A genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes. These purposes are recognized by the expert members of the parent discourse community and thereby constitute the rationale for the genre. This rationale shapes the schematic structure of the discourse and influences and constrains choice of content and style. Communicative purpose is both a privileged criterion and one that operates to keep the scope of a genre as here conceived narrowly focused on comparable rhetorical action. In addition to purpose, exemplars of a genre exhibit various patterns of similarity in terms of structure, style, content and intended audience. If all high probability expectations are realized, the exemplar will be viewed as prototypical by the parent discourse community. The genre names inherited and produced by discourse communities and imported by others constitute valuable ethnographic communication, but typically need further validation.1
- Genre defined, from John M. Swales, page 58, Chapter 3 “The concept of genre” in Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press 1990. Reprinted with other selections in
The Discourse Studies Reader: Main currents in theory and analysis (see pages 305-316).
As we well know, Data is only data until you use it for storytelling and insights. Some people are super talented and can use D3 or other amazing visual tools, just see this great list of resources on Visualising Advocacy. In this 1 hour Community Session, Nika Aleksejeva of Infogr.am shares some easy ways that you can started with simple data visualizations. Her talk also includes tips for telling a great story and some thoughtful comments on when to use various data viz techniques.
We’d love you to join us and do a skillshare on tools and techniques. Really, we are tool agnostic and simply want to share with the community. Please do get in touch and learn more: about Community Sessions.
Open Knowledge Foundation: New Open Knowledge Initiative on the Future of Open Access in the Humanities and Social Sciences
To coincide with Open Access Week, Open Knowledge is launching a new initiative focusing on the future of open access in the humanities and social sciences.
The Future of Scholarship project aims to build a stronger, better connected network of people interested in open access in the humanities and social sciences. It will serve as a central point of reference for leading voices, examples, practical advice and critical debate about the future of humanities and social sciences scholarship on the web.
If you’d like to join us and hear about new resources and developments in this area, please leave us your details and we’ll be in touch.
For now we’ll leave you with some thoughts on why open access to humanities and social science scholarship matters:
“Open access is important because it can give power and resources back to academics and universities; because it rightly makes research more widely and publicly available; and because, like it or not, it’s beginning and this is our brief chance to shape its future so that it benefits all of us in the humanities and social sciences” – Robert Eaglestone, Professor of Contemporary Literature and Thought, Royal Holloway, University of London.*
“For scholars, open access is the most important movement of our times. It offers an unprecedented opportunity to open up our research to the world, irrespective of readers’ geographical, institutional or financial limitations. We cannot falter in pursuing a fair academic landscape that facilitates such a shift, without transferring prohibitive costs onto scholars themselves in order to maintain unsustainable levels of profit for some parts of the commercial publishing industry.” Dr Caroline Edwards, Lecturer in Modern & Contemporary Literature, Birkbeck, University of London and Co-Founder of the Open Library of Humanities*
“If you write to be read, to encourage critical thinking and to educate, then why wouldn’t you disseminate your work as far as possible? Open access is the answer.” – Martin Eve, Co-Founder of the Open Library of Humanities and Lecturer, University of Lincoln.*
“Our open access monograph The History Manifesto argues for breaking down the barriers between academics and wider publics: open-access publication achieved that. The impact was immediate, global and uniquely gratifying–a chance to inject ideas straight into the bloodstream of civic discussion around the world. Kudos to Cambridge University Press for supporting innovation!” — David Armitage, Professor and Chair of the Department of History, Harvard University and co-author of The History Manifesto*
“Technology allows for efficient worldwide dissemination of research and scholarship. But closed distribution models can get in the way. Open access helps to fulfill the promise of the digital age. It benefits the public by making knowledge freely available to everyone, not hidden behind paywalls. It also benefits authors by maximizing the impact and dissemination of their work.” – Jennifer Jenkins, Senior Lecturing Fellow and Director, Center for the Study of the Public Domain, Duke University*
“Unhappy with your current democracy providers? Work for political and institutional change by making your research open access and joining the struggle for the democratization of democracy” – Gary Hall, co-founder of Open Humanities Press and Professor of Media and Performing Arts, Coventry University
I will pat myself on the back (somebody has to). I wrote in the 2004 edition of Copyright Copyright, “Fair use cannot be reduced to a checklist. Fair use requires that people think.” This point has been affirmed (pdf) by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the long standing Georgia State University (GSU) e-reserves copyright case. The appeals court rejected the lower court’s use of quantitative fair use guidelines in making its fair use ruling, stating that fair use should be determined on a case-by-case basis and that the four factors of fair use should be evaluated and weighed.
