On scholarly communication (report of a Dagstuhl workshop)

Report on the“Future of Research Communications”

WorkshopDagstuhl, August 15-18, 2012

Ivan Hermanand the other workshop co-chairs:

Tim Clark, Eduard Hovy, and Anita de Waard

(2)

Let me tell you a story…

(3)

I heard about an interesting paper on a social site

(4)

So I looked up the journal on the Web

(5)

Found the paper

(6)

However, I was not at my institute…

(7)

But… I knew the secret!

(8)

But… I knew the secret!

(9)

So I could read the paper.

(10)

The paper also had…

(11)

… (low resolution) diagrams, and …

(12)

… algorithms to read and to understand …

(13)

…lots of data; and of course…

(14)

… lots of references.

(15)

I liked the paper. So I wrote a blog…

(16)

…with exact references.

(17)

There were a bunch of comments…

(18)

…including the author’s, with my answer…

(19)

…and also private communications

(20)

Experts find one another’s result They engage into private or public

conversations, discussions They may lead to

new results new, possibly common actions (that did happen in

our case) They get to know and possibly influence one

another’s view Etc.

This was and example of what scholarly communication is really all about

(21)

Scholarly advances were always based on communication

(22)

I found out about the paper on a social site not through a formal bibliography

I could not get to the paper directly though my Institute’s library has a subscription to

Elsevier’s Web site… I was not there! I.e., I had no access I had to know (because I am part of the community)

that there is a preprint server

What is wrong with our story?

(23)

I had access to PDF: like a paper printout, but on the screen no access to higher resolution images no access to the underlying data, so that I could

check some of the statements no access to the algorithm to really try it out (have

you ever tried to read a complex computing algorithm?)

no direct link to all the other papers via the references• if I want to read them: for each paper the whole story

starts all over again!

What is wrong with our story?

(24)

My blog led to additional insights, possibly to both of us maybe some practical results • submission of a specification to a standard body in this

case the paper certainly had an impact on me …

But… the whole series of communication, of references, etc., go unnoticed on the authors’ official impact factors and that is almost the only thing that counts for

career advancement…

What is wrong with our story?

(25)

Web sites can offer you lively experiences on images, interactive diagrams, video, audio possibly illustrated algorithms running real time on

demand interactive control over remote program execution

Hyperlinks are the norm: getting from one page to another is normal and expected

Compare it with the Web age where…

(26)

Storage is cheap: publishing data or images beyond pure text is common place

Data mining is real: cross references, relationships, etc., become possible if the underlying content is “software friendly”

Compare it with the Web age where…

(27)

Experts communicate through emails, Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. possibly more knowledge and information flows

through these channels than through “official” scientific communications

this flow is not measured for scientific career purposes

Pace of information exchange is higher, a publication must be made available almost instantaneously compare it to the long publication delays through

official channels

Social behaviours are changing

(28)

There is an information overload; people expect technical help in managing it

Collaborative platforms come to the fore where scientific discourse may happen through common development and discussion

etc.

Social behaviours are changing

(29)

Scholarly communication should move away from its paper centric model and traditions, and join the information age!

(31)

Dagstuhl workshop on “Future of Scholarly Communication”

Took place on 15-18 August, 2011

Large participation of people with very different scientific backgrounds biologists computer scientists librarians publishers astrophysicists …

(32)

Solve all the issues Come up with ready solution Develop new software Define full-blown new business models …

The goal was not to

(33)

Experiences were exchanged among communities

A high level synthesis of the issues was provided A “Dagstuhl Manifesto”

http://dx.doi.org/10.4230/DagMan.1.1.41 A separate Dagstuhl report:

http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2011/3315/ A shorter version in the “Force11 Manifesto”:

http://force11.org/white_paper

Build a community around the common goal

Instead…

(34)

Goal: go beyond everyone’s respective disciplines and look at the issues around scholarly communications in general

(35)

Three major areas were explored1. Mechanisms and methodologies of publication2. Finances: business models for the future3. Re-evaluate quality assessment of researchers

Meeting Recommendations

(36)

What does “publication” mean? Text, but increasingly together with:

associated datasets, video, images, software, workflow plans—anything used in research

related papers, possibly reflecting the evolution of the paper’s thoughts

social network of related researchers possibly earlier versions of the paper, with

commentaries metadata (publication date, exact references, quality

verification results,…)

Mechanisms and Methodology of Publications

(37)

Associated information should be stored, like datasets, mathematical models, etc. software/algorithms in downloadable and runnable

form images, video, audio, etc., in indexable formats

All these should be stored and made available using public standards storage and encoding formats for the data

components metadata standards for the additional information etc.

Mechanisms and Methodology of Publications

(38)

New procedures, systems, services, etc., are needed manage information, extract relationships, help

collaboration link research data to other research data on the Web help in gaining further insights, finding trends etc.

Some of this work is hard and require funding, new business models

Mechanisms and Methodology of Publications

(39)

Role of publishers should change current subscription models, closed information

storage, stringent copyright policies, etc., may not work for long

no longer in charge of textual content only; manage storage and systematization of all the data, including the text

focus on long term archiving, preservation provide extra valuable services on the research data;

that should be the major source of future income

Finances: Business model for the future

(40)

Role of libraries also change focus not on preservation but on access to

information on the Web at large user services of all kinds become more important

New players (e.g., Google) appear on the market their presence changes the role of both publishers

and libraries

Finances: Business model for the future

(41)

New impact measurement should be developed assess usage of publication (including ancillary

material) assess on-line discussions, cross-references,

additional data, impact via Social Web Extended notion of “publication” brings new

forms of contributions: data collection creation, statistical processing of

others’ results creation of software that users others’ data production of new type of software and assess its

usage by the community

Re-evaluate quality assessment of researchers

(42)

Produced the separate white paper (beyond the Dagstuhl report)

Provided inputs to different governmental initiatives on scholarly communications

Set up a separate Web Site Maintain a separate mailing list

seeded with the workshop participants’ list Try to get extra funding to develop the ideas,

software, web site, etc., further Spread the word…

Since the Workshop

(44)

This workshop was part of a series of similar events

Everybody was charmed by the facilities of Dagstuhl!

A final remark…

(45)

These slides are also available on the Web:

http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/0319-Dagstuhl-IH/

Thank you for your attention