Scholarly Communication – Page 4

"And Never the Twain Shall Meet? Institutional Open Access Policies (IOAPs) and Review, Promotion, and Tenure (RPT)"

Introduction: Institutional open access policies (IOAPs) express an institutional commitment to making scholarly knowledge openly accessible, typically by asking academics to deposit their scholarship into an open access (OA) repository. Faculty, however, must prioritize other scholarly requirements, such as those specified in review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) processes and policies. If IOAPs are ignored or in conflict with RPT, they will not be as effective as possible. Literature Review: Despite the fact that many higher education institutions say they value scholarly research contributing to the public good, they often do not articulate that OA is a necessary component to achieve this goal. Parallelly, increasing numbers of higher education institutions have adopted an IOAP, but few of them include the policy in RPT policies. Methods: An electronic survey was disseminated to members of the Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI) in order to quantify how many include the concept of OA and/or their IOAP in their RPT mechanisms. Results: Only four out of 28 respondents indicated that the concept of OA is integrated into RPT at their institution, and only one out of 28 reported that the IOAP is present in RPT. Discussion: Consistent with sparse examples in the literature, this study suggests that most IOAPs exist in separation from RPT, and this separation threatens the success of IOAPs. Conclusion: Faculty prioritize RPT guidelines in order to advance their careers, but these policies rarely address OA and IOAPs. More attention to the relationship between IOAPs and RPT is necessary in order to discover how they can complement one another and enhance scholarly knowledge production and exchange.

https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.16899

"First Post: A History of Online Public Messaging"

From BBS to Facebook, Here’s How Messaging Platforms Have Changed over the Years

In 1971, Ray Tomlinson wrote the first inter-computer messaging program, SNDMSG. Because he had to differentiate between the receiver’s username and the name of the computer they were using, he needed a character that wouldn’t be part of either. He hit "SHIFT-P" on the Model 33 Teletype, got an @, and the rest was history. Email was born. . . .

In 1978, Randy Seuss and Ward Christensen took a jury-rigged clone of an Altair computer, connected it to a modem, and wrote the software that would change the world. CBBS, which stood for Chicago Bulletin Board System, was a server that anyone in the world could call up on their own computer, using their own modem, through regular phone lines. . . .

Usenet, which came alive in 1979, was a public message board divided into different "newsgroups" on various topics. . . . Admins at each site, which were generally Unix servers at universities or corporate laboratories, would decide which newsgroups to carry, and the software would automatically dial up other servers to send every message posted to these newsgroups.

https://tinyurl.com/3dsxjurw

The Open Access Tracking Project Is Now 15 Years Old

Peter Suber has announced that the Open Access Tracking Project is now 15 years old. This project has made an invaluable contribution to the Open Access and Open Science movements. Readers are encouraged to considering joining it and posting new works of interest to it. Even occasional contributions are meaningful.

Here is a description of the project from its home page:

OATP is a crowd-sourced social-tagging project running on free software to capture news and comment on open access to research.

Its mission is (1) to create real-time alerts for OA-related news and comment, and (2) to organize knowledge of the field, by tag or subtopic, for easy searching and sharing.

OATP publishes a comprehensive primary feed of new OA developments, and hundreds of smaller secondary feeds on subtopics or subsets, for example, one feed for each project tag, one for each search, and one for each user-created boolean combination of its other feeds.

OATP runs on TagTeam, open-source software developed specifically for OATP and now available for open, tag-based research projects on any topic. See the OATP hub within TagTeam. TagTeam stores all OATP tag records for deduping, export, preservation, modification, and search. OATP started on Connotea and moved to TagTeam in September 2012.

Peter Suber launched OATP in April 2009, and wrote a full-length description of it in the SPARC Open Access Newsletter for May 2009. In mid-2011 OATP became part of the Harvard Open Access Project (HOAP).

https://tinyurl.com/m5ku5mxh

Digital Scholarship and DigitalKoans Are Now 19 Years Old

Digital Scholarship and DigitalKoans were established on 4/20/2005. Digital Scholarship provides information and commentary about artificial intelligence, digital copyright, digital curation, open access, research data management, scholarly communication, and other digital information issues. Digital Scholarship is an open access noncommercial publisher. All of its publications are currently under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

DigitalKoans has published over 16,200 posts. Since 2008, over 5,600 job ads have been posted, with slightly over 4,000 of them for digital library jobs.