Lesson: Guidelines are arbitrary and silly. Determine fair use by considering the evidence before you. (see an earlier District Dispatch article).
The lower court decision was called a win for higher education and libraries because only five assertions of infringement (out of 99) were actually infringing. Hooray for us! But most stakeholders on both sides of the issue, felt that the use of guidelines in weighing the third factor—amount of the work—was puzzling to say the least (but no matter, we won!)
Now that the case has been sent back to the lower court, some assert that GSU has lost the case. But not so fast. This decision validates what the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that fair use is not to be simplified with “bright line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case-by-case analysis. . . . Nor may the four statutory factors be treated in isolation, one from another. All are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright.” (510 U.S. 569, 577–78).
Thus, GSU could prevail. Or it might not. But at least fair use will be applied in the appropriate fashion.
Thinking—it’s a good thing.
That was the topic discussed recently by OCLC Research Library Partners metadata managers, initiated by Philip Schreur of Stanford. We were fortunate that staff from several BIBFRAME testers participated: Columbia, Cornell, George Washington University, Princeton, Stanford and University of Washington. They shared their experiences and tips with others who are still monitoring BIBFRAME developments.
Much of the testers’ focus has been on data evaluation and identifying problems or errors in converting MARC records to BIBFRAME using either the BIBFRAME Comparison Service or Transformation Service. Some have started to create BIBFRAME data from scratch using the BIBFRAME Editor. This raised a concern among managers about how much time and staffing was needed to conduct this testing. Several institutions have followed Stanford’s advice and enrolled staff in the Library Juice Academy series to gain competency in XML and RDF- based systems, a good skill set to have for digital library and linked data work, not just for BIBFRAME. Others are taking Zepheira’s Linked Data and BIBFRAME Practical Practitioner Training course. The Music Library Association’s Bibliographic Control Committee has created a BIBFRAME Task Force focusing on how LC’s MARC-to-BIBFRAME converter handles music materials.
Rather than looking at how MARC data looks like in BIBFRAME, people should be thinking about how RDA (Resource Description and Access) works with BIBFRAME. We shouldn’t be too concerned if BIBFRAME doesn’t handle all the MARC fields and subfields, as many are rarely used anyway. See for example Roy Tennant’s “MARC Usage in WorldCat”, which shows the fields and subfields that are actually used in WorldCat, and how they are used, by format. (Data is available by quarters in 2013 and for 1 January 2013 and 1 January 2014, now issued annually.) Caveat: A field/subfield might be used rarely, but is very important when it occurs. For example, a Participant/Performer note (511) is mostly used in visual materials and recordings; for maps, scale is incredibly important. People agreed the focus should be on the most frequently used fields first.
Moving beyond MARC gives libraries an opportunity to identify entities as “things not strings”. RDA was considered “way too stringy” for linked data. The metadata managers mentioned the desire to use various identifiers, including id.loc.gov, FAST, ISNI, ORCID, VIAF and OCLC WorkIDs. Sometimes transcribed data would still be useful, e.g., a place of publication that has changed names. Many still questioned how authority data fits into BIBFRAME (we had a separate discussion earlier this year on Implications of BIBFRAME Authorities.) Core vocabularies need to be maintained and extended in one place so that everyone can take advantage of each other’s work.
Several noted “floundering” due to insufficient information about how the BIBFRAME model was to be applied. In particular, it is not always clear how to differentiate FRBR “works” from “BIBFRAME “works”. There may never be a consensus on what a “work” is between “FRBR and non-FRBR people”. Concentrate instead on identifying the relationships among entities. If you have an English translation linked to a German translation linked to a work originally published in Danish, does it really matter whether you consider the translations separate works or expressions?
Will we still have the concept of “database of record”? Stanford currently has two databases of record, one for the ILS and one for the digital library. A triple store will become the database of record for materials not expressed in MARC or MODS. This raised the question of developing a converter for MODS used by digital collections. Columbia, LC and Stanford have been collaborating on mapping MODS to BIBFRAME. Colorado College has done some sample MODS to BIBFRAME transformations.
