web 2.0 authorship: issues of referencing and citation for academic integrity
TRANSCRIPT
Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 112–118
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Internet and Higher Education
Web 2.0 authorship: Issues of referencing and citation for academic integrity
Kathleen Gray a,⁎, Celia Thompson a, Rosemary Clerehan b, Judithe Sheard b, Margaret Hamilton c
a Biomedical Multimedia Unit, Level 4, 766 Elizabeth Street, The University of Melbourne VIC 3010, Australiab Monash University VIC 3800, Australiac RMIT University GPO Box 2476V Melbourne VIC 3001, Australia
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 8344 8936; fax: +E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Gray).
1096-7516/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. Alldoi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.03.001
A B S T R A C T
A R T I C L E I N F OArticle history:
Web 2.0 authoring forms su Accepted 10 March 2008Keywords:Academic integrityAuthorshipCitationReferencingScholarly communicationSocial softwareStyle guidesWeb 2.0
ch as wikis and blogs, social bookmarking, and audio and video podcasting pose achallenge to academic authorship traditions. This paper reviews the provisions made in major academicreferencing and citation style guides for acknowledging content and ideas that may be published using thesenew web authoring forms. It offers an overview of features of web 2.0 authoring forms and explores conceptsof authoring that can help academics to understand the challenges of working with these forms. It providesexamples of referencing and citation in scholarly and scientific communication, and concludes that theconceptual basis of referencing and citation as expressed in current systems and standards needs reform inorder to bring academic integrity to the use of these new forms of authorship.
© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Creative, user-friendly web 2.0 authoring is burgeoning outside ofacademia; there is flourishing public use of a range of widely availablenew web authoring forms. In formal academic settings in the earlypart of the 21st century it may be not only feasible but preferable touse these forms to fulfil essential functions of scholarly communica-tion — registration, certification, dissemination, archiving andrecognition (Roosendaal and Guerts 1997 cited in Van de Sompeland Lagoze (2007, p. 32)). If so, it is critical that there are thoughtfullydesigned academic protocols for using such forms, to ensure that anychanges preserve the core values of rigor and integrity in scholarlyand scientific writing. McDonald (2006) (p. 1-2 of 6) argues that,in “this move toward the acceptance of a fluid publishing model[…] it is still important that we not destroy the integrity of theintellectual property we now find so easy to copy and manipulate”.Whether or not they choose to adopt and adapt these new authoringforms in their own research and teaching, academics must respondto the impact of new authoring forms on traditional academicwriting practices and expectations, and their response must be acollective one.
This paper begins with an overview of the features of web 2.0authoring forms, raising questions about the use of web 2.0 author-ing as a mode of scholarly and scientific communication. Aca-
61 3 8344 4998.
rights reserved.
demics' reliance on current referencing and citation style guidesruns the risk of providing too little information about web 2.0sources, thus attenuating the tradition of the ‘great chain ofknowledge’ on which academic work rests. This paper reviews theprovisions made in major academic referencing and citation styleguides for acknowledging content and ideas that may be publishedusing new web authoring forms. It uses examples to show thatresearchers and writers of scholarly and scientific works are makingreference to content that is published in such forms, and are makinga variety of efforts to attribute such content appropriately. Itconcludes that the conceptual basis of referencing and citation,as expressed in current systems and standards, needs reform inorder to bring academic integrity to the use of these new forms ofauthorship. Academic authors should be able not only to referencebut also to produce original work in these forms, knowing that suchwork is cited in a manner enabling recognition and critical appraisalby others.
2. Aspects of web 2.0 authoring
2.1. Features of web 2.0 authoring forms
Blogging, podcasting, social bookmarking, social networking andwiki writing are the examples of web 2.0 authoring forms which arethe focus of this paper. While treated somewhat separately here,in fact they often are found closely integrated in a single web site.Some of the findings in this paper may apply equally to other web 2.0
113K. Gray et al. / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 112–118
authoring forms of expression, such as collaborative documentediting, instant messaging, and virtual worlds.
A blog has been defined as “an easily created, easily updateableWebsite that allows an author (or authors) to publish instantly to theInternet from any Internet connection” (Richardson, 2006) (p.17).Blogs typically allow creation of new pages, publishing of materials informs such as text, graphics, audio and video, different presentationsof content, facilities for archiving, and mechanisms to allow otherauthors to add entries or provide feedback on entries. Blogs tend to beindividualistic rather than collaborative, foregrounding individualover group expression (Duffy & Bruns, 2006).
Podcasting allows anyone to upload audio or video files to a website, fromwhere they can be played on-demand online or downloadedto a personal player device (Russell Educational Consultancy andProductions, n.d.). While a podcast may be created by a productionteam, new technologies make it easy for an individual amateur toproduce a professional-quality podcast. Podcast files may be re-usedin whole or in part (sampled or remixed) by those who downloadthem. Podcasts can be made available in a web site that enables acommunity of interest to develop as others add ratings, comments ortheir own versions of the podcast.
Social bookmarking allows a user to build and store a collection ofpersonally chosenweb-based resources over time in a database that isautomatically maintained and shared on a web site. The user canassign his/her own keywords or “tags” and annotations (such ascomments and reviews) to each resource, and may be able to addcomments on other people's bookmarked resources as well. The socialbookmarkingweb sitemay display rankings of bookmarked resources,including “tag clouds”. Resources or groups of resources may be im-ported from or exported to a personal citation management softwareprogram.