Digital Scholarship has published the following books and book supplements: the Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals (2005; published with the Association of Research Libraries), the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography: 2008 Annual Edition (2009), Digital Scholarship 2009 (2010), Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography (2010), the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 (2011), the Digital Curation and Preservation Bibliography 2010 (2011), the Institutional Repository and ETD Bibliography 2011 (2011), the Digital Curation Bibliography: Preservation and Stewardship of Scholarly Works (2012), the Digital Curation Bibliography: Preservation and Stewardship of Scholarly Works, 2012 Supplement (2013), and the Research Data Curation and Management Bibliography (2021).

It has also published and updated the following bibliographies, webliographies, and weblogs: the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography (1996-2011), the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog (2001-2013), the Electronic Theses and Dissertations Bibliography (2005-2021), the Google Books Bibliography (2005-2011), the Institutional Repository Bibliography (2009-2011), the Open Access Journals Bibliography (2010), the Digital Curation and Preservation Bibliography (2010-2011), the E-science and Academic Libraries Bibliography (2011), the Digital Curation Resource Guide (2012), the Research Data Curation Bibliography (2012-2019), the Altmetrics Bibliography (2013), the Transforming Peer Review Bibliography (2014), the Academic Library as Scholarly Publisher Bibliography (2018-2023), the Research Data Sharing and Reuse Bibliography (2021), the Research Data Publication and Citation Bibliography (2022), Digital Curation Certificate and Master’s Degree Programs (2023), the Academic Libraries and Research Data Management Bibliography (2023), and the Artificial Intelligence and Libraries Bibliography (2023).

"Preprints, Journals and Openness: Disentangling Goals and Incentives "

I would argue that private funders such as the Gates Foundation or the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) could provide material support through grants and policies for quality peer review, baking peer review into selection of grantees. Such an approach will require careful structures and mechanisms for reviewer selection, and measures of success, or we may run the risk of creating further inequities. Mind you, in many fields it is just hard to find good reviewers prepared to put in the effort required for a considered, thoughtful review. Societies, such as my own, could also consider material ways to support peer review more actively — a philosophical and practical approach to raising the profile of peer review at an early stage in the life of a researcher.

https://tinyurl.com/ymckyb9x

"Researchers Need ‘Open’ Bibliographic Databases, New Declaration Says"

Some of the best known databases, such as the Web of Science and Scopus, are proprietary and offer pay-to-access data and services supporting these and other metrics, including university rankings and journal impact factors. But in a declaration posted today, more than 30 research and funding organizations call for the community to commit to platforms that instead are free for all, more transparent about their methods, and without restrictions about how the data can be used.

https://tinyurl.com/2nvzf9dh

"Is ChatGPT Transforming Academics’ Writing Style?"

Based on one million arXiv papers submitted from May 2018 to January 2024, we assess the textual density of ChatGPT’s writing style in their abstracts by means of a statistical analysis of word frequency changes. Our model is calibrated and validated on a mixture of real abstracts and ChatGPT-modified abstracts (simulated data) after a careful noise analysis. We find that ChatGPT is having an increasing impact on arXiv abstracts, especially in the field of computer science, where the fraction of ChatGPT-revised abstracts is estimated to be approximately 35%, if we take the output of one of the simplest prompts, "revise the following sentences", as a baseline. We conclude with an analysis of both positive and negative aspects of the penetration of ChatGPT into academics’ writing style.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.08627v1

"Is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s New OA Policy the Start of a Shift towards Preprints?"

Whether a more decoupled ecosystem emerges will depend on other funders. Will key funders like Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) and Wellcome Trust follow Gates? Up until now they have made supportive noises about preprints but stopped short of mandates. Both are supporters of Plan S though, and frankly Plan S 2.0 looks a lot like Plan U. And what of the elephant in the room, National Institutes of Health (NIH)? The recent OSTP memo requires US-government-funded articles to be made free, but does not provide additional funds. If government agencies like NIH were to decide preprints qualify, as bioRxiv and arXiv have suggested, authors would have an easy path to making articles free that doesn’t require them to find an extra $5-10K behind the couch to cover APCs.

https://tinyurl.com/2t7z39vf

"Is ChatGPT Corrupting Peer Review? Telltale Words Hint at AI Use"

A study that identified buzzword adjectives that could be hallmarks of AI-written text in peer-review reports suggests that researchers are turning to ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence (AI) tools to evaluate others’ work. . . .