How do managers justify the time and effort spent on BIBFRAME testing to administrators and other colleagues? Currently we do not have new services built upon linked data to demonstrate the value of this investment. The use cases developed by the Linked Data for Libraries project offers a vision of what could be done, that can’t be now, in a linked data environment. A user interface is needed to show others what the new data will look like; pulling data from external resources is the most compelling use case.
- The LC Converter has a steep learning curve; to convert MARC data into BIBFRAME use Terry Reese’s MARCEdit MARCNext Bibframe Testbed–also converts EADs (Encoded Archival Descriptions). See Terry’s blog post introducing the MARCNext toolkit.
- Use Turtle rather than XML to look at records (less verbose).
- Use subfield 0 (authority record control number) when including identifiers in MARC access points (several requested that OCLC start using $0 in WorldCat records).
Karen Smith-Yoshimura, program officer, works on topics related to renovating descriptive and organizing practices with a focus on large research libraries and area studies requirements.Mail | Web | Twitter | More Posts (51)
Last updated October 21, 2014. Created by cartierlove on October 21, 2014.
Log in to edit this page.
It includes a mother of pearl dial, luminous hands and indexes plus a date display. There are numerous kinds of couple watches at Price - Angels, including Crystal Dial Stainless Steel Water Resistant Sweethearts Couple Wrist Watch, Fashionable Style Rectangular Dial Crystal Display Stainless Steel Band Couple Watch (Grey). Article Source: is just a review of mens Invicta watches.
Please follow and support us on our recently-opened Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/PeerLibrary.
Semifinalists for the Knight News Challenge will be chosen tomorrow and the refinement period will begin. This is your last chance to show your support for our submission before the next stage of the competition. The Knight Foundation is asking “How might we leverage libraries as a platform to build more knowledgeable communities?” We believe that PeerLibrary closely parallels the theme of the challenge and provides an answer to the foundation’s question. By facilitating a community of independent learners and promoting collaborative reading and discussion of academic resources, PeerLibrary is modernizing the concept of a library in order to educate and enrich the global community. Please help us improve our proposal, give us feedback, and wish PeerLibrary good luck in the next stage of the Knight News Challenge.
LYRASIS has published three open source software case studies on FOSS4LIB.org as part of its continuation of support and services for libraries and other cultural heritage organizations interested in learning about, evaluating, adopting, and using open source software systems.
With support from a grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, LYRASIS asked academic and public libraries to share their experiences with open source systems, such as content repositories, integrated library systems, and websites. Of the submitted proposals, LYRASIS selected three concepts for development into case studies from Crawford County Federated Library System (Koha), Fenway Libraries Online (Coral), and the University of Chicago Library (Kuali OLE). The three selected organizations then prepared narrative descriptions of their experience and learning, to provide models, advice, and ideas for others.
Each case study details how the organization handled the evaluation, selection, adoption, conversion, and implementation of the open source system. They also include the rationale for going with an open source solution. The case studies all provide valuable information and insights, including:
- Actual experiences, both good and bad
- Steps, decision points, and processes used in evaluation, selection, and implementation
- Factors that led to selection of an open source system
- Organization-wide involvement of and impact to staffs and patrons
- Useful tools created or applied to enhance the open source system and/or expand its functionality, usefulness, or benefit
- Plans for ongoing support and future enhancement
- Key takeaways from the process, including what worked well, what didn’t work as planned, and what the organization might do differently in the future
The goal of freely offering these case studies to the public is to help cultural heritage organizations use firsthand experience with open source to inform their evaluation and decision-making process, the same objective of FOSS4LIB.org. While open source software is typically available at no cost, these case studies provide tangible examples of the associated costs, time, energy, commitment and resources required to effectively leverage open source software and participate in the community.
“These three organizations expertly outline the in-depth process of selecting and implementing open source software with insight, humor, candor and clarity. LYRASIS is honored to work with these organizations to share this invaluable information with the larger community,” stated Kate Nevins, Executive Director of LYRASIS. “The case studies exemplify the importance of understanding the options and experiences necessary to fully utilize open source software solutions.”Link to this post!
Ahhhh! It’s done!