Social networking systems “allow users to describe themselves andtheir interests, and they generally implement notions of friends,ranking, and communities” (Franklin & van Harmelen, 2007) (p.7).Social networking web sites are used not only for socialising andmarketing, but also for educational and professional networking, andthey may be used as part of an organisation's or community's knowl-edge management system.
Awiki is aweb sitewhose content can be continuously edited by itsusers, creating a dynamic document.Wikipedia, themost well known,is a free online encyclopaedia designed, in 2001, by Jimmy Wales andLarry Sanger to realiseWales' (2004) dream of “aworld inwhich everysingle person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all humanknowledge”. Wiki readers/writers are able to become participatingmembers of “a society of authorship” (Rushkoff, 2004).
From this overview of the features of widely available web 2.0authoring tools it is clear that, if scholarly communication is toembrace or simply to keep pace with them, changes are required inthe way that textual authorship and publication are formally under-stood and represented in academic codes of practice. While web 2.0authoring forms offer novel and creative possibilities for scholarly andscientific communication, they also pose particular challenges in thisdomain. As Dron (2006, p. 129) aptly puts it, “Trust may be broken inseveral ways, some of which are peculiar to social software.”
The reputation of academic work relies in significant measure onthe application of academic referencing and citation rules that upholdimportant conventions of attribution and thus support academicintegrity. To the extent that academics want to or have to use web 2.0authoring forms as part of their repertoire, whether to disseminatetheir work or to reflect on others', they need to be confident thatthey are observing these academic conventions when they draw uponthe essential aspects of web 2.0 forms of expression. This involves ashift from personal to public, from individual to collective, frominformational to conversational, from definitive to provisional, fromoriginal to remixed, from alphanumeric to multimedia, from taxon-omy to folksonomy.
This paper next reviews current thinking about how the ideas ofintellectual integrity, fairness, honesty and transparency can best beunderstood in scholarly and scientific knowledge dissemination, withthe advent of web 2.0 authoring. It then reports on an investigation ofhow adequate academic referencing and citation conventions are tothe task of upholding such intellectual values at present, with the aimof opening up new pathways for discussion about how to advancescholarly communication practices with respect to web 2.0 authoring.
2.2. Academic integrity issues in web 2.0 authoring
Academic integrity issues in working with web 2.0 authoring formsmay be encountered in various domains of the work of academics, forexample, when they critique others' work, produce new work forpublication, and induct students into academic work. As authoring inthese new forms inevitably develops, “attribution of statements willbecome increasingly important” and “[as we seek] to communicatemore sophisticated (and more useful) statements, we will need toexpress them appropriately”, according to Downes (2007) (p.1 of 1).However, as Siemens (2007) (p.5 of 5) points out, academics “do nothave a clear model of implementation for scholarship in light of currentonline trends”. Established conventions for paraphrasing and quotation,referencing and citation, originality and attribution do not appropriatelyconvey the nature of content in these forms, which are described asinherently co-constructed, connected and continuous by, for example,Martin (2005), Nillson, Ekloff and Ottoson (2005), Richardson (2006)and Wesch (2007).
Increasingly the primary data and the “text” of ideas and argu-ments that are needed to support research in many fields of study areappearing initially, and often exclusively, in web 2.0 authoring forms.This phenomenon has been characterised as the intellectual equiva-lent of the economic “long tail” of the web (for example in De Roureand Goble (2007), p.3 of 4, and in Lorenzo, Oblinger and Dziuban(2007), p.10). Cohen (2007) (p.1 of 4), coining the term “social scholar”,suggests that many researchers now switch between traditional andnon-traditional sources, including “blogs, RSS feeds, social book-marking sites, podcasts and other multimedia, document repositories,dot-com full-text search portals, online discussion communities, dataderived from mashups, etc.” Researchers accustomed to finding theirway around the traditional literature may find that work published inthese new forms is not so easy to reference, or to appraise from others'references.
A further and well-documented concern (for example, Kulathur-amaiyer &Maurer, 2007) is the rising level of plagiarism that newwebauthoring forms are said to facilitate among university students. Withgrowing understanding and acknowledgement of the developingnature ofweb-based “social research”, it is increasingly recognised thatconstructive responses to these new forms are called for— pedagogiesthat refine and value students' use of them in higher education. AsSigthorsson (2005, para.8–9) points out, “Plagiarism, far from beingsome sort of Internet-borne plague on the house of education, is asymptom of an emerging mode of reading and writing as usage — asparticipation in the creation of a social network of texts [...] Thepedagogical challenge is to help students to participate in all of this”.But as the Horizon Report (2007 p. 9) notes, there are significantchallenges in “marshalling” educational uses of web 2.0 authoringforms. For example, Darbyshire and Burgess (2006 p. 31) cite anacademic integrity initiative to encourage students to “know & follow(carefully) the rules for quoting & referencing”; but the question is,how many academics are able to teach students to apply the existingrules to these new forms?
Every author has the moral right to have his/her work properlyattributed when it is used by others. Moreover, it is essential toacademics' identity and success that they have their individualcontributions to the body of knowledge in a field properly ascribed.But attributionmay be less clear and certain if one opts to disseminate
114 K. Gray et al. / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 112–118
using web 2.0 authoring forms. Nevertheless, these new forms arebeing adopted as supplements or even alternatives to other forms oflearned publication and communication as discussed for example, inACLS (2006), Hannay (2007) and Martinsen (2007). This trend is saidto be “blurring the boundary between publications and data” (Fink &Bourne, 2007) (p.28), and turning “the linear ‘gather, collect, share’process inherent in academic research into a circular ‘gather, collect,share and network’ process” (Emamy & Cameron, 2007) (p.1 of 12). Itis not certain how the trend will translate into an individualacademic's reputation or career prospects without a shared set ofconventions to associate individuals with their output.
