Scholarly Communication: Cultural Contexts, Evolving Models

Abstract

Despite predictions that emerging technologies will transform how research is conducted, disseminated, and rewarded, why do we see so little actual shift in how scholars in the most competitive and aspirant institutions actually disseminate their research? I describe research on faculty values and needs in scholarly communication that confirm a number of conservative tendencies in publishing. These tendencies, influenced by tenure and promotion requirements, as well as disciplinary cultures, have both positive and negative consequences. Rigorous research could inform development of good practices and policies in academic publishing, as well as counter rhetoric concerning the future of peer review and scholarly communication.O ver two decades many have predicted that models of scholarly communication enabled by emerging technologies will transform how research is conducted, disseminated, and rewarded. The transformation would be driven by new generations of scholars weaned on file sharing, digital piracy, Facebook, Twitter, and yet-unrealized social media technologies. Prognostications about the future, however, are often devoid of empirical evidence useful in policy development. How can we achieve realistic publishing economies that serve the needs of scholars, as well as maintain quality in research output and institutional culture? In addition to laudable declarations and manifestos (1, 2), a critical mass of relevant and rigorous research would be welcome. This should include investigations into effective tenure and promotion (T&P) review practices in higher education globally; the role of bibliometrics and other mechanisms, such as open peer-review experiments, in providing a complement to traditional peer review; and ways to create sustainable and accessible publishing models that filter scholarship effectively, reliably, and in a way that cannot be gamed or abused.Expectations for change in academic publishing have been influenced by pundits in the Internet industry, the open-source movement in computer programming, the rise of Web 2.0 social media tools, and the Wikipedia model of crowd-sourced production [e.g, (3)]. The ArXiv preprint server-used heavily by computationally based, high-paradigm, and low-commercial value fields-was often held up as a one-sizefits-all model that all disciplines could aspire to. "Big data" (4) and cyberinfrastructure (5) have promised unlimited data sharing and reuse, replicability and reproducibility in highly collaborative and distributed research environments. In this context, the journal article or monograph is considered to be a format unconducive to effective transfer of knowledge.It has been suggested by some that making sense of the information overload resulting from this explosion of data and new publication forms could be ameliorated by new machine-generated algorithms (6), broadly referred to as alt-metrics (7). Adding to this mix is a proliferation of publication forms that take advantage of new media tools and shift the burden of payment for the production of s...

Altmetrics as a means of assessing scholarly output

“…A solution to this is for academic institutions to implement formal recognition of FAIR data sharing during tenure and promotion processes (Nokes et al 2013). While researchers are reluctant to share data because it might hamper their individual promotion prospects (Harley 2013), there will continue to be a negative impact on the scientifi c progress that would otherwise be achieved if data were shared openly earlier.…”

The future of the impact agenda depends on the revaluation of academic freedom

“…These tenure review committees tend to rely heavily on the reports of the disciplinary peers from within the department and letters from external disciplinary reviewers. The largest factor in their decisions, however, is the candidate's record of peer reviewed publications (National Research Council, 2012;Harley, 2013). Such publications ideally appear in the top journals within the researcher's field of expertise.…”

Social Scholarship? Academic Communications in the Digital Age

“…While the digital tide is strong, a multiyear study of seven disciplines showed considerable indifference and even resistance to the electronic transformation of scholarly communications (Harley et al, 2010;Harley, 2013). Limits to faculty enthusiasm for the style of the digital scholar, particularly what it demands in screen time, are also visible in recent ethnographic accounts of academic work, which is still often analog and solitary (Hillesund, 2010;Bussert et al, 2011;Antonijevic & Cahoy, 2014).…”