This project took over 7 years and went through a few big iterations. I was just finishing library school when it started and learned a lot from the other advisory board members. I appreciate how the much more experienced folks on the advisory board helped bring me up to speed on issues I was less familiar with, and how they treated me, even though I was just a student.
It was published this spring but my copy just arrived in the mail. Here’s the page about the book on the Library Juice Press site, and here’s where you can order a copy on Amazon.
At the Gender and Sexuality in Information Studies Colloquium the program session I was the most excited about was Porn in the library. There were 3 presentations in this panel exploring this theme.
First, Joan Beaudoin and Elaine Ménard presented The P Project: Scope Notes and Literary Warrant Required! Their study looked at 22 websites that are aggregators of free porn clips. Most of these sites were in English, but a few were in French. Ménard acknowledged that it is risky and sometimes uncomfortable to study porn in the academy. They looked at the terminology used to describe porn videos, specifically the categories available to access porn videos. They described their coding manual which outlined various metadata facets (activity, age, cinematography, company/producers, age, ethnicity, gender, genre, illustration/cartoon, individual/stars, instruction, number of individuals, objects, physical characteristics, role, setting, sexual orientation). I learned that xhamster has scope notes for their various categories (mouseover the lightbulb icon to see).
While I appreciate that Beaudoin and Ménard are taking a risk to look at porn, I think they made the mistake of using very clinical language to legitimize and sanitize their work. I’m curious why they are so interested in porn, but realize that it might be too risky for them to situate themselves in their research.
It didn’t seem like they understood the difference between production company websites and free aggregator sites. Production company sites have very robust and high quality metadata and excellent information architecture. Free aggregator sites that have variable quality metadata and likely have a business model that is based on ads or referring users to the main production company websites. Porn is, after all, a content business, and most porn companies are invested in making their content findable, and making it easy for the user to find more content with the same performers, same genre, or by the same director.
Beaudoin and Ménard expressed disappointment that porn companies didn’t want to participate in their study. As these two researchers don’t seem to understand the porn industry or have relationships with individuals I don’t think it’s surprising at all. For them to successfully build on this line of inquiry I think they need to have some skin in the game and clearly articulate what they offer their research subjects in exchange for building their own academic capital.
It was awesome to have a quick Twitter conversation with Jiz Lee and Chris Lowrance, the web manager for feminist porn company Pink and White productions, about how sometimes the terms a consumer might be looking for is prioritized over the performers’ own gender identity.
Jiz Lee is genderqueer porn performer and uses the pronouns they/them and is sometimes misgendreed by mainstream porn and by feminist porn. I am a huge fan of their work.
I think this is the same issue that Amber Billy, Emily Drabinski and K.R. Roberto raise in their paper What’s gender got to do with it? A critique of RDA rule 9.7. They argue that it is regressive for a cataloguer to assign a binary gender value to an author. In both these cases someone (porn company or consumer, or cataloguer) is assigning gender to someone else (porn performer or content creator). This process can be disrespectful, offensive, inaccurate and highlights a power dynamic where the consumer’s (porn viewer or researcher/student/librarian) desires/politics/needs/worldview is put above someone’s own identity.
Next, Lisa Sloniowski and Bobby Noble. presented Fisting the Library: Feminist Porn and Academic Libraries (which is the best paper title ever). I’ve been really excited their SSHRC funded porn archive research. This research project has become more of a conceptional project, rather than building a brick and mortar porn archive. Bobby talked about the challenging process of getting his porn studies class going at York University. Lisa talked they initially hoped to start a porn collection as part of York University Library’s main collection, not as a reading room or a marginal collection. Lisa spoke about the challenges of drafting a collection development policy and some of the labour issues, presumably about staff who were uncomfortable with porn having to order, catalogue, process and circulate porn. They also talked about the Feminist Porn Awards and second feminist porn conference that took place before the Feminist Porn Awards last year.
Finally, Emily Lawrence and Richard Fry presented Pornography, Bomb Building and Good Intentions: What would it take for an internet filter to work? They presented a philosophical argument against internet filters. They argued that for a filter to not overblock and underblock it would need to be mind reading and fortune telling. A filter would need to be able to read an individual’s mind and note factors like the person viewing, their values, their mood, etc and be fortune telling by knowing exactly what information that the user was seeking before they looked at it. I’ve been thinking about internet filtering a lot lately, because of Vancouver Public Library’s recent policy change that forbids “sexually explicit images”. I was hoping to get a new or deeper understanding on filtering but was disappointed.