Before being able to apply or teach rules of acknowledgement thatapply to web 2.0 authoring forms, academics need to revisit their owntheoretical understanding of the authorship process, and consider theplace of the authoring practices of the new reading/writing prosu-mers, who are the simultaneous consumers (readers) and producers(writers) of digital texts and identities (Satchell in Scott, (2007, p. 5)).Insights can be found, it is suggested (see also Thompson, 2006), byturning to Bakhtin's (1981, 1984) work on dialogism and Kristeva's(1986, 1996) writings on intertextuality and identity formation.
2.3. Theoretical insights into web 2.0 authoring
Bakhtinclaims that texts are “filledwithothers'words, varyingdegreesof otherness or varying degrees of ‘our-ownness’ …” (1986, p. 89). Heargues further that this interaction between texts or dialogic forms doesnot denote contact between objects or “things” but constitutes anengagementbetween “personalities” (or subjects) (p.162). Thus, dialogicrelations (see Bakhtin,1981, p. 427)may occur between different people(external dialogue) and alsowithin the same subject (internal dialogue),in theauthoringprocess. Bakhtinhas also termed this internaldialoguea“dialogue with the self” (1984, p. 213) in which all words are “double-voiced”, containing within them a “conflict of voices” in which each isreflected in the other and interacts with the other in a continuousprocess of call and response (pp.74–75). Bakhtin's insight into whatoccurs in the process of authoring provides a pathway into the devel-opment of a theory of subjectivity (or identity) that is dynamic,multipleand ongoing.
Kristeva has articulated this theory further through the concept ofintertextuality. Kristeva (1996) emphasises the interconnectedness ofall texts and argues that different identities are realised both in theproduction and consumption of texts. Furthermore, textual meaningsare neither fixed nor stable, but are created in the “continuousmovement back and forth in the space between the origin and all thepossible connotative meanings” (pp.190–191). For Kristeva, such anintertextual framework provides the means through which allexperiences of reading and writing can be understood. From thisperspective therefore, an author's identity can be seen as foreverevolving and in a constant process of becoming (1996, p. 190). Thisevolving identity is not only dynamic and mercurial but also on trial(following the connotations of the French expression “le sujet-en-proces”): a subject-in-process awaiting the judgement of others.
The analogy of the “subject-in-process (and) on trial” seemsparticularly apposite to the web 2.0 reader–writer-as-emergent-author awaiting assessment/confirmation as a legitimate academicwriter fromher/his peers. Academicweb 2.0 authors, therefore,maybethought of as prosumers who are subjects-in-process-and-on-trialengaged in the construction of text that is dialogically created. Eventhough a text is internally constructed by the individual academic, theauthoring dialogue is socio-historically influenced by broader web 2.0culture. In web 2.0 authoring forms, the authoring dialogue can rangeover ideas discursively during a fixed period of time, yet alsoanticipates further intertextual orders of meaning that can be createdmore quickly and easily by many more future reader/writer con-tributors, than ever before (“serial sharing”, according to Amitay,Yogev, & Yom-Tov, 2007). But heightened speed, ubiquity and multi-
plicity of authoring do not in their own right yield increasedtransparency and accountability that would support academic integ-rity of web 2.0 authoring forms; indeed, without deliberate effort theymay lead to its decline.
There follows an examination of existing practices, protocols andprinciples for acknowledging ideas expressed in these forms. Thisexploration is prefaced by noting that academic ideas of originalityand authorship always have been socio-historically conditioned, asdiscussed by Johnson and Clerehan (2005), for example. The focus inthis paper is on the need, created by the emergence of academic useof web 2.0 forms in the past few years, to review the conventionsthat have supported academic authorship traditions for manygenerations.
3. Referencing and citation of web 2.0 authoring forms
3.1. Observing current referencing and citation practices
Web 2.0 authoring forms are being cited in scholarly and scientificwriting at present. Table 1 shows examples of the kinds of citations ofweb 2.0 authoring forms that can be found in a cross-section ofcurrent scholarly and scientific papers from peer-reviewed journalsand conference proceedings.
The paucity of detail provided in these references (column 1),compared to the detail of the convention used in describing thereferring paper (column 2), attests to the lack of information uponwhich tomake an initial academic appraisal of the source. Informationabout authorship is uneven across forms, as are other details thatcould help in understanding the process of textual construction, suchas the identity of any sponsoring or publishing institution ororganisation (where URLs may sometimes but not always assist). Atfirst glance the referencing and citation practices illustrated here seemto indicate an unscholarly lack of concern for acknowledgement bythose who used these sources. But they are more likely a symptom ofthe under-developed guidance available to academic authors whenthey need to cite such forms.
There are circular problems for an academic seeking to improveher/his practice in this respect. A problemwith working by example isthat, if there is no recognised way of citing a web 2.0 authoring form,there is no easy way to find where, in the literature, it has been citedappropriately. A problem with providing peer review and feedbackabout a colleague's or a student's references is that, because there is solittle conventional information encoded in the reference list, it may benecessary to consult the full source of each one in order to make ajudgment about the adequacy of a literature review.
