Advancing Research Communication & Scholarship

This workshop will take a prolonged and pragmatic look at modern metrics, aka altmetrics, to enable attendees to get their questions answered about what altmetrics are and how can they be used. The centerpiece of the deep dive session will be hearing from people who are using new metrics to tell the stories about their research by addressing a variety of real life use cases.

For over 50 years metrics based on citation counts have been the tried and true measure of scholarly impact.  With advancements in technologies that encourage communication and interaction, and the ability to process big data, new information is shedding light on scholarly impact. These modern metrics are often called alternative metrics, or altmetrics – a catchall phrase that means everything except citations and usage.

Through real life use cases, this workshop will take a pragmatic look at the following questions:

•    What are altmetrics?
•    Are these metrics really alternative?
•    How can I use them?
•    What do they tell me?
•    How can I measure them?
•    Do citations and altmetrics fit together and how?

Following the session, attendees should have a very good understanding of what altmetrics are, how they are gathered, and how they can use them.

Over the past two years, the PressForward Project, an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation-funded project based at the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media, has developed a methodology and a technology to surface and aggregate research on the open web. The result has been an open source WordPress plugin to facilitate aggregating, curating, and disseminating scholarly content. Simultaneously, the project has experimented with multiple processes for surfacing, selecting, and circulating openly published work and grey literature outside traditional publication models. The publications Digital Humanities Now, Global Perspectives on Digital History, and Dh+Lib all use the plugin to maintain a community-driven website that offers readers and participants an opportunity to engage in relevant conversations about their field on the open web.

In this workshop, Stephanie Westcott, Co-Director of the PressForward Project, will teach attendees how to use the PressForward plugin to create publications, track workflow through aggregation, review, and nomination, and to publish content from select RSS feeds.  Attendees will be introduced to the plugin and have the opportunity to use it in one of PressForward’s test sites. Then, any participant who would like to develop their own PressForward publication will be given the time and support to launch it at the ARCS conference.

This workshop will be open to all ARCS conference attendees, and followed by a publishing hackathon. PressForward aids librarians, professors, scholars and journalists in confronting the dilemma of overabundance of material on the open web. By creating a solution that incorporates the aggregation and curation of the literature available openly online, PressForward publications build communities, direct attention to often-overlooked work, and stimulate discussion of ideas, methods, and news.

Less yack, more hack

We seek thinkers, developers, activists and experts of all stripes to join us for a Publishing Hackathon and Library Publishing Coalition meetup. This event will bring together anyone and everyone who’s passionate about changing scholarly publishing for the better, regardless of technical ability.

Here’s the scoop

At the start of the hackathon, we’ll work together to set the agenda for the night.  Our moderators, a group of librarians, technologists, publishers, and entrepreneurs, will help us draw out, connect, and prioritize ideas and challenges.  From there, we’ll break into self-formed groups to engage the problems and innovations we’ve decided to tackle.  We’ll write papers, build apps, plan, and partner.  The only limit is your imagination!

We’ll end the night with a wrap-up, sharing what we accomplished and where we can go next. The ARCS hackathon will be fun, creative, and lively!  Our mission is to improve scholarly communication by catalyzing new ideas, collaborations, and outcomes.  Join us!

RSVP Now

You do not have to be registered to attend the hackathon and LPC meetup, but please be sure to RSVP here: http://bit.ly/1NBWfH4

Institutions and researchers are facing increasing pressures from management, funders, and governmental reviews to demonstrate impact and engagement beyond academia. While demonstrating this impact continues to be challenging, the growth of online scholarly communication combined with advancing technologies offer us the ability to understand the reach and impact of research in ways that were never before possible.

In this hands-on workshop, we’ll explore how Altmetric tools can be used to analyse data such as mainstream media mentions, cites in policy documents, blogs, and social media in order to garner a much richer picture of the eventual outcomes and impact of research.  The session will be focused on the data, data sources, and strategies for investigating complex impact questions. 

The session will cover the following topics and activities:

• Explanation of Altmetric data, how it is collected and how it should & should not be interpreted
• Activity to demonstrate the ways in which researchers, librarians, and research administrators can use the Altmetric application in their work activities.
• Exploration of the complex analyses Altmetric has performed (e.g. attention for open versus non-open access journals, analysis of the relationship between charitable research spend and Altmetric mentions).
• Demonstration of how attendees can perform detailed and extensive analyses by making use of data exports or the Altmetric API.
• Review different ways to integrate altmetrics into your institution’s existing platforms.

Current scholarly communication initiatives are focused on expanding access, use, and reuse. This session will explore the relationship between these issues and the needs and goals of the developing world and marginalized communities.  We will consider how new models and expectations affect and address knowledge distribution structures in the developing world, and the control local research communities have over their own legacies and outputs.

For example, are efforts to make cultural materials “open” at odds with the interests of indigenous or marginalized groups, whose culture may be appropriated by those with greater resources or access to the means of knowledge production? How do Traditional Knowledge (TK) licenses address some of the inadequacies of Creative Commons licenses in this regard? How do open access initiatives of the global north impact the visibility of scholarship produced in the global south. What are the main institutional forces driving knowledge production in the global south and how does this affect scholarship from and about those regions? What infrastructures are needed to allow the south to support the production and distribution of its own research?

We will explore these and similar issues in order to identify points of entry to expand the scope of discussion around global research communication.  The discussion will be relevant to researchers across disciplines, as well as publishers and professionals in libraries, archives, museums and other cultural institutions.  

