Combining Research and Outreach to Explore Current Examples of Digital Scholarly Communication

Presenters:Nancy Maron, Ithaka Strategic ServicesK. Kirby Smith, Ithaka Strategic ServicesKarla Hahn, Association of Research Libraries

Combining Research and Outreach to Explore Current Examples of Digital Scholarly Communication

Why a study of new model works?Study GoalsIdentify range of examples of new model worksHigh level overview of the emerging landscape of new model worksEncourage librarians and faculty members to share information and perspectives about the current array of new model worksSupport librarians in building relationships and developing outreach programs that advance new kinds of scholarly works.Field Study PhaseKey issues:Framing new model publicationsLaunching conversationsEngaging volunteersStudy timelineFebruaryFundingMarchRecruitment & Training MaterialsAprilLaunch of Data CollectionJune 15Close of Data CollectionNovember 10Report ReleasedParticipationLibrarians>300 individuals46 institutionsUS and CanadaLiberal arts colleges to research institutionsFaculty8.2 approached per librarian1.75 interviewed per librarianInstitutional participation3 Partner/Pilot testing institutions

14 additional institutions

The experience of talking with facultyIt wasn't until we had a fairly unstructured conversation that many faculty remembered sites they use. Initially several said they didn't use newer modes of scholarly communication, when in fact they did.

Study participant Participant survey (for librarians)65 responses71% volunteers29% assignedHow participants identified their conversation partnerSomeone I knew from prior work together69.6%A designated faculty liaison to the library or had some other formal assignment to work with the library.5.4%

Someone I wanted to begin a working relationship with21.4%Someone I knew was interested in new communication technologies37.5%

Someone I knew was involved in producing traditional publications- e.g., an editor or editorial board member.25.0%

Someone I knew was involved in producing new kinds of publications- e.g., e-journals, e-books25.0%

Someone who owed me a favor because I had helped her/him in the past.16.1%

Someone who is an opinion leader in the department16.1%Recommended to me by someone else10.7%Other, please describe17.9%Relationship buildingAgree or strongly agreeStrengthened my relationship with the faculty member

67%

Gave me a deeper understanding of how communication practices are changing in a discipline

43%

Challenged my assumptions

30%

Challenged the faculty member's assumptions

22%

Has made it more likely the faculty member will contact me in the future

60%

Has made it more likely that I will contact the faculty member in the future62%

Gave me ideas for new ways I can work with her/his department41%What was most valuable?It was very valuable to have an opening to discuss the faculty members specific area of research. It gave the faculty member an easy question that they loved talking about to start the conversation and it helped me see ways to collaborate with them in the future.

Having a formal structured reason to begin a conversation that encompassed some of these issues. I have been wanting to do this for almost a year, but this study gave me the impetus to actually make meetings and get them done in a short period of time.

The entre to conversation. Faculty are busy people and just finding a good reason to be in a position to express interest and learn about faculty perspectives was valuable. For some librarians its just not easy starting a conversation, especially one that gets beyond superficialities.13Although I knew of the resource the faculty member discussed, I hadn't looked at every aspect of it. The study forced me to delve further into the resource, which made me better aware of what information could be found through it.

Learning about resources.

We may be hip and think we know this stuff.

Of course many folks were curious about whether faculty were using things they didnt know about. Its also interesting that sometimes it turned out faculty knew more about a known item than the librarian did.14The conversation as a whole helped me to gain a better understanding of [how] this faculty member does research and how he expects his students to do research.

Learning specific ways this faculty member keeps current in her field.

Faculty discussing the way they work, moving from literature to lab to data analysis to publishing and discussion, but not always in that order.

Learning about faculty

This was the huge carrot for librarians to participate in the study. People didnt just want to learn about resources, they wanted a chance to find out more about how faculty are going about their work generally. This is the part that motivated institutions to assign staff to the project.15Discussion with the faculty member; his discovery of how much librarians are interested in the way he conducts his research.

Faculty learning about librarians

There is tremendous value in communicating interest and service commitment to faculty.

One of my participants told me in conversation that faculty were looking at librarians differently after seeing them engage in a research project first hand. They found a new kind of common ground with librarians as researchers.

16The fact that the Department chair wants the faculty to use the SSRN platform to expose the department and colleges research activities as well as the type of research other institutions were engaged.

Learning about both faculty members' positive views on electronic publications as ways to share scholarly and professional research/ideas/news. Although I had previous conversations with both faculty members, my discussions with them about new model publications made me see them as advocates for scholarly communication practices such as open access publishing.

Identifying specific opportunities.

Of course theres nothing like a conversation about a general topic to turn up unexpected specific opportunities. People found partners, advocates, and projects they could draw on.17Role of the Field Team: Data GatheringHundreds of enthusiastic participants, who in turn have access to the faculty on their campusesInstrumental in gathering names of possible resources from the faculty who use themResponsible for vetting the resources recommended by faculty, according to criteria outlined by ARLResponsible for entering the names and information about the resources into a central web-based database

With access to dozens of enthusiastic library directors and their staffs, there was great benefit to constituting a Field Team and having them scan the landscape for us.Limitations of this approachThe samples, both of faculty surveyed and of resources named, were not statistically representative.Difficult to control conditions under which questions were posed to faculty. Some data (for example, on sustainability methods used) is difficult to obtain and verify by direct observation, without further detailed questioning of project leaders.