Their analysis suggests that up to 17% of the peer-review reports have been substantially modified by chatbots — although it’s unclear whether researchers used the tools to construct reviews from scratch or just to edit and improve written drafts.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01051-2

"Guest Post: FoSci — The Emerging Field of Forensic Scientometrics"

The complexity of maintaining research integrity is driving the development of a new disciplinary field dedicated to the study of research integrity forensics. Currently, efforts to uphold the integrity of scientific activities are dispersed across various stakeholders, including researchers, librarians, independent scholars, research institutions, journalists, government officials, funders, and lawyers. These efforts, while valuable, are often siloed within their respective disciplines, leading to a fragmented approach to addressing lapses in research integrity. By establishing a specialized field focused on the forensics of research integrity, we can foster a multidisciplinary collaboration that leverages the expertise of all relevant actors.

https://tinyurl.com/5b8t54eb

"Generative AI for Trustworthy, Open, and Equitable Scholarship"

We focus on the potential of GenAI to address known problems for the alignment of science practice and its underlying core values. As institutions culturally charged with the curation and preservation of the world’s knowledge and cultural heritage, libraries are deeply invested in promoting a durable, trustworthy, and sustainable scholarly knowledge commons. With public trust in academia and in research waning [reference] and in the face of recent high-profile instances of research misconduct [reference], the scholarly community must act swiftly to develop policies, frameworks, and tools for leveraging the power of GenAI in ways that enhance, rather than erode, the trustworthiness of scientific communications, the breadth of scientific impact, and the public’s trust in science, academia, and research.

https://doi.org/10.21428/e4baedd9.567bfd15

Digital Imaging Specialist at National Agricultural Library

In this position, you will work with staff on selection and coordination of materials for digitization, ensuring that all digitized information, including corresponding metadata, is processed according to the digitization master plan, is of appropriate quality, and is consistent with prescribed standards.

https://www.usajobs.gov/job/782891400

"Fostering Undergraduate Academic Research: Rolling out a Tech Stack with AI-Powered Tools in a Library"

With the increasing integration of AI tools like Yewno Discover, Scholarcy, and Grammarly in academic libraries, undergraduate research has witnessed transformative changes. These tools, while elevating the research process, also bring forth challenges rooted in ethics and application. . . . This paper underscores the need for proactive measures in academic settings, including specialized training and policy development, to ensure that undergraduate researchers harness the power of AI responsibly and efficiently.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2024.2316523

Research Data Librarian at Cornell University

Reporting to the Director, Research Data and Open Scholarship (RDOS), the Research Data Librarian helps support Cornell University researchers throughout the research data lifecycle to meet their planning, management, analysis, sharing and archival needs. The Research Data Librarian collaborates with peers in RDOS, the Digital Scholarship Services group, and other library and disciplinary units to provide a suite of services related to the stewardship of findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable data. This may include advising researchers on the use of disciplinary repositories, Cornell’s eCommons Institutional Repository, and other data sharing and preservation platforms to facilitate discovery, reproducibility and long-term access.

https://tinyurl.com/ycy2xwhc

"Are Price, Value, and Openness the Most Important Scholarly Communication Priorities?"

Specifically, academia has an enormous stake in imperatives like ensuring the trustworthiness of the scholarly record, providing for the platforms through which humans and machines will engage with scholarship, and addressing the atomization of the scholarly article. These topics demand collaboration by academia and research publishers. The current investments in developing AI-powered tools that support scholarly communication — and in resisting some of the challenges posed by the use of AI — makes these kinds of partnerships only more important and urgent. But how can academia and publishers build the basis for stronger collaboration when so much of the relationship in recent decades has been adversarial?

https://tinyurl.com/ppmucwn5

"How Persistent Identifiers Work Together in the Research Ecosystem"

Each PID requires metadata, or information about the person, thing or organization that the identifier is identifying, and different PIDs can be included in the metadata of other PIDs:

ORCID iDs can be included in DOI metadata to identify the people involved in the existence of the object that the DOI is identifying.

DOIs can be included in an ORCID record to identify the works that a person has produced, or the funding that a person has received.

ROR IDs can be included in ORCID records to identify the organizations that an individual is affiliated with.