Scholarship is continually evolving.  The future of scholarship with digital technology facilitating dynamic links between papers, books, data, video, audio, tweets, blogs, and other research media seems less tethered to traditional written arguments in either journal or book form, and more based on the construction and communication between various types of data.  Yet, the current infrastructure for digital scholarship (institutional repositories, e-journals, and e-books) largely mimics the traditional print-based forms. This ARCS roundtable will explore future visions for dynamic electronic scholarship and the infrastructure needed to accommodate new needs and expectations.  

In this moderated Q&A, stakeholders from the scholarly, library, and publishing communities will explore fundamental questions such as:  

• What is digital scholarship and how is it different from traditional scholarly communication?

• What happens when scholarship is no longer an argument constructed by long-form writing but rather by a series of tweets and linked data?

• How can scholars communicate and evaluate these new forms?

• What should libraries do to facilitate such conversations?

• What kind of infrastructure is needed for digital scholarship?

This session will initiate our exploration into the innovations the scholarly communication community must affect to meet future needs. 

Many of us nowadays invest significant amounts of time in sharing our activities and opinions with friends and family via social networking tools. However, despite the many platforms available for scientists to connect and share with their peers the majority do not make use of these tools, despite their promise and potential impact on our future careers. We are being indexed and exposed on the Internet via our publications, presentations, and data. We have many more ways to contribute to science, to annotate and curate data, and to “publish” in new ways. This presentation will provide an overview of the various types of networking and collaborative sites available to scientists, and ways to expose your scientific activities online. Many of these can ultimately contribute to the developing measures of you as a scientist, as identified in the new world of alternative metrics. Participating offers a great opportunity to develop a scientific profile within the community and may ultimately be very beneficial, especially to scientists early in their career.

 

 

All the Science That’s Fit to Blog: The Shaping and Evolution of Science Bloggers’ Content, Paige Brown Jarreau
Within the last decade, science blogs have had unprecedented influence in opening up science journalism to scientists and non-traditional communicators and exposing a wider audience to the scientific process, from research to publication. And yet our interpretations of how science blogs are enhancing traditional media discussions about science or public engagement with science lack a solid foundation in our understanding of science blog production. The purpose of this research is to investigate the factors including motivations, backgrounds, values, identity work, cultural moorings, learned practices, norms and social media interactions that might shape a science blogger’s content. More than 50 in-depth interviews with a diverse range of science bloggers, along with an international survey of science bloggers, shed light on science blogging practices and rules of content production. This research presentation will highlight my PhD dissertation and professional work in this area.

Open Peer Review, Stephanie Harriman
Peer review by independent experts is vital to ensure the integrity of the published literature and allow readers to make informed decisions. Traditional anonymous peer review is subject to limitations and can be biased. Open peer review goes some way to solving these issues. It involves two levels of openness. Firstly, authors know who peer reviewed their article. Secondly, if the article is published, the reviewers’ reports are posted online alongside the published article. As well as increasing transparency, this has additional benefits - reviewers are able to gain credit for their reviews, editors and reviewers are more accountable for their decisions, reviewers’ competing interests are clear and readers know there was a trustworthy review process. In addition to these direct benefits to readers, authors, reviewers and editors, open peer review also allows reviewers’ reports to be used in much needed training of peer reviewers and research into peer review.

PRE-val: Trust & Transparency in Peer Review, Adam Etkin
PRE (Peer Review Evaluation) was founded to support and strengthen the peer-review process – the cornerstone of scholarly communication – on behalf of researchers, publishers, and libraries.  PRE’s flagship service, PRE-val, verifies for the end user that content has gone through the peer review process and provides information that is vital to assessing the quality of that process.  While it seems the peer review process is constantly under criticism, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of researchers & authors value peer review. By increasing transparency around peer review and what goes into this act of curation each of the primary stakeholders in the scholarly communication chain benefit.

Looking Beyond the Journal, Caroline Herbert
In such a fast-paced world with many demands on our time, effective communication is key. Scientific journals are essential in disseminating the fundamentals of research, but they often prove too technical for anyone outside of the specific field. How can barriers to both access and understanding be reduced whilst retaining the essence of research principles?  Design, media and publishing agency Research Media was set up in 2009 in response to a real need from researchers and research-focussed organisations for support in creating and disseminating research updates, outcomes and impacts to the broadest possible audience.  In this session, we discuss how Research Media is able to communicate complex scientific concepts, skilfully using existing materials to capture the essence of a research project, transforming it into a concise, interesting and practical summary and delivering it to a global audience across a range of free-to-access media.

Using Learning Communities to Overcome Gender Barriers in Science and Technology, Anu A. Gokhale
Science and technology (S&T) fields have tremendous job opportunities and represent some of the highest-earning majors. Despite the fact that women comprise 46 percent of the nation’s workforce, their representation is only about 15 percent in S&T fields. Current research suggests that the perceptions of students play a large role in discouraging women from pursuing S&T majors. The learning communities were designed to demonstrate that the field is not dominated by “geeky” white guys but the fact that women can, and do contribute. The purpose was to humanize S&T fields in the eyes of the students. The study used a scale that measured attitudes toward S&T to evaluate the impact of learning communities. Comparing pretest to posttest factor scores for experimental and control groups, it was found that participating students increased interest in learning about S&T (p < .007), and their acceptance of female participation in S&T (p < .001).