3.2. Applying current academic referencing and citation rules
Current versions of the major academic citation style guides — forexample, IEEE (2006), MLA (2006) and NLM (2006)—make little or noreference to web 2.0 authoring forms; notably, APA (2007) haspublished a separate style guide to electronic references whichprovides limited treatment of podcast, blog and wiki sources.Attempts to explain style guide rules barely touch on many webauthoring forms — see, for example, fairly complex explanations ofhow to cite sources that are in the form of web-based audio and video(Harnack and Kleppinger 2003; NoodleTools, n.d.).
Table 2 shows examples, generated by the authors of this paperfollowing four widely used style guides, of citations of web 2.0authoring forms as they would appear in a reference list.
At pains to give correct examples in Table 2, the authors foundthemselves grappling with divergent readings of style guidelines(e.g. about author, editor and publisher entities); inconsistencies inmapping new forms onto old (e.g. book reviews, databases andephemeral literature); and interpretations of a meaningful level atwhich to reference (e.g. a whole site versus parts of a site).
Table 1Example references to web 2.0 authoring forms, found in current scholarly and scientific papers
Reference to: Listed as a reference in:
Blogging examples“Siemens, G (2005) Connectivism: learning as networked creation.http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/networks.htm [viewed 29 July 2006]”(Wise & Quealy, 2006, p.907)
Wise, L., & Quealy, J. (2006). At the limits of social constructivism: Moving beyondLMS to re-integrate scholarship. Pp. 899–907. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annualascilite conference: Who's Learning? Whose Technology?, 3–6 December 2006, TheUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p158.pdf
“Siemens, G. (2006b, March 27). What makes edubloggers tick? In Elearnspace.Retrieved April 29, 2006, from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/archives/002408.html”(Sevelj, 2006, p.17)
Sevelj, M. (2006). All eLearning in the same basket? Challenging a social constructivist‘fit for all’. Paper presented at The Distance Education Association of New ZealandBiennial Conference, 3–5 July 2006, Auckland University of Technology (AUT),Auckland, New Zealand.
Podcasting examples“Brooklyn Museum Podcasts www.brooklynmuseum.org/podcasts”(Griffey, 2007, p. 34)
Griffey, J. (2007). Podcast 1-2-3, Library Journal, 132 (11), 32–34.
“Kahn, (2006) “Morning Stories” WBGH Boston. January, 2006”(Price, 2007, p.3 of 17)
Price, A., Gay, P., Searle T., & Brissenden, G. (2007). A history and informal assessmentof the slacker astronomy podcast. Astronomy Education Review, 1(5), 1–17.
Social networking examples“Smith, J. (2006). Updated lists of all companies and regions on Facebook. RetrievedMay 9, 2007 from http://www.insidefacebook.com/2006/11/15” (Ellison, Steinfieldand Lampe, 2007, References section)
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends:" Socialcapital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication, 12(4), article 1. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html
“[30] The Facebook. Privacy policy. http://facebook.com/policy.php, August 2005.”(Gross, Acquisti & Heinz III, 2005, p.80)
Gross, R., Acquisti, A., & Heinz III, H. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in onlinesocial networks. Pp. 71–80. In WPES '05: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Workshop onPrivacy in the Electronic Society. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1102214
Social bookmarking examples“del.icio.us/tag/cscw. http://del.icio.us/tag/cscw” (Lee, 2006, p.194) Lee, K.J. (2006). What goes around comes around: an analysis of del.icio.us as social
space. Pp.191–194. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference oncomputer supported cooperative work, November 4–8, 2006, Banff, Canada. New York:ACM Press. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1180875.1180905,
“Del.icio.us. http://del.icio.us. (Retrieved Sept 29, 2006).”(Chi & Mytkowicz, 2007, p.9 of 10)
Chi, E.H., & Mytkowicz, T. (2007). Understanding navigability of social tagging systems.Paper presented at CHI: conference on human factors in computing systems,28 April– 3 May, 2007, San Jose, California, USA. Retrieved 1 October, 2007 fromhttp://www.viktoria.se/altchi/submissions/submission_edchi_0.pdf
Wiki writing examples“seek.ecoinformatics.org” (Michener et al., 2005, p.321) Michener, W., Beach, J., Bowers, S., Downey, L., Jones, M., Ludäscher, B., Pennington, D.,
Rajasekar, A., Romanello, S., Schildhauer, M., Vieglais, D. & Zhang, J. (2005). Data integrationand workflow solutions for ecology. Pp. 321–324. In Proceedings of the Second InternationalWorkshop on Data Integration in the Life Sciences, San Diego. Retrieved September 23, 2007from http://www.springerlink.com/content/10nx48hhjvytfl3d/
“Wikipedia, s.v. “Social software,” June 30 2005. Accessed July 1, 2005,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_software” (Chawner & Lewis, 2006, p.43)
Chawner, B., & Lewis, P. (2006). “WikiWikiWebs: New Ways to Communicate in aWeb Environment.” Information Technology and Libraries, 25(1), 33–43. RetrievedSeptember 30, 2007 from www.ala.org/ala/lita/litapublications/ital/252006/number4decembera/indexv25.pdf
115K. Gray et al. / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 112–118
To articulate the range of issues encountered in compiling Table 2is to echo the ideas of Bakhtin and Kristeva about multiple voices,multiple roles and multiple temporal states in the texts. The styleguides generated more questions than answers about:
• Group authorship without institutional sponsorship• Very large numbers of authors in a group• Individual contributions in a multi-authored site• Individual contributions in a multi-modal site• Individual roles in a multi-media work• Pseudonyms
Such problems are not entirely new in bibliographic science, butthe empowerment and proliferation of web 2.0 forms escalates theneed for systematic thought about academic conventions that willpreserve and promote integrity in the use of these forms. Further-more, the effort required is more conceptual than technical. Personalacademic citation management tools, such as EndNote and LaTeX, canstill only output formatted references according to how data areentered, and so do not automate consistency (for example, if a date inthe form “March 1, 2007” is entered for one source and “01/03/2007”for another). Most innovations in developing software for citationmanagement are still focused on works published in the format ofconventional refereed journal articles (Wikipedia, 2007) and takelittle account of web 2.0 authoring.
