests, activities, and accomplishments. The rich data in VIVO can be repurposed and shared to highlight expertise and facilitate discovery at many levels. Across implementations, VIVO provides a uniform semantic structure to enable a new class of tools which can use the rich data to advance science. There are currently over 50 VIVO implementations in the United States and over 20 international VIVO projects. This presentation will provide a brief description of VIVO and will demonstrate how diverse groups are not only using VIVO, but are also developing apps to consume the semantically-rich data for visualizations, enhanced multi-site search, discovery, and more. Learn more at http://vivoweb.org.

3:45-4:00pm - PaperCritic - Jason Priem (on behalf of Martin Bachwerk)
In a world where our lives are broadcast by Facebook and Twitter, our news consumption is dominated by blogs and our knowledge is defined by Wikipedia articles, science somehow remains 20 years behind in terms of communicating about its advances. PaperCritic aims to improve the situation by offering researchers a way of monitoring all types of feedback about their scientific work, as well as allowing everyone to easily review the work of others, in a fully open and transparent environment. The demo will give an overview of the site's main functions as well as discuss some plans for the future. Feel welcome to visit http://www.papercritic.com in the meantime to check it out for yourself.

No responses yet

Around the Web: Resources on academic blogging and social media use

Dec 06 2011 Published by under blogging, faculty liaison, social media, yorku

I'm doing a short presentation tomorrow on blogging for researchers as part of a day-long communications workshop for faculty here at York. And since a few months back I created a reading list for a social media presentation for grad students, I thought I'd expand that list in this post and add some more specifically blogging-related resources.

Enjoy!

Feel free to add any suggestions in the comments.

One response so far

« Newer posts Older posts »