Incentivizing Openness in the Humanities: Are Altmetrics the Key? Stacy Konkiel
You probably know that humanities scholars are less likely to be cited than their peers in the sciences, but did you know they are more likely to have their work shared and discussed online?  This presentation will provide a brief introduction to the research done to date on humanities scholarship and altmetrics. We'll also discuss three ways that altmetrics can incentivize openness for humanities researchers.

Overleaf: Scientific Writing and Publishing in the Age of the Cloud, John Lees-Miller
The 'web was invented by scientists, but scientific writing and publishing somehow got stuck at Web 1.0. Even though science is by nature global and collaborative, we still write papers mainly using single-user tools that run on desktop computers (Word). We then send our files through a slow, frustrating and expensive publishing process that runs on email and clunky, fiddly web forms. Meanwhile, the rest of the world races ahead with modern, integrated, collaborative tools. We can do better.

Overleaf is an online collaborative editor for writing scientific documents, such as papers and theses. It simplifies and accelerates the scientific writing and publishing process by keeping the document in a single central place through its entire lifecycle. The document is stored securely in the cloud, so authors, editors, reviewers and readers can each read, edit or comment on the paper when it is their turn, using only a web browser. Overleaf supports tracked changes, comments, version control and several popular reference managers, and you can now submit directly from Overleaf to over a dozen publishing partners, including PeerJ, Nature Scientific Reports, and F1000Research. More than 200,000 authors from over 2,000 universities across the globe have created in excess of two million documents with Overleaf, and a new Stanford University-wide Overleaf trial has just been launched.

Storytelling and Science: Using Narrative to Connect Researchers with New Audiences, Alexander Brown
As humans we are hardwired for story. Since the beginning of civilization we have passed down meaning to each other through narrative. Yet scholarly communications often overlooks this powerful tool, instead staying confined to rigid formats that are inaccessible to the general public or even researchers in other disciplines. Find out how storytelling can highlight the work of scientists and empower researchers with the tools they need to communicate about their work.

Research information systems are used to track and evaluate faculty and researcher activity. Drawing primarily from publication data, these systems show relationships between people, fields of study, and institutions. They also illustrate areas of study and emerging interdisciplinary potential.  Universities and other research institutions are increasing relying on this information to inform promotion and tenure decisions, productivity analytics, research benchmarking, expertise identification, as well as collaboration and research networking.

This ARCS workshop will present an overview of the strengths and features of several public facing research information management systems, such as VIVO, Pure, and Harvard Profiles. Use cases will be employed to demonstrate different ways of using these tools, such as generating meaningful data visualizations and producing impact metrics. The workshop will include a hands-on component, allowing the participants to interact with APIs for different projects.

The workshop will also include a section on how well structured data in research information management systems can help identify funding sources, collaborators, media appearances, and other opportunities. The session will emphasize the role of librarians and strategies for leveraging their unique expertise. Finally, attendees will participate in developing a communications strategy to articulate the messages shared with researchers and other stakeholders on campus.

There is increasing recognition of the benefits of data sharing. Some funders and publishers now require researchers to make their data openly available, in part in the interest of reproducibility. Some laboratories have experienced the advantages of data sharing in the form of new collaborations and increased citations. However, several hurdles still exist that have prevented the widespread adoption of data sharing. This panel will go beyond the message of 'open data is good' to discuss practical challenges and solutions, bringing together the early-career researcher, open repository, and publisher perspectives. We will discuss the concerns researchers have with respect to open data, including fear of 'scooping', lack of credit for data sharing in evaluations, and data preparation. We will hear from one open repository (figshare) on infrastructure solutions for data storage and permanency. Finally, we will talk about the positive and negative experiences of one publisher (PLOS) after enacting an open data policy, and recommendations for other publishers to encourage data sharing. Overall, we aim to generate ideas and discussion about how to build an environment conducive to open data.

With the growth in collaborative authorship across science, we are seeing long lists of authors, with, at best, unstructured information about who contributed what to the collaboration. This panel will bring together the perspectives of funders, publishers, researchers, and academic administrators on the topic of capturing structured information about contribution. The panel will consider a new proposed contributor role taxonomy, pros and cons, the challenges of implementation, and the implications for science and scholarship more broadly.

Bibliographic conventions for representation of authorship lag behind the semantic capabilities of the web and tend to obfuscate the contributions of those involved in collaborative research and writing endeavors. There is growing interest among researchers, funding agencies, academic institutions, editors, and publishers in increasing both the transparency of research contributions. Many publishers now require contribution disclosures upon article submission – some in structured form, some in free-text form – at the same time that funders are developing more scientifically rigorous ways to track the outputs and impact of their research investments.

In May of 2012 the Wellcome Trust and Harvard University co-hosted a workshop to bring together members of the academic, publishing, and funder communities interested in exploring alternative contributorship and attribution models.  Following the workshop a pilot project was established to develop a controlled vocabulary of contributor roles that could be used to describe the typical ‘contributions’ to scholarly published output for biomedical and science more broadly.

The draft taxonomy was tested with a sample of recent corresponding authors publishing across science and was relatively well received.  The outcomes of the pilot test are described in Nature commentary (April 2014). A working group of Project CRediT have built on the work of the Wellcome-Harvard contributorship project by extending community participation in the initiative, to include a wider range of publishers, researchers, funding agencies, and academic administrators. A revised taxonomy is now open for public comment, and the ARCS panel presents a perfect opportunity to report on this feedback regarding this initiative.

Join this round table for a conversation among historians who will share “datalogical narratives” about wrestling with digital archives. In some cases, scholars are bypassing structures set up by libraries and setting up their own datalogical systems to access, organize and create knowledge. Panelists will share tales of their research to illuminate the ways that digital collections, particularly of primary sources, may shape scholarship and research outcomes and the strategies that they use when working with these collections.