This colloquium was really exciting for me. The conversations that people on the porn in the library panel were having are discussions I haven’t heard elsewhere in librarianship. I look forward to talking about porn in the library more.
From Jon Ippolito, Professor of New Media,Director, Digital Curation graduate program, The University of Maine
Orono, ME Digital conservator Dragan Espenschied and the crew at Rhizome, one of the leading platforms for new media art, have created a tool for archiving social media such as Instagram and Facebook.
This week is Open Access Week all around the world, and from Open Knowledge’s side we are following up on last year’s tradition by putting together a blog post series to highlight great Open Access projects and activities in communities around the world. Every day this week will feature a new writer and activity.
Open Access Week, a global event now entering its eighth year, is an opportunity for the academic and research community to continue to learn about the potential benefits of Open Access, to share what they’ve learned, and to help inspire wider participation in helping to make Open Access a new norm in scholarship and research.
This past year has seen lots in great progress and with the Open Knowledge blog we want to help amplify this amazing work done in communities around the world:
- Tuesday, Jonathan Gray from Open Knowledge: “Open Knowledge work on Open Access in humanities and social sciences”
- Wednesday, David Carroll from Open Access Button: “Launching the New Open Access Button”
- Thursday, Alma Swan from SPARC Europe: “Open Access and the humanities: on our travels round the UK”
- Friday, Jenny Molloy from Open Science working group: “OK activities in open access to science”
- Saturday, Kshitiz Khanal from Open Knowledge Nepal: “Combining Open Science, Open Access, and Collaborative Research”
- Sunday, Denis Parfenov from Open Knowledge Ireland: “Open Access: Case of Ireland”
We’re hoping that this series can inspire even more work around Open Access in the year to come and that our community will use this week to get involved both locally and globally. A good first step is to sign up at http://www.openaccessweek.org for access to a plethora of support resources, and to connect with the worldwide Open Access Week community. Another way to connect is to join the Open Access working group.
Open Access Week is an invaluable chance to connect the global momentum toward open sharing with the advancement of policy changes on the local level. Universities, colleges, research institutes, funding agencies, libraries, and think tanks use Open Access Week as a platform to host faculty votes on campus open-access policies, to issue reports on the societal and economic benefits of Open Access, to commit new funds in support of open-access publication, and more. Let’s add to their brilliant work this week!
On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit handed down an important decision in Cambridge University Press et al. v. Carl V. Patton et al. concerning the permissible “fair use” of copyrighted works in electronic reserves for academic courses. Although publisher’s sought to bar the uncompensated excerpting of copyrighted material for “e-reserves,” the court rejected all such arguments and provided new guidance in the Eleventh Circuit for how “fair use” determinations by educators and librarians should best be made. Remanding to the lower court for further proceedings, the court ruled that fair use decisions should be based on a flexible, case-by-case analysis of the four factors of fair use rather than rigid “checklists” or “percentage-based” formulae.
Courtney Young, president of the American Library Association (ALA), responded to the ruling by issuing a statement.
The appellate court’s decision emphasizes what ALA and other library associations have always supported—thoughtful analysis of fair use and a rejection of highly restrictive fair use guidelines promoted by many publishers. Critically, this decision confirms the importance of flexible limitations on publisher’s rights, such as fair use. Additionally, the appeals court’s decision offers important guidance for reevaluating the lower courts’ ruling. The court agreed that the non-profit educational nature of the e-reserves service is inherently fair, and that that teachers’ and students’ needs should be the real measure of any limits on fair use, not any rigid mathematical model. Importantly, the court also acknowledged that educators’ use of copyrighted material would be unlikely to harm publishers financially when schools aren’t offered the chance to license excerpts of copyrighted work.
Moving forward, educational institutions can continue to operate their e-reserve services because the appeals court rejected the publishers’ efforts to undermine those e-reserve services. Nonetheless, institutions inside and outside the appeals court’s jurisdiction—which includes Georgia, Florida and Alabama—may wish to evaluate and ultimately fine tune their services to align with the appeals court’s guidance. In addition, institutions that employ checklists should ensure that the checklists are not applied mechanically.