ROR IDs can be included in DOI metadata to identify the organizations that are involved in the existence of the object that the DOI is identifying.

http://tinyurl.com/3bkx6ytv

"Citation Amnesia: NLP and Other Academic Fields Are in a Citation Age Recession"

This study examines the tendency to cite older work across 20 fields of study over 43 years (1980–2023). . . . Our analysis, based on a dataset of approximately 240 million papers, reveals a broader scientific trend: many fields have markedly declined in citing older works (e.g., psychology, computer science). . . . Our results suggest that citing more recent works is not directly driven by the growth in publication rates. . . even when controlling for an increase in the volume of papers. Our findings raise questions about the scientific community’s engagement with past literature, particularly for NLP, and the potential consequences of neglecting older but relevant research.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12046

"Additional Experiments Required: A Scoping Review of Recent Evidence on Key Aspects of Open Peer Review"

Diverse efforts are underway to reform the journal peer review system. Combined with growing interest in Open Science practices, Open Peer Review (OPR) has become of central concern to the scholarly community. However, what OPR is understood to encompass and how effective some of its elements are in meeting the expectations of diverse communities, are uncertain. This scoping review updates previous efforts to summarize research on OPR to May 2022. Following the PRISMA methodological framework, it addresses the question: "What evidence has been reported in the scientific literature from 2017 to May 2022 regarding uptake, attitudes, and efficacy of two key aspects of OPR (Open Identities and Open Reports)?" The review identifies, analyses and synthesizes 52 studies matching inclusion criteria, finding that OPR is growing, but still far from common practice. Our findings indicate positive attitudes towards Open Reports and more sceptical approaches to Open Identities. Changes in reviewer behaviour seem limited and no evidence for lower acceptance rates of review invitations or slower turnaround times is reported in those studies examining those issues. Concerns about power dynamics and potential backfiring on critical reviews are in need of further experimentation. We conclude with an overview of evidence gaps and suggestions for future research. Also, we discuss implications for policy and practice, both in the scholarly communications community and the research evaluation community more broadly.Diverse efforts are underway to reform the journal peer review system. Combined with growing interest in Open Science practices, Open Peer Review (OPR) has become of central concern to the scholarly community. However, what OPR is understood to encompass and how effective some of its elements are in meeting the expectations of diverse communities, are uncertain. This scoping review updates previous efforts to summarize research on OPR to May 2022. Following the PRISMA methodological framework, it addresses the question: "What evidence has been reported in the scientific literature from 2017 to May 2022 regarding uptake, attitudes, and efficacy of two key aspects of OPR (Open Identities and Open Reports)?" The review identifies, analyses and synthesizes 52 studies matching inclusion criteria, finding that OPR is growing, but still far from common practice. Our findings indicate positive attitudes towards Open Reports and more sceptical approaches to Open Identities. Changes in reviewer behaviour seem limited and no evidence for lower acceptance rates of review invitations or slower turnaround times is reported in those studies examining those issues. Concerns about power dynamics and potential backfiring on critical reviews are in need of further experimentation. We conclude with an overview of evidence gaps and suggestions for future research. Also, we discuss implications for policy and practice, both in the scholarly communications community and the research evaluation community more broadly.

https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae004

Open Scholarship in the Humanities

The book begins with the history of digital developments and their influence on the founding of international policies toward open scholarship. The concept of making research more freely available to the broader community, in practice, will require changes across every part of the system: government agencies, funders, university administrators, publishers, libraries, researchers and IT developers. To this end, the book sheds light on the urgent need for partnership and collaboration between diverse stakeholders to address multi-level barriers to both the policy and practical implementation of open scholarship. It also highlights the specific challenges confronted by the humanities which often makes their presentation in accessible open formats more costly and complex. Finally, the authors illustrate some promising international examples and ways forward for their implementation. The book ends by asking the reader to view their role as a researcher, university administrator, or member of government or philanthropic funding body, through new lenses. It highlights how, in our digital era, the frontiers through which knowledge is being advanced and shared can reshape the landscape for academic research to have the greatest impact for society.

http://tinyurl.com/2453s6du

"Training Generative AI Models on Copyrighted Works Is Fair Use"