3.3. Identifying essential elements of referencing and citation
A basic skill supporting academic integrity is the ability to applyand decode the elements of a web reference, using the categories of arecognised framework such as MLA (2006):
Name of the author, editor, compiler, or translator of the source/Title [of the work]…/Name of the editor, compiler, or translator …/Publication information for any print version of the source/Titleof the Internet site…/Name of the editor of the site (if given)/Versionnumber … or other identifying number/Date of electronic publica-tion, of the latest update, or of posting/For awork froma subscriptionservice, the name of the service…/For a posting to a discussion list orforum, the name of the list or forum/The number range or totalnumber of pages, paragraphs, or other sections, if they arenumbered/Name of any institution or organization sponsoring thesite (if not cited earlier)/Date when the researcher accessed thesource/URL of the source [or alternative linking information].
Undertaking this exercise with the blogging, podcasting, socialbookmarking, social networking and wiki writing examples fromTable 2 proved to be as challenging as following style guide rulesdescribed in the previous section. For some categories, informationfrom the web 2.0 authoring forms did not exist or had to be inferred,for example, name of any institution or organisation sponsoring the
Table 2Example references to web 2.0 authoring forms, following major style guides
Style Reference list entry
Blogging exampleAPA Siemens, G. (2007). Blended Learning. Retrieved 1 October, 2007, from http://elearnspace.org/blog/Harvard Siemens, G. (2007) In elearnspace: everything elearning, Vol. 2007 (Ed, Siemens, G.) George Siemens, accessed 30 September 2007 from http://elearnspace.org/blog/IEEE [#] G. Siemens, "Blended Learning," in elearnspace: everything elearning, vol. 2007, G. Siemens, Ed.: George Siemens (2007). Available: http://elearnspace.org/blog/NLM Siemens G. Blended Learning. [weblog] 2007 [cited 2007 1 October]. Available from: http://elearnspace.org/blog/
Podcasting exampleAPA Anderson, D., Snedeker, S., & Roberts, D. (2007). Remembering silent spring: The re-emergence of DDT. Science & the City, New York Academy of Sciences
podcasts. Retrieved September, 25, 2007, from http://www.nyas.org/snc/podcasts.asp?pager_podcast=2&;Harvard Anderson, D Snedeker S & Roberts D 2007, ‘Remembering silent spring: The re-emergence of DDT’, Science & the City, New York Academy of Sciences
podcasts, accessed 30 September 2007 from http://www.nyas.org/snc/podcasts.asp?pager_podcast=2&;IEEE D. Anderson, S. Snedeker, and D. Roberts.(2007). Remembering silent spring: The Re-emergence of DDT. Science & the City, New York Academy of Sciences.
[Podcast]. Available: http://www.nyas.org/snc/podcasts.asp?pager_podcast=2&;NLM Anderson D, Snedeker S, Roberts D. Remembering silent spring: The Re-emergence of DDT. Science & the City, New York Academy of Sciences [Podcast].
Available from: http://www.nyas.org/snc/podcasts.asp?pager_podcast=2&;
Social networking examplesAPA Example 1. Main site Facebook. Retrieved October 8, 2007 from http://www.facebook.com/
Example 2 Sub-site of main site "TRENZ Magazine", Facebook. Retrieved October 8, 2007 from http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2240308702Harvard Example 1. Main site Facebook, viewed 8 October 2007, accessed 30 September 2007 from http://www.facebook.com/
Example 2 Sub-site of main site "TRENZ Magazine", Facebook, viewed 8 October 2007, http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2240308702IEEE Example 1. Main site Facebook, Available: http://www.facebook.com/
Example 2 Sub-site of main site "TRENZ Magazine", Facebook, Available: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2240308702NLM Example 1. .Main site Facebook [webpage on the Internet]. [cited 2007 October 8]. Available from: http://www.facebook.com/
Example 2 Sub-site of main site "TRENZ Magazine," Facebook [webpage on the Internet]. [cited 2007 October 8]. Available from: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2240308702
Social bookmarking examplesAPA Example 1. aacronym, …. & zuck2002. (2007). Connotea: Bookmarks matching tag environment. Retrieved 1 October 2007 from Connotea Web site
http://www.connotea.orgExample 2. band. (2007). Comments for http://climatesci.colorado.edu/ [Peer commentary on “Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog”].Retrieved from http://www.connotea.org/comments/uri/0742a5ae76fb49052d219ad5804e73a8
Harvard Example 1. aacronym, …. & zuck2002 2007. Connotea: Bookmarks matching tag environment. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://www.connotea.orgExample 2. band 2007. Comments for http://climatesci.colorado.edu/ Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://www.connotea.org/comments/uri/0742a5ae76fb49052d219ad5804e73a8
IEEE Example 1. aacronym, …. and zuck2002. (2007). Connotea: Bookmarks matching tag environment. Connotea. [Online]. Available: http://www.connotea.orgExample 2. band. (2007). Comments for http://climatesci.colorado.edu/ . Connotea. [Online]. Available: http://www.connotea.org/comments/uri/0742a5ae76fb49052d219ad5804e73a8
NLM Example 1. aacronym, abraxas06, AHSG, akkihal, Alicia, altraffica, et al. Connotea: Bookmarks matching tag environment.[database on the Internet].Connotea. c2007 [updated 2007 Sep 25; cited 2007 Oct 1]. Available from: http://www.connotea.orgExample 2. Connotea [homepage on the Internet]. Connotea; 2005-[cited 2007 Oct 1]. Comments for http://climatesci.colorado.edu/; [about 1 p.]. Availablefrom: http://www.connotea.org/comments/uri/0742a5ae76fb49052d219ad5804e73a8 Files updated continuously.