In 2008, publishers Cambridge, Oxford University Press, and SAGE Publishers sued Georgia State University for copyright infringement. The publishers argued that the university’s use of copyright-protected materials in course e-reserves without a license was a violation of the copyright law. Previously, in May 2012, Judge Orinda Evans of the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the university in a lengthy 350-page decision that reviewed the 99 alleged infringements, finding all but five infringements to be fair uses.
The post ALA encouraged by “fair use” decision in Georgia State case appeared first on District Dispatch.
This is the third of three posts about the workshop.
Following the presentations, attendees divided into breakout groups. There were a variety of suggested topics, but the discussions took on lives of their own. The breakout discussions surfaced many themes that may merit further attention:
Support for researchers
It may be the institution’s responsibility to provide infrastructure to support compliance with mandates, but it is certainly the library’s role to assist researchers in depositing their content somewhere and to ensure that deposits are discoverable. We should establish trust by offering our expertise and familiarity with reliable external repositories, deposit, compliance with mandates, selection, description … and support the needs of researchers during and after their projects. Access to research outcomes involves both helping researchers find and access information they need as inputs to their work and helping them to ensure that their outputs are discovered and accessible by others. We should also find ways to ensure portability of research outputs throughout a researcher’s career. We need to partner with faculty and help them take the long view. We cannot do this by making things harder for the researcher, but by making it seamless, building on the ways they prefer to work.
Adapting to the challenge
We need to retool and reskill to add new expertise: ensuring that processes are retained along with data, promoting licenses that allow reusability, thinking about what repositories can deliver back to research, and adding developers to our teams. When we extend beyond existing library standards, we need to look elsewhere to see what we can adopt rather than create. We need to leverage and retain the trust in libraries, but need resources to do the work. While business models don’t exist yet, we need to find ways to rebalance resources and contain costs. One of the ways we might do that is to build library expertise and funding into the grant proposal process, becoming an integral part of the process from inception to dissemination of results.
Academic libraries should first collect, preserve, and provide access to materials created by those at their institution. How do libraries put a value on assets (to the institution, to researchers, to the wider public)? Not just outputs but also the evidence-base and surrounding commentary. What should proactively be captured from active research projects? How many versions should be retained? What role should user-driven demand play? What is needed to ensure we have evidence for verification and retain results of failed experiments? What need not be saved (locally or at all)? When is sampling called for? What about deselection? While we can involve researchers in identifying resources for preservation, in some cases we may have to be proactive and hunt them down and harvest them ourselves.
Competitiveness (regarding tenure, reputation, IP, and scooping) can inhibit sharing. Timing of data sharing can be important, sometimes requiring an embargo. Privacy issues regarding research subjects must be considered. Researchers may be sensitive about sharing “personal” scientific notes – or sharing data before their research is published. Different disciplines have different traditions about sharing.
Collaboration with others in the university
Policy and financial drivers (mandates, ROI expectations, reputation and assessment) will motivate a variety of institutional stakeholders in various ways. How can expertise be optimized and duplication be minimized? Libraries can’t change faculty behaviors, so need to join together with those with more influence. When Deans see that libraries can address parts of the challenge, they will welcome involvement. When multiple units are employing different systems and services, IT departments and libraries may become key players. There are limits to institutional capacity, so cooperating with other institutions is also necessary.
Collaboration with other stakeholders in a distributed archive across publishers, subjects, nations
We need to understand various solutions for fixity, versioning, and citation. We need to accommodate persistent object identifiers and multiple researcher name identifiers. We need to explore ways to link the various research materials related to the same project. We need to coordinate metadata in objects (e.g., an instrument’s self-generated metadata) with metadata about the objects and metadata about the context). Embedded links need to be maintained. Campus systems may need to interoperate with external systems (such as SHARE). We should help find efficient metrics for assessing researcher impact and enhancing institutional reputation. We should consider collaborating on processes to capture content from social media. In doing these things we should be contributing to developing standards, best practices, and tools.
Attendees of the workshop feel that stewardship efforts will evolve from informal to more formal. Mandates, cost-savings, and scale will motivate this evolution. It is a common good to have demonstrable historical record to document what is known, to protect against fraud, and for future research to build upon. Failure to act is a risk for libraries, for research, and for the scholarly record.
