Discoverability and 21st Century Scholarly Communication: A local perspective

Carnegie Nairobi Workshop

10 March 2014

Michelle Willmers

Project Manager: OpenUCT Initiative

CC-BY

Addressing the discoverability imperative

Peer-reviewed research publications of eight African universities (2007 compared to 2001)

Source: Bunting & Cloete (2012)

Journal Articles

Conference Papers

Technical Reports

Working Papers

Policy Briefs

Blog Posts

Tweets

E-mails

Collaborative Documents

Images & Videos

Animations & Simulations

PresentationsScho

larly

Com

mun

icati

onSc

hola

rly C

omm

unic

ation

Tool

s AN

D Se

rvic

esTo

ols

AND

Serv

ices

PRESERVATION AND CURATION

Repository DigitalLibrary

OER Portal Website LMS

In Southern African context we are producing a great deal of important research, but fail to leverage it for maximum benefit.

Scholarly communication is the creation, transformation, dissemination and preservation of knowledge related to teaching, research and scholarly endeavors.

Principle change in global scholarly communication practice:

Change from predominance of journal article/book as sole artifact of knowledge production and scholarly communication > In which publishers were the purveyors of knowledge> and Impact Factor as sole measure of impact

to

Dynamic, object-driven knowledge exchange facilitated by internet, new tools and new approaches to scholarship> In which institutions play active role in knowledge dissemination> And there is a broad range of new tools, methodologies and metrics for generating data on downstream use and impact

In this semantically driven, object-oriented scholarly communication paradigm, metadata is the passport to participation.

In order for content to be findable and correctly contextualised, it needs to be curated.This is the job of both the academic and the institution/organisation.

We want to store things and put them somewhere safe so that they are easy to find and when people come across them they know what they can do with them. That’s curation.Reviewing, curating, sharing, marketing. That’s publishing.

What needs to be in place in order for academics to be able to participate in these new scholarly communication frameworks?

1. Objects need to be curated2. Objects need to be open and licensed (to people and machines) 3. Support structures need to be in place

> To support the curation of knowledge objects is to support the scholarly communication process

So…Where do we begin?

1. In order to realise the value of the full ecosystem we need to recognise the full ecosystem

2. Develop and recognise new breeds of scholarly communication professionals

1. Academics2. Librarians3. Research Managers4. What-you-macallits and Intermediaries

Extract from summary overview:

Source: University of Oxford DataPool Project

Scholarly Communication Stakeholders (Fairy & Owen 2013)

• Central IT– Storage– Computing resources– Networking– Programming / development– Database– Security

• Research Managers – Budget input / allocation– Researcher buy-in– Reportage / R&I integration

• Legal counsel– Guidance on IP, ethical and privacy considerations

• Library / IR– Classification and ingestion

• Computing services– Links to storage options and consortia– Provide information on cost to institution

• Other– Projects– Sponsored programmes– Institutional support structures

4. Explore regional collaboration and shared e-infrastructure {GLOCAL}

Skills > capacity > scalability

Values- Scientific scholarly communication largely dictated by disciplinary norms; but still, not everyone wants their work highly visible (especially in small countries where everyone knows each other)- Disciplinary conventions support open access sharing (ArXiv, etc), but do not hold a high regard for alternative outputs, unless their particular field has space or things like pre-prints or conference papers (journal articles are prized above all) CollaborationEasier to collaborate with global North due for practical reasons (funding, connectivity, e-infrastructure, administrative support, etc.)

Policy Environment- Institutions require a scaffolding of policies to regulate, govern and grow scholarly communicaton and 21st Century digital scholarship (e.g. open science embedded in institutional open access policies)- Some Southern African universities do not have some of the foundational components of these policy frameworks (such as IP policies)- The ambition to participate in 21st Century digital scholarship must be synergised with existing rewards and incentive structures at policy level – policy frameworks (not just a moral campaign)

Insights and Findings from the Scholarly Communication in Africa Programme

Open Access-Quality assurance constitutes a significant factor which needs to be navigated in the drive for open approaches to knowledge production and sharing-Open science vs protection against exploitation (particularly in context of traditional knowledge)

Scholarly Communication-Scientists lack platforms and skills for communicating their research with government or other communities outside of the academic context; and additionally require translational support-UoM FoS scholars who produce alternative outputs – briefings, reports, op-eds, public presentations – tend be individual senior scholars who are largely free of promotion concerns. R&I systems – and where a scholar is located in their career lifecycle – has a profound impact on how scholars communicate.

SCAP Insights and Findings (cont.)

Illustrating Impact:Are we in a position to meet the demands for improved measurement and dissemination of research outputs?

Summary of findings from Scholarly Communication in Africa Programme Altmetrics research:

1. Institutions do not maintain good records of research outputs2. Researchers do not retain quality information on their outputs3. Collecting identifiers and online locations would enable use of output data4. For outputs with identifiers, obtaining data on use and performance is simple5. There is limited social media activity around outputs6. Use of research is heavily biased towards North America and Europe

References

Banda T, Ngwira M & Becker B (2012) e-Infrastructures and Applications in Sub Saharan Africa: Challenges and Opportunities. CHAIN-REDS Presentation.

Bunting I & Cloete N (2012) Cross-National Performance Indicators: A Study of Eight African Universitites. Cape Town: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

Fairy & Owen (2013) Developing an Institutional Research Data Management Plan Service. ACTI EDUCAUSE Report, February 2013

Holl A (2012) Enhanced Journals: A Case Study with General Remarks. SURF Foundation Proceedings. Available at: http://boac.ceon.rs/index.php/BOAC/12/paper/view/83/14

Mouton J et al. (2010) The state of public science in the SADC region. Johannesburg: Southern African Regional Universities Association (SARUA)

Patrick M (2013) Survey results: Research data management knowledge and training needs among University of Oxford research support staff. Blog post, 14 June 2013. Available at: http://blogs.it.ox.ac.uk/damaro/2013/06/14/survey-results-research-data-management-knowledge-and-training-needs-among-university-of-oxford-research-support-staff/

michelle.willmers@uct.ac.zahttp://opencontent.uct.ac.za/

@scaprogramme