What this study does provide:A scan of the landscape of those digital projects most relevant to the work of ARL librariansHypotheses about trends regarding the types of digital resources used in different disciplinesExamples of digital resources faculty consider innovative Why focus on original and scholarly resources?ARL wanted to learn more about those resources that were likely to be Original scholarly resources are the focus of traditional collections and servicesMost similar to types of faculty-led projects seeking library support or advice Most similar to those projects an ARL library would be interested in supporting or creating themselvesARL sought to examine only those works which were both original instances of publication and consisted of scholarly content (content either created by or explicitly for scholars).

By the numbers358 entries in the database

355 entries included resources

240 cited resources we identified as both original and scholarly

206 unique scholarly original resources

Analysis based onAssessment of resource entries in databaseDirect observation of sites named by facultyIn-depth interviews with project leaders from 11 sample cases

Types of Digital Scholarly Resources (n=206)Classified by either predominant content type (e-journal, blog, etc..) or by the content that the faculty member explicitly cited as important to them

E-only journalsMost frequently cited content typeCited evenly across humanities, social sciences and STM fieldsMost of those cited are Open AccessSome examples of innovation, though some features are slow to gain wide adoption

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

Experimenting with public peer reviewHas not had negative impact: journal enjoys high ISI rankingYet, very little actual public comment takes place

JoVE: Journal of Visualized ExperimentsA journal of video articlesA for-profit effort, independently supportedThe first video journal to be accepted by National Library of Medicine

ReviewsInnovate in terms of speed to publicationBenefit from lack of space restrictionRapid and frequent publication encourages users to visit the sites frequently Bryn Mawr Classical ReviewPublishes a review a day, every dayPushes content to subscribers via email listLow admin costs in general, aside from postage to mail books to reviewers

Preprint and working paper serversProvide quick access to new workLargest servers are the oldest ones and dominant in their fields: arXiv and SSRN, both cited by multiple faculty membersFaculty cited frequent usage of these sitesSignificance of disciplinary culture in influencing strong growth of these resources

PhilSci ArchiveFollowed example of arXivServes a well-defined niche: philosophy of scienceGoal is not to grow beyond the niche, but to serve it well, and not become too focused just on philosophy of physics

Encyclopedias, Dictionaries and Annotated ContentBroad-ranging projects, often mixing primary documents and scholarly annotationSome reference works benefit from a more decentralized creation of content

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Online reference work for philosophy~1,000 entriesEncyclopedia articles are volunteered by academicsContinuously updatedOperates from an endowmentData41 resources named, mostly in STM fieldsFaculty cited similar overall usage strategy: intensely while working on a project, rarely otherwiseMany are grant-supported, some entirely soSome large dynamic projects based on user-contributed data

eBirdCommunity data projectAmateur-supplied data creates large database for researchersProcesses of user training and engaging users to participateLarge scale makes sponsorship possible

Blogs15 blogs were cited by faculty, and blogs appeared as an element in 29 other resources as wellAppeared across all disciplinary groupsFaculty mainly reported daily or weekly usageNot just for chat, but real scholarly discussionMost blogs in this sample did not seem to use any revenue generating model, since hosting costs tend to be low

PEA SoupFounders describe the need to aggregate researchers in this niche field from around the US and the worldSpeed of exchanges allows its members to work through ideas in days, a process that used to take months or years

Discussion lists21 resources named were discussion listsThree-quarters of these were traditional listservsFourteen are in the humanitiesUsers cited them for allowing them to keep in touch with everyone, all the timeNot at all a cutting-edge technology, but still very popular

H-France ForumFounded in 1991Goal was to mimic the types of conversations that occurred around the coffee machineRestricted access, list moderation, list archiving lend sense of credibility

Professional and academic hubs34 resources in the collection were classified as hubsLarger sites, with many content and communication features, where faculty cited the benefit of the site as being a one-stop shop. Often supported by academic societies or professional associations

Alzheimer Research ForumIncludes original articles and news updates, as well as job notices and announcementsUser generated content includes a hypothesis factory where people can post ideas and comment on others.

FindingsDiscipline trendsPresence in nearly all categories, from journals, to data to referenceMultimedia expandsExamples of all content types showed up across a wide range of disciplines, though some trends emergedHumanities sites mentioned were most often e-journals and discussion lists and blogs. STM resources named were very often data sites, followed by e-only journals In the social sciences, hub sites were the most common, followed by e-only journals

Innovation in new and oldEvidence of ongoing experimentation with revenue models for many projects, while others rely almost entirely on volunteer labor and contributions in kindExperimentation with revenue modelsOlder projects show significant innovation; creating legitimacy and building audience takes timeHumanities sites mentioned were most often e-journals and discussion lists and blogs. STM resources named were very often data sites, followed by e-only journals In the social sciences, hub sites were the most common, followed by e-only journals

Strong influence of tradition Significance of disciplinary normsPeer review still extremely importantEstablishing trust and credibility through reputation and quality is vitalEvidence of some reluctance of faculty to adopt some innovative features

Looking AheadHOW THIS IS HELPFUL TO ARL LIBRARIANS Sustainability still an issueMany are grant supportedOr very inexpensive (blogs, disc lists) in terms of direct costsEven big players with grants for many years are interested in other means of reliable support

Visualizing Cultures