Wiki exampleAPA Welcome to SEEK. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from The SEEK Wiki: http://seek.econinformatics.org/Harvard ‘Welcome to SEEK’, SEEK, wiki page, October 5 2006, accessed 30 September 2007,bhttp://seek.ecoinformatics.org/N.IEEE [#] SEEK-wiki: Welcome to SEEK, supported by the National Science Foundation under award 0225676, 2004. [Online].
Available: http://seek.ecoinformatics.org. [Accessed: Sept. 30, 2007].NLM seek.ecoinformatics.org [homepage on the Internet]. The Science Environment for Ecological Knowledge; c 2004 [updated 2006 October 5;
cited 2007 Sept. 30]. Available from: http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/.
116 K. Gray et al. / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 112–118
site. OtherMLA categories did not seem to apply, for example, “versionnumber … or other identifying number”. The information to fit intoother categories was impossibly detailed — for example, the totalnumber of pages, paragraphs, or other sections.
Furthermore, within guiding principles for referencing electronicdocuments produced by the International Organization for Standardi-zation (ISO, 2004), web 2.0 authoring forms appear to be governed bythe same rules for description as earlier technologies like microfiche,CD-ROMs and messages to USENET groups; as such, works in theseforms are a longway from being conveyed adequately for the purposesof scholarly and scientific acknowledgement. For example, key ISO690-2 elements for an “electronic message” (ISO 2004, Section 5.3.2)are as follows:
• Primary responsibility (of message) (required)• Title (of message) (required)• Title (of host message system) (required)• Type of medium (required)• Subordinate responsibility/recipient(s) (optional)
• Place of publication (required)• Publisher (required)• Date of publication (required)• Date of citation (required)• Numeration within host message system (optional)• Location within host message system (required)• Notes (optional)• Availability and access (required, except for personal or unpublishedcommunications)
Someof the difficultywith the task of parsingweb2.0 contentmaybelocated on the continuumof complexities that existwhen trying tomakebibliographic description standards work for audiovisual media ormultimedia, such as film or software. Other concepts such as hostmessage system and place of publication hardly seem to apply. Variouselements of theweb2.0 authoring forms treated indepthhere andothersmentioned in passing — including avatars, instant messaging, mashingup, rating, syndication, tagging and trackbacks—would be indescribablewithout arbitrary and idiosyncratic reliance on optional “notes”.
117K. Gray et al. / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 112–118
4. Conclusion
Referencing and citationmay be used for purposes which are, interalia, corrective, corroborative, documentary, evidential, historical,informational, methodological (Hodges 1978 cited in Cronin 1984cited in Friedman (2005, p. 17)). The associated principles, protocolsand practices are an essential part of the repertoire of academicintegrity. The picture that this paper presents of what is happening tothis aspect of academic integrity is symptomatic of a larger change inhow theoretical perspectives on authorship are affected by the use ofthese dialogic, multivoiced, mercurial new forms. It can be seen howweb 2.0 authoring forms are blurring the boundaries in scholarly andscientific communication between:
• Formal/authorised and informal/unofficial publication• Units of content production• Contributions of different individuals• Creators and consumers of content• Data and commentary• Academic and “other” aspects of one's identity
4.1. Recommendations
This investigation raises a number of practical concerns. Author-ship in web 2.0 authoring forms must be recognised as a significantsource of data and a major opportunity for communication andknowledge formation. Academic protocols, for assessment andpublication, for example, need to be updated to enable students andresearchers to gain legitimation and scholarly and scientific recogni-tion for critically rigorous work that they express in such forms.
Staff development workshops and resources about web 2.0authoring that are on offer to most academics tend to focus ontechnological know-how — at the expense of advice on academicquality and integrity, exploratory conversations about the implica-tions for the integrity of academic writing and shared decisions aboutthe shapes that new protocols and practices might take. Staff cannothope to offer much guidance to students about appropriate academicuses of such forms until these concerns are addressed.
Developments in new tools for e-scholarship or e-research seem topromise to capture the content of a web site at the time of its retrievalby a scholar — Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), which provide a morepermanent link than a URL does, for some types of web content;Electronic Serial Numbers (ESNs) which assign a unique identifier thatenables rights statements to be associated with digital content of allsorts; and WebCite, which archives a snapshot of a web page, tosupport persistence of hyperlinks in academic publications. As yet,such retrieval tools offer no further insights into how to categorise theelements within the “original” work in an intellectually rigorousmanner, so they, along with elaborate schemes for metadata andcataloguing, do not meet the key requirements for a concise system ofreferencing and citation to support academic integrity in web 2.0authoring.