Future Evolving Scholarly Record workshops will expand the discussion and contribute to identifying topics for further investigation. The next scheduled workshops will be in Washington DC on December 10, 2014 and in San Francisco on June 4, 2015. Watch for more details and for announcements of other workshops on the OCLC Research events page.About Ricky Erway
Ricky Erway, Senior Program Officer at OCLC Research, works with staff from the OCLC Research Library Partnership on projects ranging from managing born digital archives to research data curation.Mail | Web | Twitter | LinkedIn | More Posts (36)
Acharya et al:
attempt to answer two questions. First, what fraction of the top-cited articles are published in non-elite journals and how has this changed over time. Second, what fraction of the total citations are to non-elite journals and how has this changed over time. For the first question they observe that:
The number of top-1000 papers published in non-elite journals for the representative subject category went from 149 in 1995 to 245 in 2013, a growth of 64%. Looking at broad research areas, 4 out of 9 areas saw at least one-third of the top-cited articles published in non-elite journals in 2013. For 6 out of 9 areas, the fraction of top-cited papers published in non-elite journals for the representative subject category grew by 45% or more. and for the second that:
Considering citations to all articles, the percentage of citations to articles in non-elite journals went from 27% in 1995 to 47% in 2013. Six out of nine broad areas had at least 50% of citations going to articles published in non-elite journals in 2013.They summarize their method as:
We studied citations to articles published in 1995-2013. We computed the 10 most-cited journals and the 1000 most-cited articles each year for all 261 subject categories in Scholar Metrics. We marked the 10 most-cited journals in a category as the elite journals for the category and the rest as non-elite. In a post to liblicense, Ann Okerson asks:
- Any thoughts about the validity of the findings? Google has access to high-quality data, so it is unlikely that they are significantly mis-characterizing journals or papers.They examine the questions separately in each of their 261 subject categories, and re-evaluate the top-ranked papers and journals each year.
- Do they take into account the overall growth of article publishing in the time frame examined? Their method excludes all but the most-cited 1000 papers in each year, so they consider a decreasing fraction of the total output each year:
- The first question asks what fraction of the top-ranked papers appear in top-ranked journals, so the total volume of papers is irrelevant.
- The second question asks what fraction of all citations (from all journals, not just the top 1000) are to top-ranked journals. Increasing the number of articles published doesn't affect the proportion of them in a given year that cite top-ranked journals.
- What's really going on here? Across all fields, the top-ranked 10 journals in their respective fields contain a gradually but significantly decreasing fraction of the papers subsequently cited. Across all fields, a gradually but significantly decreasing fraction of citations are to the top-ranked 10 journals in their respective fields. This means that authors of cite-worthy papers are decreasingly likely to publish in, read from, and cite papers in their field's top-ranked journals. In other words, whatever value that top-ranked journals add to the papers they publish is decreasingly significant to authors.
- Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (general): Nature, Science, PNAS
- Health & Medical Sciences (general): NEJM, Lancet, PNAS
- Cell Biology: Cell
- Molecular Biology: Cell
- Oncology: Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Chemical & Material Sciences (general): Chemical Reviews, Journal of the American Chemical Society
- Physics & Mathematics (general): Physical Review Letters
Lets look at this another way. No matter how well their work is regarded by others in their field, researchers in the vast majority of fields have no prospect of ever publishing in a global top-10 journal because those journals effectively don't publish papers in those fields. And if they ever did, the paper is likely to be junk, as illustrated by my favorite example, because the global top-10 journal's stable of reviewers don't work in that field. The global top-10 journals are important to librarians, because they look at scholarly communication from the top down, to publishers, because they are important to librarians so they anchor the "big deals", and to researchers in a small number of important fields. To every one else, they may be interesting but they are not important.
Acharya et al conclude:
First, the fraction of top-cited articles published in non-elite journals increased steadily over 1995-2013. While the elite journals still publish a substantial fraction of high-impact articles, many more authors of well-regarded papers in diverse research fields are choosing other venues.
