So - I am involved in this really cool new project at UC Davis on the "Innovation in Scholarly Communication" which is a collaboration between myself, Mario Biagioli from the UC Davis Law School and Mackenzie Smith, the Head Librarian at CU Davis Anyway - much much more on the whole project later. Right now I am writing to, well, be open. And to ask for input. You see, as part of our project we are going to be hosting a workshop at UC Davis in February 2014 on the Future of Scholarly Publishing where we hope to discuss two major issues - how scholarly publishing is changing (Day 1) and then how researchers are evaluated (given jobs, tenure, promotions, etc) in the context of the changing landscape of publishing. More will be coming shortly on the details of the workshop (i.e., days, registration, etc).
Yesterday I posted a request on Twitter for ideas about Day 1 of the meeting. I created a Storify post with the responses, which were diverse and very interesting and very helpful. The Storify is embedded at the bottom. .
Among the major categories of ideas suggested:
- Differences ...
- Between fields of science
- Between science vs. humanities
- Between types of professions (e.g., tenure track vs. AltAc)
- New forms of papers
- The living paper
- Executable papers
- Git pull
- Web read views of content
- Beyond JATS
- Hypertextual book
- Enhanced visuals, interactives, animations,
- Micropublication / accumulation of micro pubs
- Nanopublications
- Breaking the journal vs. monograph dichotomy
- Interactive visualizations
- Blurring of lines between blogs and papers
- Beyond manuscripts
- Data publishing
- data curation and archiving
- data papers
- Code:
- publishing
- openness
- reproducibility
- review
- Full integration with research / scholarly workflow and notebooks
- Mechanism of publishing
- Uniform standards and styles (e.g., citation)
- Semantic citations
- Better authoring tools
- Versioning
- Better tools to connect small publishers
- Peer review changes
- Open, non anonymous peer review
- Post publication review
- Technical merit review
- Adoption of the reviewers oath
- Preprint deposition
- Journal independent review
- Changing face of the journal and where material is published
- Role of societies in publishing
- Journals s collections of preprints
- Spread of open access spam
- Preprints and repositories
- Distribution
- Getting scholarly research to the reader
- Getting research to the public
- Mobile computing
- Privacy issues esp. in clinical data
- Assessment and credit
- Alt metrics
- Giving and getting credit
- Finding and sharing best practices for assessment
- Using published material
- Text mining
- Figure/Image mining
- Social media
- New forms of papers
- Assessment and alt metrics
- Reproducibility
- Publishing all methods, data, code,
- Making everything open
If you are going to include clinical data, it is interesting to think about the implications that the FDA was believed to require SAS data packages but now published guidance exists for R. This brings up the question, more and more necessary to consider for academics, of the blurring of traditional government and industry outputs with the academy. Technical (DTIC) reports, the grey literature, the classified literature (and classified journals/conferences), FDA packages, and so on are blending because more is available via search engines and 'open government' and because academics are (still) crossing various divides. They always were - it isn't new - but the explosion in journals and ebooks may also lead to re-publication of the grey literature.
ReplyDeleteOn the "Assessment and credit" section don't forget to include ORCID (http://orcid.org/) an Open source project providing a unique and persistent identifier, already being adopted by major publishings and institutions.
ReplyDeleteSorry, not (yet) on Twitter.
ReplyDeletePlease include something about a norm or standard for retractions and corrections, perhaps related to post-publication comments, but perhaps separate.