Peak bodies in each academic discipline must show leadership indetermining practices to be followed in their members' own originalwork and in their use of thework of others, so as to ensure attention tothe fundamentals of acknowledgement: a method of identificationthat supports the moral right of the creator to be attributed; a form ofshorthand about structure, extent, provenance and date that supportscritical appraisal of a source and its context; and a standards-basedsystem that supports the chain of information and knowledge.
4.2. Future directions
The findings in this paper are not merely procedural matters foracademic work, but open up questions about its very nature andfuture. According to Schlitz, Truyen and Coppens (2008, p. 95), “the
sharply rising number of weblogs, the vast possibilities of knowledgegathering, and knowledge sharing tools such as wikis have seriouslydistorted the semantics of a scientific system conventionally believedto be occupied by scientific institutions (universities, etc.), curricula,and individuals”. How do such forms change present-day under-standing of the academic work of contributing to the sum of humanknowledge? Under what circumstances might identifiably academicauthorship be “countable” or not, in such forms? What does it implyabout the worth of academic authoring, or the capacity for concepts ofacademic authorship to keep pace with change, when most styleguides and underpinning taxonomies seem to ignore the existence ofweb 2.0 authoring forms?
An improved system of academic integrity in referencing andciting web 2.0 sources may evolve from arbitrary or idiosyncraticchoices about usage by individual academics, but not of its own accordand not soon enough. There is a need for a concerted collaborativeeffort by academics at the discipline level to refine referencing andcitation practices so as to reflect changing theoretical and practicalperspectives on academic authorship that arise from the phenomenonof web 2.0 authoring. Otherwise, in the medium term, the findingsreported here may lend weight to the predictions of Chodorow (2000,p. 91) that, in the electronic age, “the form and substance of scholarlycommunications will change over time, so that it will be difficult totrace the historical flow of the work”, “a free-flowing stream ofscholarly discourse will reduce the role of scholarly authority in theprogress of research” and “the roles of individual authors will beobscured in the electronic environment”.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of their colleagueMartin Dick of RMIT University in helping to shape the ideas in thispaper.
References
ACLS [American Council of Learned Societies] (2006). Our cultural commonwealth: Thereport of the ACLS Commission on Cyberinfrastructure for the Humanities and SocialSciences.: American Council of Learned Societies Retrieved October, 2007 fromhttp://www.acls.org/cyberinfrastructure/OurCulturalCommonwealth.pdf
APA [American Psychological Association] (2007). APA style guide to electronicreferences.: American Psychological Association Retrieved 29 October, 2007 fromhttp://books.apa.org/books.cfm?id=4210509
Amitay, E., Yogev, S., & Yom-Tov, E. (2007). Serial sharers: Detecting split identities ofweb authors. Proceedings of ACM SIGIR Workshop on Plagiarism Analysis, AuthorshipIdentification, and Near-Duplicate Detection (PAN), Amsterdam, NetherlandsRetrieved October, 2007 from http://einat.webir.org/SIGIR_PAN_workshop_2007.pdf
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin. USA: University of Texas Press.Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. Minneapolis, USA: University of
Minnesota Press.Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Chodorow, S. (2000). Scholarship & scholarly communication in the electronic age.
Educause Review, 35(1), 86−92 Retrieved 28 November, 2007 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM001B.pdf
Cohen, L. I. (2007). Social scholarship on the rise. Message posted l 5 April, 2007. Retrieved30 November, 2007 from http://liblogs.albany.edu/library20/2007/04/social_scholarship_on_the_rise.html
Darbyshire, P., & Burgess, S. (2006). Strategies for dealing with plagiarism and the webin higher education. Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, 1(4), 27−39Retrieved 28 November, 2007 from http://www.jbsge.vu.edu.au/issues/vol01no4/Darbyshire-Burgess.pdf
De Roure, D., & Goble, D. (2007). myExperiment— a web 2.0 virtual researchenvironment. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Virtual ResearchEnvironments and CollaborativeWork, Edinburgh. Retrieved 15 October, 2007 fromhttp://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13961/01/myExptVRE31.pdf
Downes, S. (2007). The world is now closed.Message posted 14 September, 2007. Retrieved16 October, 2007 from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=41668
Dron, J. (2006). The pleasures and perils of social software. Proceedings of the HigherEducation Academy Information and Computer Sciences 7th Annual Conference,Dublin, Ireland (pp. 127−131). Retrieved 16 October, 2007 from http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/Events/HEADublin2006_V2/papers/Jon%20Dron%2024.pdf
Duffy, Peter, & Bruns, Axel (2006). The use of blogs, wikis and RSS in Education: Aconversation of possibilities. Paper presented at the Online Learning and TeachingConference 2006, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
118 K. Gray et al. / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 112–118
Emamy, K., & Cameron, R. (2007). Citeulike: A researcher's social bookmarking service.Ariadne, 51 Retrieved 30 April, 2007 from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue51/emamy-cameron/
Fink, J., & Bourne, P. (2007). Reinventing scholarly communication for the electronic age.CTWatch Quarterly, 3(3), 26−31 Retrieved 28 November, 2007 from http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/archives/august-2007/
Franklin, T., & van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web 2.0 for content for learning and teaching inhigher education Retrieved 26 November, 2007 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/digital_repositories/web2-content-learning-and-teaching.pdf
Friedman, K. (2005). Reference and citation in design research. Paper presented at theResearch writing workshop at the Third International Conference on DesignResearch, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Hannay, T. (2007). Web 2.0 in science.CTWatch Quarterly, 3(3), 19−25 Retrieved 28November, 2007 from http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/archives/august-2007/
Harnack, A., & Kleppinger, E. (2003). Online!: a reference guide to using internet sources:FAQ index. Bedford / St. Martin's. Retrieved 29 October, 2007 from http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/online/faqindex.html
Horizon Report (2007). New Media Consortium and EDUCAUSE Learning initiative.Retrieved 29 October, 2007 from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2007_Horizon_Report.pdf
IEEE transactions, journals and letters information for authors (2006). IEEE. Retrieved29 October, 2007 from http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/pubs/transactions/auinfo03.pdf
ISO (2004). ISO 690-2: Information and documentation— Bibliographic references— Part 2.ISO [International Organization for Standardization], from http://www.collection-scanada.ca/iso/tc46sc9/standard/690-2e.htm
Johnson, A., & Clerehan, R. (2005). A rheme of one's own: How ‘original’ do we expectstudents to be? Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 2(3a), 37−47Retrieved 1 June, 2007 from http://jutlp.uow.edu.au/2005_v02_i03a/pdf/johnson_005.pdf
Kristeva, J. (1986). In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva Reader Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Kristeva, J. (1996). Intertextuality and literary interpretation (InterviewwithM.Waller).