Why are scholars and librarians so invested in protecting the precedent that training AI LLMs on copyright-protected works is a transformative fair use? Rachael G. Samberg, Timothy Vollmer, and Samantha Teremi (of UC Berkeley Library) recently wrote that maintaining the continued treatment of training AI models as fair use is "essential to protecting research," including non-generative, nonprofit educational research methodologies like text and data mining (TDM). If fair use rights were overridden and licenses restricted researchers to training AI on public domain works, scholars would be limited in the scope of inquiries that can be made using AI tools. Works in the public domain are not representative of the full scope of culture, and training AI on public domain works would omit studies of contemporary history, culture, and society from the scholarly record, as Authors Alliance and LCA [Library Copyright Alliance] described in a recent petition to the US Copyright Office. Hampering researchers’ ability to interrogate modern in-copyright materials through a licensing regime would mean that research is less relevant and useful to the concerns of the day.

http://tinyurl.com/7jkyt2ae

Director of Digital Initiatives at University of Rochester Libraries

The Director of Digital Initiatives is responsible for the overall direction, development, and management of the River Campus Libraries’ (RCL) core and emerging digital infrastructure in support RCL’s strategic aims and the teaching, learning, and research mission of the University. Reporting to the Assistant/Associate Dean for Scholarly Resources and Curation, this position works closely with library administration, colleagues, and stakeholders to collaboratively envision and implement innovative services and technologies that underpin a wide range of programs and services. This role directs a team of nine to ensure the sustainable and effective operation of the Libraries’ core enterprise-systems, connections to/integrations with key University and vendor systems, and the development and implementation of new applications and services.

http://tinyurl.com/5zkv9esj

Ithaka S+R: The Second Digital Transformation of Scholarly Publishing

Today, the scholarly publishing sector is undergoing its second digital transformation. The first digital transformation saw a massive shift from paper to digital, but otherwise publishing retained many of the structures, workflows, incentives, and outputs that characterized the print era. A variety of shared infrastructure was developed to serve the needs of this first digital transformation. In this current second digital transformation, many of the structures, workflows, incentives, and outputs that characterized the print era are being revamped in favor of new approaches that bring tremendous opportunities, and also non-trivial risks, to scholarly communication. The second digital transformation requires shared infrastructure that is fit for purpose. It is our objective with this paper to examine the needs for shared infrastructure that will support this second digital transformation.

https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.320210

"OASPA Members Pass the 1M Articles Annual Output Milestone for the First Time in a Calendar Year"

Members published just over 1.1m articles in 2022, passing the 1m articles annual output milestone for the first time. However, 2022 output grew by 16% over 2021, which is around one third of the long-term average. . . .

The top 3 publishers account for 53% of OASPA members’ output, the top 5 for 73% and the top 10 for 88% of it. This shows a slightly higher degree of consolidation compared with last year. We see greater levels of consolidation for CC BY licenses overall, and greater still for CC BY licenses published in fully-OA journals.

http://tinyurl.com/4988kbny

"A Critical Survey of Open-Access Policies in US Land Grants"

Introduction: Land-grant universities in the United States and the international open-access (OA) movement both purport to advance public access to knowledge and assert a public benefit to doing so. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that land-grant universities would have a high rate of adoption of institutional OA policies. To date, no study has looked at OA approaches or policies across the land grants.

Methods: This study considers the critical literature on both land-grants and OA, surveys land-grant institutional OA policies, and analyzes relevant demographic and financial data.

Results: The study identified 15 mandates and 4 resolutions across the diverse institutional types and populations represented in the 112 land-grants. None of the 21 historically Black colleges and universities or 35 tribal colleges and universities among the land-grants have adopted OA policies.

Conclusion: Despite shared objectives, land-grant colleges and universities have not systematically embraced OA, and relatively few have adopted institutional OA policies. In the context of profound, institutionalized inequities among the land-grants, and attentive to the potential of OA to deepen existing inequities, this study considers the causes of and implications for low institutional OA policy adoption among land-grants.

https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.15605

STM: "New White Paper Launch: Generative AI in Scholarly Communications"

The paper looks at the ethical, legal, and practical aspects of GenAI, highlighting its potential to transform scholarly communications, and covers a range of topics from intellectual property rights to the challenges of maintaining integrity in the digital age. The paper provides best-practice principles and recommendations for authors, editorial teams, reviewers, and vendors, ensuring a responsible and ethical approach to the use of GenAI tools.

https://tinyurl.com/4m6m8n9j