As scholar Marlene Manoff has noted, “database experience increasingly determines the nature of our connection to knowledge and history” and “commercial companies now own huge portions of the scholarly and historical record.” Yet, the practice of research in digital collections is an undertheorized area. What are the effects of digitization on research? Issues that historians and other scholars face when working in digital collections include understanding databases at the collection level, not simply at the level of documents; understanding the way that collections have been constructed; and being able to discover their provenance. Enormous databases can have a misleading appearance of exhaustiveness; but, what items are missing from these collections and what is not being represented? Additionally, access to digital collections is an increasingly important issue, both in terms of subscription access and access to their contents as data.

This panel explores some of the ways that historians are doing digital research now. These are not always the ways that database publishers and librarians have imagined and may take place outside of the universe of databases purchased by libraries. Scholars are blowing past the resources constructed by libraries and setting up their own systems to access, organize and create knowledge. They may spurn expensive curated databases not wanting to take on board the pre-digested histories that they contain. They may pay for access to digital collections that their libraries don't subscribe to. Historians are also responding to the significant barriers for access to subscription materials and to the underlying content as data with strategies and work arounds that may be unorthodox or even skirt the edges of intellectual property rules or licenses. Determined scholars get the materials they need by using workarounds for access and, if necessary, by taking the data out of the database and the library.

Panelists will address these questions:

How do researchers account for absences, compare sources, and adjust interpretations to compensate for biases, errors, and omissions in digital collections?

What information would they like to see publishers provide to researchers about their digital collections?

What should be done about the scholars' lack of access to key subscription databases of primary sources in their fields?

Despite a context of rapidly changing technologies, modes and models of scholarly communication - particularly, the published article and monograph - have not changed much in the last 350 years.  It seems significant and sustainable innovations are beginning to emerge, developed and supported via a network of stakeholders and activities, both technically and socially rooted.  This panel will explore technologies, models, and ideas that are changing and responding to how research is shared and how scholars are sharing.  Panelists will profile their projects and perspectives, followed by a moderated Q&A. 

With the increase in networked communication it is now possible to determine who is interacting with research and what they are saying. People on both sides of the research equation – people who fund research and people who perform research – can now use new metrics, sometime called alternative metrics or altmetrics, to look beyond citation counts and published articles, and answer their questions and tell the stories behind research.

Autism Speaks, the world’s leading autism science and advocacy organization, is an early adopter of new metrics using them to help determine the return on investment (ROI) of their grants.

This panel will take representatives from different part of research institutions such as scholarly communication, research administration and the library, and join Autism Speaks to discuss the role that new metrics can play on both sides of a research grant. Sharing the goals, objectives and challenges amongst this diverse group can create understanding and consensus about measuring research impact, determining the ROI of grants and telling the stories of the research.

Plum Analytics, a developer of a metrics tool for both funders and research institutions, will moderate this panel.

Assessment of scholarship is a critical component of the research process, impacting most elements of the process from which projects get funded to who gains promotion and tenure, and which publications gain prominence in fields of inquiry. However, traditional metrics which have been primarily based on print processes are failing to keep pace with expanded scope of forms and usage that are becoming available with scholarly communication that is increasingly purely electronic. Online reader behavior, network interactions with content, social media references, among other activities, are not reflected in these measures. In addition, newer forms of network and researcher behavior analysis can provide a means to assess non-traditional scholarly outputs such as data publication, software creation and performances. The growing movement around alternative metrics, sometimes called “altmetrics,” is trying to address these concerns, among others.

The panel will be organized inviting several participants in the NISO Alternative Assessment Metrics Project, which was begun in 2013 to address this area. The project is now in its Phase II, where input distilled from relevant stakeholder groups was used to determine areas that standards Working Groups should address. The panel will be composed of an array of stakeholders representing different community areas (including libraries, scholarly publishers, systems providers and providers of alternative metrics data), who will describe their perspectives and requirements, and how they are working together to provide structure for future acceptance and innovation in an area which provides much promise for scholarly recognition and communication.

Individuals across organizations and roles drive the work and innovation that advances scholarly communication. Library staff and faculty who work with institutional repositories, research data management, copyright, and publishing are representative of these roles. However, the productive and informative relationships among these focused areas of practice can be obscured by everyday needs and objectives, especially in resource stressed environments.  

Framed by the premise that networks of collaboration and practice can inform and strengthen the impact of our scholarly communication work, this session will explore successful network examples and engage attendees in developing strategies to build their own communities of practice.

Toward this end, attendees will learn about three different but related types of networks. The Virginia Scholarly Communications Forum and Florida Scholarly Communications Interest Group were independently created for the broad purposes of advancing and informing new programs and services in academic libraries, documenting best practices, and fostering community where solo work is often the norm. OpenVa: Virginia's Summit on Open and Digital Learning encompasses a variety of stakeholders who actively seek to and in practice integrate open educational resources into higher education courses and programs. This group is building relationships and consensus within the state legislature to implement change. SPARC’s Right to Research Coalition exemplifies an international student community that advocates for researchers, universities, and governments to adopt more open scholarly publishing practices. Each of these networks offers lessons about group structure and dynamics, outreach, what can be accomplished with little or no funding, and more!

