Discoverability and 21st Century Scholarly
Communication: A local perspective
Carnegie Nairobi Workshop
10 March 2014
Michelle Willmers
Project Manager: OpenUCT Initiative
CC-BY
Addressing the discoverability imperative
Peer-reviewed research publications of eight African universities
(2007 compared to 2001)
Source: Bunting & Cloete (2012)
In Southern African context we are producing a great deal of
important research, but fail to leverage it for maximum benefit.
Journal Articles
Conference Papers
Technical Reports
Policy Briefs
Blog Posts
Tools AND Services
Scholarly Communication
Working Papers
Tweets
E-mails
Collaborative Documents
Images & Videos
Animations & Simulations
Presentations
P R E S E R V A T I O N
Repository
Digital
Library
A N D
OER Portal
C U R A T I O N
Website
LMS
Scholarly communication is the creation,
transformation, dissemination and preservation of
knowledge related to teaching, research and scholarly
endeavors.
Principle change in global scholarly
communication practice:
Change from predominance of journal article/book as sole artifact of knowledge
production and scholarly communication
> In which publishers were the purveyors of knowledge
> and Impact Factor as sole measure of impact
to
Dynamic, object-driven knowledge exchange facilitated by internet, new tools and new
approaches to scholarship
> In which institutions play active role in knowledge dissemination
> And there is a broad range of new tools, methodologies and metrics for generating
data on downstream use and impact
In this semantically driven, object-oriented scholarly
communication paradigm, metadata is the passport to
participation.
In order for content to be findable and correctly contextualised, it needs
to be curated.
This is the job of both the academic and the
institution/organisation.
We want to store things and put them somewhere safe so that they are
easy to find and when people come across them they know what they
can do with them. That’s curation.
Reviewing, curating, sharing, marketing. That’s publishing.
What needs to be in place in order for academics to be
able to participate in these new scholarly communication
frameworks?
1. Objects need to be curated
2. Objects need to be open and licensed (to people and machines)
3. Support structures need to be in place
> To support the curation of knowledge objects is to support the scholarly
communication process
So…
Where do we begin?
1. In order to realise the value of the full ecosystem we need to
recognise the full ecosystem
2. Develop and recognise new breeds of scholarly
communication professionals
1.
2.
3.
4.
Academics
Librarians
Research Managers
What-you-macallits and Intermediaries
Extract from summary overview:
Source: University of Oxford DataPool Project
Scholarly Communication Stakeholders
•
Central IT
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
Research Managers
–
–
–
•
Classification and ingestion
Computing services
–
–
•
Guidance on IP, ethical and privacy considerations
Library / IR
–
•
Budget input / allocation
Researcher buy-in
Reportage / R&I integration
Legal counsel
–
•
Storage
Computing resources
Networking
Programming / development
Database
Security
Links to storage options and consortia
Provide information on cost to institution
Other
–
–
–
Projects
Sponsored programmes
Institutional support structures
(Fairy & Owen 2013)
4. Explore regional collaboration and shared
e-infrastructure {GLOCAL}
Skills > capacity > scalability
Insights and Findings from the Scholarly
Communication in Africa Programme
Values
- Scientific scholarly communication largely dictated by disciplinary norms; but still, not everyone wants their
work highly visible (especially in small countries where everyone knows each other)
- Disciplinary conventions support open access sharing (ArXiv, etc), but do not hold a high regard for alternative
outputs, unless their particular field has space or things like pre-prints or conference papers (journal articles
are prized above all)
Collaboration
Easier to collaborate with global North due for practical reasons (funding, connectivity, e-infrastructure,
administrative support, etc.)
Policy Environment
- Institutions require a scaffolding of policies to regulate, govern and grow scholarly communicaton and 21st
Century digital scholarship (e.g. open science embedded in institutional open access policies)
- Some Southern African universities do not have some of the foundational components of these policy
frameworks (such as IP policies)
- The ambition to participate in 21st Century digital scholarship must be synergised with existing rewards and
incentive structures at policy level – policy frameworks (not just a moral campaign)
SCAP Insights and Findings (cont.)
Open Access
-Quality assurance constitutes a significant factor which needs to be navigated in the drive for open approaches
to knowledge production and sharing
-Open science vs protection against exploitation (particularly in context of traditional knowledge)
Scholarly Communication
-Scientists lack platforms and skills for communicating their research with government or other communities
outside of the academic context; and additionally require translational support
-UoM FoS scholars who produce alternative outputs – briefings, reports, op-eds, public presentations – tend be
individual senior scholars who are largely free of promotion concerns. R&I systems – and where a scholar is
located in their career lifecycle – has a profound impact on how scholars communicate.
Illustrating Impact:
Are we in a position to meet the demands for improved
measurement and dissemination of research outputs?
Summary of findings from Scholarly Communication in Africa Programme Altmetrics
research:
1. Institutions do not maintain good records of research outputs
2. Researchers do not retain quality information on their outputs
3. Collecting identifiers and online locations would enable use of output data
4. For outputs with identifiers, obtaining data on use and performance is simple
5. There is limited social media activity around outputs
6. Use of research is heavily biased towards North America and Europe
References
Banda T, Ngwira M & Becker B (2012) e-Infrastructures and Applications in Sub Saharan Africa:
Challenges and Opportunities. CHAIN-REDS Presentation.
Bunting I & Cloete N (2012) Cross-National Performance Indicators: A Study of Eight African Universitites.
Cape Town: Centre for Higher Education Transformation
Fairy & Owen (2013) Developing an Institutional Research Data Management Plan Service. ACTI
EDUCAUSE Report, February 2013
Holl A (2012) Enhanced Journals: A Case Study with General Remarks. SURF Foundation Proceedings.
Available at: http://boac.ceon.rs/index.php/BOAC/12/paper/view/83/14
Mouton J et al. (2010) The state of public science in the SADC region. Johannesburg: Southern African
Regional Universities Association (SARUA)
Patrick M (2013) Survey results: Research data management knowledge and training needs among
University of Oxford research support staff. Blog post, 14 June 2013. Available at:
http://blogs.it.ox.ac.uk/damaro/2013/06/14/survey-results-research-data-management-knowledge-andtraining-needs-among-university-of-oxford-research-support-staff/
michelle.willmers@uct.ac.za
http://opencontent.uct.ac.za/
@scaprogramme