Julia Kristeva Interviews (pp. 188−203). New York, USA: Columbia University Press.Kulathuramaiyer, N., &Maurer, H. (2007). Fighting plagiarism and IPR violation:Why is it
so important? Learned Publishing, 20(4), 252−258. doi:10.1087/095315107X239618.Lorenzo, G., Oblinger, D., & Dziuban, C. (2007). How choice, co-creation, and culture are
changing what it means to be net savvy. Educause Quarterly, 30(1), 6−12 Retrieved28 November, 2007 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EQM0711.pdf
Martin, A. (2005). The landscape of digital literacy. DigEuLit Project. Retrieved 1 March,2007 from http://www.digeulit.ec/docs/public.asp
Martinsen, D. (2007). Scholarly communication 2.0: Evolution or design? ACS ChemicalBiology, 2(6), 368−371. doi:10.1021/cb700111w.
McDonald, D. (2006). Web 2.0 and maintaining the integrity of online intellectualproperty. Web 2.0 Journal. Retrieved 28 November, 2007 from http://web2journal.com/read/190346_p.htm
MLA [Modern Language Association] (2006). How do I document sources from the Web inmy works-cited list? MLA [Modern Language Association] Retrieved 15 December,2006 from http://www.mla.org/style_faq4
Nillson, L., Eklof, A., & Ottosson, T. (2005). What's so original? The discourse oneducation and dishonesty in the wake of a technological revolution. Paperpresented at the 11th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Researchon Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Nicosia, Cyprus. Retrieved 1March, 2007 fromhttp://www.distans.hkr.se/ILLwebb/Earli_paper2005_whats_so_original_final.pdf
NLM (2006). International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Requirements forManuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Sample References.: NLM [NationalLibrary of Medicine] Retrieved 15 December, 2006 from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html
NoodleTools Knowledgebase: Citing sources. (n.d.). NoodleTools. Retrieved 1March,2007 from http://www.noodletools.com/kb/index.php?category=2
Richardson,Will (2006).Blogs,Wikis, Podcasts, and Other PowerfulWeb Tools for Classrooms.Thousand Oaks California, USA: Corwin Press.
Rushkoff, D. (2004). Renaissance prospects. Retrieved 18 March, 2007 from http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail243.html
Russell Educational Consultancy and Productions. (n.d.). Exploiting the educationalpotential of podcasting. RECAP Limited, Retrieved 25 September, 2007 from http://recap.ltd.uk/articles/podguide1.html
Schlitz, M., Truyen, F., & Coppens, H. (2007). Cutting the trees of knowledge: Socialsoftware, information architecture and their epistemic consequences. ThesisEleven, 89(1), 94–114. doi:10.1177/0725513607076135.
Scott, R. (2007). Life on the web invites a walk on the wild side. The University ofMelbourne Voice, 1(7), 5.
Siemens, G. (2007). Scholarship in an age of participation. elearnspace. Retrieved 29October, 2007 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/journal.htm
Sigthorsson, G. (2005). Copy/paste: The joys of plagiarism. M/C Journal, 8(3) Retrieved28 November, 2007 from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0507/04-sigthorsson.php
Thompson, C. (2006). Plagiarism or intertextuality? A study of the politics ofknowledge, identity and textual ownership in undergraduate student writing.PhD dissertation, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved 3November, 2007, from http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2100/369/1/01front.pdf
Van de Sompel, H., & Lagoze, C. (2007). Interoperability for the discovery, use, and re-useof units of scholarly communication.CTWatch Quarterly, 3(3), 32−57 Retrieved 28November, 2007 from http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/archives/august-2007/
Wales, J. (2004). Jimmy Wales. Wikiquote. Retrieved 12 October, 2007 from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales
Wesch, M. (2007).Web 2.0… TheMachine is Us/ing Us (Final version) Retrieved 1 April,2007 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlGopyXT_g
Wikipedia (2007). Reference management software. Retrieved 1 April, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_management_software