Conducted in a roundtable format, the session will build on information shared by speakers, with discussion and questions encouraged throughout from attendees. Submit questions to us before the roundtable so we know specifically what you are interested in learning. Content will be presented as mini-modules to assist you in developing a plan. Come with the kernel of an idea or a full-blown goal in mind to expand on, using the information and ideas shared during this session.

 

 

As institutional repositories grow and thrive, many institutions are eager to quantify and benchmark their hard work and success.  The proposal presented in this workshop is intended to serve as a starting point for the creation of a simple and measurable set of IR success metrics that would serve the needs of the broad community of repository managers and stakeholders. 

The benchmarking models being presented in this workshop come from analyzing deposit and activity data from hundreds of repositories, and are founded upon in-depth interviews with repository managers about their goals.  The aim of this workshop is to create platform-agnostic success metrics and create a shared framework for success for the IR community.

What will you do differently once you have self-assessment tools that tell you how your IR program is really performing?

Workshop attendees are encouraged to bring deposit and usage data from their repositories and a labtop or mobile device, though neither is required.

Join our poster presenters and generous sponsors for hors d'oeuvres, beverages, and great conversations. 

Reasons for Non-Compliance with an Institutional Open Access Policy, Shannon Kipphut-Smith

Undergraduate Research Commons, Doug Cannon

Barriers to Care Transitions in the Elderly Experienced by Healthcare Providers, Donna Volpe

Implementing a new scholarly communication library services model: Writing and Research Services at the UBC Okanagan Library, Lori Walter

Teaching Author Rights Through 3D Printing Submissions, Amber Sherman

The public impact of open access research: A survey of SciELO users, Juan Pablo Alperin

The Forgotten Cancer, Viputheshwar Sitaraman

Open Access to Research Articles, Juliya Ziskina

Article level metrics are immediacy indicators that speak to attention and engagement with research content NOW (not months or years from now as with citations/impact factor). From grant proposals and tenure cases to assessing departmental impact, ALMs are more useful than ever. Learn where you can find these, who is using them, and how they can aid your patrons.

Most librarians and end users don't realize that article level metrics (specifically the Altmetric donut or badge) can be seen in institutional repositories, CRIS systems (like Elements, PURE, or Converis), thousands of journal article pages, in discovery systems, and even SCOPUS.  How did they get there? What are they for? What can they tell your users and institutions about the attention their research is receiving from around the world?

As an ALM provider, we monitor and report attention to articles and datasets by tracking stable identifiers. The resulting ALMs benefit users from across the scholarly communications landscape from the marketing departments of publishers to the communications offices of universities to individual PIs and lab heads making the case for grant funding or tenure and promotion. Librarians integrate this data to underscore the value of existing investments like institutional repositories and discovery systems as well as help patrons maintain and curate their online identities.

Join a leading ALM provider and users from publishers to libraries as they walk through their integrations, what the data tells them, why they use it, and how that data can be useful for your users and institutions.

 

This roundtable will facilitate a discussion of people’s experiences working in libraries and other scholarly communication areas, focusing on helping Humanities scholars manage their data (broadly conceived as research materials) throughout the lifecycle of a project. We will discuss alternate views of and alternative approaches to philosophical conversations about the nature of data in the humanities. Instead of trying to “lead the humanities to data,” and being met with resistance from scholars who believe their work cannot be characterized as “data,” the panelists will discuss practical strategies rooted in helping scholars manage materials such as text, images, audio, and video. While this approach does foreclose critical conversations about data, it is a way to move past the rhetorical caricatures that data debates in the humanities are founded upon. These strategies are not just for scholars who self-identify as digital humanists and work with large-scale datasets, but also for a more general engagement with humanities scholars' workflows. These include practices of citation management, photo metadata tagging, file structure, OCRing printed documents photographed in an archive, and proper backup procedures. Not only are these methods rooted in the actual practice of scholars (with datasets large and small), they offer an important point of intervention for librarians and other scholarly communications professionals. They can intervene earlier in the research process, helping a scholar better understand the workflow that could potentially lead to the archiving of this data for public access and an open access publication.

The validity and trustworthiness of peer review is vital to scientific publishing.  Peer review fraud is on the rise and threatening the integrity of the scientific process and the public’s trust in scientific knowledge.  The round table discussion will explore what this means for the future of peer review and what the scientific community can do to combat it.
 
In this session, a panel of publishers, editors, academics, and technological innovators, including Retraction Watch founder Ivan Oransky, Jigisha Patel, Associate Editorial Director for research integrity at BioMed Central, and Amos Korczyn, Professor of neurology and pharmacology at Tel Avivi University, will address the landscape of peer review fraud, its impact, and potential solutions.
 

Realizing a future of open scholarship and science will be dependent upon a holistic foundation of policies, technologies, services, and incentives.  This moderated discussion will explore the scholarly communication needs and expectations of students and early career researchers, with attention to the infrastructure “pieces” that will make openness the norm, rather than the exception.  We will address, for example, the importance and influence of scholarly identities and impact, collaborative spaces, research data management, and open access policies.  A panel of early career researchers, librarians, senior scholars, and research networking tool providers will lead an interactive discussion with attendees that concretely envisions a more connected, collaborative, impactful, and open research environment for emerging scholars and scientists.