Second, now that finding and reading relevant articles in non-elite journals is about as easy as finding and reading articles in elite journals, researchers are increasingly building on and citing work published everywhere. Both seem right to me, which reinforces the message that, even on a per-field basis, highly rated journals are not adding as much value as they did in the past (which was much less than commonly thought). Authors of other papers are the ultimate judge of the value of a paper (they are increasingly awarding citations to papers published elsewhere), and of the value of a journal (they are increasingly publishing work that other authors value elsewhere).
On October 27, 2014, the American Library Association (ALA) will host “$2.2 Billion Reasons to Pay Attention to WIOA,” an interactive webinar that will explore ways that public and community college libraries can receive funding for employment skills training and job search assistance from the recently-passed Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. The no-cost webinar, which includes speakers from the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor, takes place Oct 27, 2014, from 2:00–3:00 p.m. EDT.
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act allows public and community college libraries to be considered additional One-Stop partners and authorizes adult education and literacy activities provided by public and community college libraries as an allowable statewide employment and training activity. Additionally, the law defines digital literacy skills as a workforce preparation activity.
- Moderator: Sari Feldman, president-elect, American Library Association and executive director, Cuyahoga County Public Library
- Susan Hildreth, director, Institute of Museum and Library Services
- Heidi Silver-Pacuilla, team leader, Applied Innovation and Improvement, Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education
- Kimberly Vitelli, chief of Division of National Programs, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor
The post ALA, Depts. of Ed. and Labor to Host Webinar on Workforce Funding appeared first on District Dispatch.
It was a hot, dusty day in Moab, Utah. I drove into town from my beautiful campsite overlooking the La Sal Mountains, where I’d been cycling and exploring the beautiful country. I was taking a few days off from work, and even though I was relaxing, I had a phone call I didn’t want to reschedule. So back to town I went, straight to—naturally—the public library. I had fond memories of the library from a previous visit a few years back: a beautiful building with reliable Wi-Fi. Aside from not being allowed to bring coffee inside, it would be a great place to check email and take a call on the bench outside.
As I entered the library, I decided that transitioning from adventure mode to work mode required, at least, washing some of Moab’s ample sand and dust off of my hands. I washed my hands and what happened next I did automatically, without consideration or contemplation: I cupped my hands and splashed some water on my face. Refreshing! I then wet a paper towel to wipe the sunscreen off of the back of my neck.
It was at about this point that I realized just what was going on; I was the guy bathing in the library restroom!
Half shocked, half amused by my actions, I quickly made sure I didn’t drip anywhere and sully the otherwise very clean and pleasant basin.Contextually appropriate
I can’t say I’m proud of my mindless act, but it did get me thinking about the very sensitive issue of appropriate behavior in libraries.
I’m not going on a campaign encouraging libraries to offer showers to their patrons, but not because I think the idea is ridiculous. I actually think it is a legitimate potential service offering. That such a service would likely be useful for only a very small segment of library users is one reason why it isn’t worth pursuing.
But as a theoretical concept, I find nothing inherently wrong or illogical with the idea of a library offering showers. It is simply an idea that hasn’t found many appropriate contexts.
Even so, with the smallest amount of imagination I can think of contexts in which this could work. What about a multiuse facility that houses a restaurant, a gym, a coworking space, and a library? Seems like an amazing place. And don’t forget that the new central library in Helsinki, Finland—to be completed in 2017—will feature sauna facilities. These will be contextually and culturally appropriate.Challenging assumptions
This is about more than showers and saunas. It is about our long-held assumptions and how we react to new ideas. When we’re closed off to concepts without examining them fully, or without exploring the frameworks in which they exist, we’re unlikely truly to innovate or create any radically meaningful experiences. When evaluating new initiatives, we should consider the library less and our communities more. Without this sort of thinking, we’d have never realized libraries with popular materials, web access, and instructional classes, let alone cafés, gaming nights, and public health nurses.
Learning about our contexts—our communities—takes more than facilitating surveys and leading focus groups. After all, those techniques put less emphasis on people and more on their opinions. Even though extra work is required, the techniques aren’t mysterious. There are well-established methods we can use to learn about the individuals in our areas and then design contextually appropriate programs and services.
To the Grand County Public Library in Moab, my apologies for the slight transgression. I did leave the restroom in the same shape as I found it. To everyone else, if you’re in Moab, visit the library. But if you need a place to clean up in that city, try the aquatic center. It has nice pools and clean showers.