Scholarly communication expertise and responsibility is often located in only a few members of an academic community. Librarians increasingly need to be knowledgeable and articulate about scholarly communication issues, including research data management. How to best leverage librarian expertise and build knowledge in these areas is an ongoing challenge. Stakeholders from two institutions will speak about their efforts to build capacity for data-related support and services in an expedient and economical way.  At Claremont Colleges Library, the scholarly communication librarian and a social science librarian are creating infrastructure that will allow the Library to expand its data services while also creating a transferable professional development model that will educate and leverage expertise around other scholarly communication issues. At Carnegie Mellon University, they have collected information on researcher needs for and attitudes towards university data services from data storage for archiving and sharing, to data management plans and open data for publications, to student and staff training in best data practices. They are working as a committee with members from multiple stakeholders on campus, data services, scholarly communications, office of research, computing services, and discipline liaisons to craft the most efficient and useful menu of data services to support researchers. These examples will set the stage for a robust discussion about how higher education scholarly communication needs can be met in and outside of libraries.

On 3 March 2015, Wellcome Trust published: "The Reckoning: An Analysis of Wellcome Trust Open Access Spend 2013-14", which outlines how much it spend on article processing charges, the license type applied to funded articles, and the compliance rate of its open access mandate. The figures are both illuminating and distressing in regards to where the costs of open access provision may be heading. ARCS has assembled a panel of librarians, publishers, and innovators, including Neil Christensen from the University of California Press, Rebecca Kennison from KN Consultants, and Carrie Calder of Nature Publishing Group, to address questions of where open access costs may be heading and what stakeholders can do to influence cost points and models that make sense to all of us.

The widespread adoption of digital publishing technology has transformed publishing and disrupted established funding models, driving movements such as open access and supporting technologies. This collaborative roundtable will examine, based on James Boyle’s notion of “cultural environmentalism,” questions surrounding the business models that support open access publishing and related value-adding technology. Specifically, it will ask what obligations libraries have to consider the public domain when making decisions about tools that support scholarly communication.

This roundtable will be a facilitated conversation drawing on the expertise and experiences of everyone in the room. James Boyle’s “cultural environmentalism” will serve as the fulcrum for a larger conversation between the panelists and the attendees about the library’s role in the academy and the broader society.

Prior to the rise of the environmental movement, legal arguments over land tended to focus around the idea of private property, while scientific arguments focused on cause and effect. In each conceptual system, there was little to no room to discuss the environment as a whole, leading us to do a bad job of preserving it. Our arguments around intellectual property have taken a similar trajectory—focused on the author’s “private property.” Politically, then, the public domain is obscured as something of importance.  Boyle points out that the environmental movement was more persuasive once it began to address structural reasons for bad environmental policy, moving away from long entrenched ideas of private property and linear cause and effect thinking

We will attempt to address how, looking forward, advocates will need to balance an understanding of sustainability and past performance against the realization that technology and business models are changing. These changes in the academy, in libraries, and in the broader environment are driving new behavior with regards to publishing and funding, but many are tricky in practice.

From a broader theoretical perspective, the panel will attempt to address one overarching question: As an institution, what is the library’s responsibility to the cultural environment and the public domain?  The framework that libraries use to make decisions in this arena will have direct and indirect implications for how these systems develop in the future. By analyzing our actions through the lens of cultural environmentalism we will be better able to understand the effects of our actions on the larger system, and ensure the technology and business models that underlie scholarly communication will be sustainable.

Panelists will provide expertise on the topic of cultural environmentalism and the public domain and will facilitate group discussions.

• 10 minutes: Introduction of James Boyle’s cultural environmentalism

• 40 minutes: Break into groups for discussion

• 40 minutes: Bring full group back together to document breakout discussions

The science blogosphere has in the last decade grown, diversified and become more professional in many aspects. Popular science communication and science outreach are a growing focus of science blogging and scientists’ use of social media. Have blogs, or newer forms of social media, been successful in opening up scholarship and promoting scholarly discourse? In this panel, we will ask and address questions related to the current and future prospects, pros and cons of a scholarly approach to social media, or one that opens up scholarship from research to publication. We will also be addressing how newer forms of social media complement (or replace) some of the functions of blogs and may serve as an outlet for researchers to speak about research in progress with other researchers, writers and lay readers.

Scholars, scientists, academic institutions, publishers and funders are all interested in impact. We have different roles and goals, and therefore different reasons for needing to understand impact; we are therefore asking different questions about impact, and those questions continue to evolve, much as the concept of impact itself is evolving.

• To answer our different questions, do we need different data, in separate silos, or is it possible for the same core data to be pivoted to provide answers to different questions?
•  In an age of open data, can we collaborate on a ‘kaleidoscope of impact’, to enable cross-functional and cross-disciplinary comparison, and consistency in decision-making?
• Is such an idea (a) desirable, and (b) possible?
• What datasets are relevant, across both traditional and emerging proxies for impact?
• Who would we need to involve?
• What steps would we need to take to start?
• What barriers do we anticipate?
• What counter-arguments do we need to articulate to persuade stakeholders to participate?
• What organizational framework would best support progress in this area?

This session would gather researchers, publishers, funders, institutional representatives including librarians, and others such as metrics providers and standards organizations, to debate these questions. A moderator would seek input from delegates prior to the event, and prepare an opening 15-minute talk to set the scene and build the vision, incorporating ideas and questions from delegates, and suggesting some initial answers. The moderator would then put key questions to the panel, and encourage further questions and opinions from the delegates.

Make Data Count, Jennifer Lin
Sharing data is time consuming and researchers need incentives for undertaking the extra work. Metrics for data ("data-level metrics") will provide feedback on data usage, views, and impact that will help encourage researchers to share their data. This demo will showcase our working prototype, which tracks and measures activity surrounding research data. The NSF-funded project is a partnership between PLOS, California Digital Libraries, and DataONE.

Sharing multi-dimensional image data with OMERO, Mike Rossner
Many funding agencies, institutions, and journals now mandate sharing of biomedical research data. Centralized, public databases have been established for various types of structured biomedical data such as gene sequences, but the same is not true for biomedical images due to the size and complexity of the data. Thus individual researchers and/or their institutions are responsible for providing a solution to fulfill sharing mandates for this type of data.

OMERO is an open-source management system for complex image data and its associated metadata. Data in over 130 different native imaging file formats can be imported into the OMERO server and viewed through a variety clients, including web browsers. Files can be exported in an open, standardized format that is supported by many image analysis programs. OMERO’s public application programming interface allows the data and metadata to be accessed by other resources, such as institutional repositories, to facilitate discoverability and analysis.

Prompting Open Access Initiate with Altmetrics: Lesson Learned, Hui Zhang
Oregon State University (OSU) has recently started to provide altmetrics as a measure of scholarly impact for eligible items in its institutional repository called ScholarsArchive. Comparing to other implementations, OSU’ solution is more flexible and requires less maintenance because it is able to extract identifiers (DOI or handle) from item metadata and automatically embed a clickable icon indicating the availability of altmetrics under the statistics pane for qualified items. The proposed presentation will demonstrate technical details of the altmetrics project and compare its approach to similar projects done by other universities. However, the second part of the presentation is probably more engaging to a broader audience because it will not only discuss the difference between altmetrics and bibliometrics, but also debate whether altmetrics are effective in closing the gap of open access evaluation, which is the motivation behind OSU’s altmetrics project. Finally, the presentation will summarize feedbacks from OSU faculty towards altmetrics.

Counting article usage in the Web of Science, Michael Takats
Later this year the Web of Science will introduce a “usage” score as a new article level metric. In this presentation we will discuss how we are filtering and tracking activity within Web of Science to count meaningful usage by researchers as a potential indicator of an article’s importance.

Capturing, Curating and Disseminating Active Data, Dan Valen
Financial, social, and ethical pressures are increasingly requiring grantees to make their research results available and accessible in order to validate findings and spur scientific discovery. With the rise of open access across academia, the policies around open data are reigniting the conversation on what universities can do to collect and disseminate the assets generated at their institution. Enter, figshare for institutions.

figshare is an open science platform that aims to capture and disseminate the long tail of research outputs (data) to the benefit of the knowledge-based community. This 24/7 talk will touch on the hurdles institutions face in improving research data management and achieving open data policy compliance while also highlighting some of the solutions available for working more efficiently with data.

Tell the Story: Use Modern Metrics to Discover the Hidden Stories of Your Research, Andrea Michalek
The ways people interact with research is rapidly changing providing new opportunities to understand how researchers and the community are responding to and using research output. Previously, citations were the only mechanism for gauging research impact. Now, modern metrics (aka altmetrics) from Plum Analytics can help uncover the stories about your research. What are people saying? Who is saying it? Is it positive or negative? This session will describe how this works and give examples of customers telling their stories with the help of metrics from Plum Analytics’ metrics dashboard, PlumX.

Beyond the Printed Page: Using an IR as a Platform for Discovery, Interaction, and Integration, Sarah Wipperman

This presentation covers some of the innovative ways members of the Penn community have been using their institutional repository, ScholarlyCommons (http://repository.upenn.edu), to both present and preserve their research. These IR projects provide a more user-based approach to archiving materials than is used in more traditional deposits by allowing users to interact with 3D modules, videos, images, and other embedded materials and by providing online supplements to printed volumes. The materials are additionally presented within the IR in a way that encourages further exploration and discovery of information. These projects show how an IR can both complement traditional publishing yet also provide a stand-alone publishing platform in itself.

Digital Commons Readership Activity Map, Dave Stout

We will present the Digital Commons Readership Activity Map, an almost real-time visualization of full-text downloads across the globe.  Soon after an institution’s scholarship is downloaded from a Digital Commons collection, a pin will drop on the IR’s Readership Activity Map, showing viewers what’s being read in real-time. From Singapore to Salt Lake City, if there are people interested in a collection, there are pins on the map to prove it. We’ve got a live example of the Readership Activity Map for to interact with on the Life Sciences discipline page of the Digital Commons Network: http://network.bepress.com/life-sciences/

The Readership Activity Map validates the investment in the repository initiative by demonstrating the impact of the institution’s research that has been collected and shared by the library. Library directors can finally show their trustees, funders, provosts, deans, and other stakeholders on campus the global reach of the campus research output in real-time.

Small Scholarly Journals: A Growth Area for Repositories? Julie Kelly

Repositories are missing opportunities by not pursuing small scholarly journals. There are thousands, many published by small professional societies. Some are small operations and may not know their options or the benefits of making older issues freely available. Others are more prominent and may decide to allow their current and older content to be put behind pay walls.

Working on a subject repository, AgEcon Search, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu has allowed us to see this situation firsthand. We have 85 journals and a third of those include older material. In some cases we have assisted in digitization process. Each year we turn away journals that approach us but do not fit our subject parameters.

While subject repositories are obvious destinations for small journals, not every subdiscipline has or ever will have one. Institutional repositories could consider approaching journals that represent campus strengths or that have editorial staff on campus.

Prioritizing publishing: Creating a University Press within the Library, Isaac Gilman

The aim if publishing—dissemination of new knowledge—is central to the mission of academic libraries. However, outside of large research institutions, few libraries have committed to publishing as a core service area—it is usually seen as an adjunct or experimental service. At Pacific University, the University Libraries are making that commitment by launching a university press that is intentionally integrated into the work of the library. This involves the inclusion of publishing in the library’s mission and core themes and the reallocation of resources and creation of new workflows in existing units to support the Pacific University Press. Through the Press, the goal of the Libraries is not only to disseminate new knowledge, but to contribute to a more sustainable scholarly ecosystem where the costs of publishing scholarship are more equitably shared across institutions.

404 Error: Discoverability and User Consumption of Open Access Material, Emma Molls

Using the 2015 Library Publishing Directory, I have created a list of OA "campus-based faculty-driven journal" titles and cross-referenced this list with the title contents of the Directory of Open Access journals. This 24x7 presentation will present my findings of gaps within DOAJ and look for answers as to why titles are not found in both directories. Secondly, the original set of OA titles was cross-referenced in ROAD (Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources) to compare the number of matching records. Finally, the list of OA journal titles was also searched within one library's discovery tool to determine the level of discoverability in a non-Google setting for a specific user group. The goal of this presentation is to begin a conversation of where OA materials are indexed, but more importantly, to think more about how users are (or are not) finding the OA material using indexes.

An Exploration of the “Center of Excellence” Model for Information Services, Joy Kirchner & Susan Fliss

A one-year planning grant was awarded by the Mellon Foundation to examine the Centers of Excellence (CoEs) model and determine whether this approach could provide a means to cultivate skills needed to support emerging technologies and new information services. A team of seven librarians investigated more than 100 centers, narrowed our in-depth research to 35 centers that offered a unique service, design, history and/or funding model and then interviewed nineteen Directors of CoEs and staff from seven funding organizations. We will present our surprising findings and our recommendations for a viable concept for leveraging institutional strengths and building cross-institutional expertise more broadly.

Introducing Digital Literary Studies: Building and Sustaining an Open-Access Humanities Publication
James O'Sullivan
Digital Literary Studies is an open access, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary publication with a focus on those aspects of Digital Humanities primarily concerned with literary studies. Digital Literary Studies publishes scholarly articles on research concerned with computational approaches to literary analysis/criticism, or critical/literary approaches to electronic literature, digital media, and textual resources. This talk will outline how the journal’s editorial and advisory boards are attempting to replicate the success of other open access publications in the field, while building on the range of scholarly forms valid for review.

Introducing the Open Access Network
Rebecca Kennison & Lisa Norberg
This session introduces the Open Access Network (OAN), a bold new model for open access publishing and preservation that offers a scalable, sustainable, and discipline-independent solution that can be applied to the entire scholarly communication ecosystem. Funded by an institutional fee structure based on a student-and-faculty per-capita sliding scale, the OAN model encourages partnerships among scholarly societies, research libraries, and other institutional partners (e.g., collaborative e-archives and university presses) who share a common mission to support the creation, distribution, and preservation of research and scholarship. The OAN model includes a plan to convert traditional subscription publication formats, including society-published journals and books or monographs, to OA; however, the ultimate goal is to present an approach to funding infrastructure for scholarly communication that supports new and evolving forms of research output.

Commons Open Repository Exchange: A Dynamic, Durable Platform for Scholarly Communication, Nicky Agate
Over the past 18 months, the Modern Language Association and Columbia University’s Center for Digital Research and Scholarship in have been working on a prototype of the Commons Open Repository Exchange (CORE). Made possible by an NEH Digital Humanities Start-Up Grant, CORE combines a library-quality repository for sharing, discovering, retrieving, and archiving digital work with the social networking capabilities of MLA Commons, the organization’s in-development network for scholarly communication, collaboration, and publishing. During this presentation, Nicky Agate, CORE project manager, will present the pilot, which will have launched to MLA members on April 21. She will share what the team learned during this preliminary stage, comment on the limitations and potential of the project as it was originally conceived, and introduce tentative plans for the future of CORE.

Public Access Mandate Leveraging for Communication, Alvin Hutchinson
Smithsonian scholarship is conducted in large part by federal employees. In addition to the obvious copyright exemption this confers, the Smithsonian has agreed to comply with the White House OSTP memorandum on public access to research. Current procedures are being worked out but it is likely that capturing publications upstream--upon manuscript acceptance by publishers--the Smithsonian can also use this data to inform press releases and social media efforts around new Smithsonian scholarship. Alvin Hutchinson, librarian at the Smithsonian will speak about these efforts.

Getting to No: Promoting Scholarly Communications Initiatives, Jimmy Gghaphery
While consensus building is one key to success in higher education, clarity of vision is also essential. In promotion of new initiatives, a startup sales mentality can be especially useful. Valuing a "No" to a focused pitch can help refine future efforts and lead toward an energetic promotion of services. This session will contemplate what aggressive sales techniques might offer those in a position to promote scholarly communications efforts.

ARCS is passionate about engaging students and early career researchers to understand their needs and expectations, and to facilitate their leadership in efforts to build a more collaborative, open, and impactful scholarly communication system.  We are working with the Right to Research Coalition and Digital Library Federation to identify students and early career researchers to represent this important constituency at the conference, and are partnering with organizations and universities to provide travel scholarships.   

This post-conference workshop will follow several student and ECR led presentations and round table discussions.  Workshop participants will identify and initiate collaborative projects to influence the transition to open scholarship and science, facilitated and supported by ARCS, Laura Bowering Mullen, Jane Otto, and our scholarship sponsors.