Great presentation @ #CNI14s on the evolving scholarly record by Brian Lavoie of @OCLC Research; great work by the whole team

The Evolving Scholarly Record
Brian Lavoie
Research Scientist
OCLC Research

Jennifer Schaffner
Program Officer
OCLC Research

NOTES

The notion and visits of the scholarly recess are rapidly changing.

Key tends:

• Format moving to electronic
• Not just monographs and journals
• More dynamic and less static, more focus on process
• Stakeholder roles are being reconfigured

Must remember that changes in the scholarly record are evolutionary not revolutionary, a question of pace not core concepts.

OCLC Research goals:

• Developer a framework for the evolving scholarly record ( ESR)
• Get a big picture of the EVR
• Define categories and stakeholder roles
• Be high level and cross-disciplinary

Framing the scholarly record:

Note how in the framework specific formats are not included, this model tried to capture a high level look at the EVR. Also, all the elements on the slide may not be captured.

Data sets are now thought of as evidence, but increasingly be seen as outcomes and of intrinsic value.

Remarks:

• Framework components are not "new"
• Prio work is the foundation of future inquiry
• Conceptualizes ESR having grated context

Framework with examples, services in practice:

Look at F1000 posters as supplement to Slideshare.

All of these tools are ways for scholars to get credit for their work (writ large).

Framing the stakeholder ecosystem, print centric ecosystem is different in the e-literature world:

Evolving configuration for e-literature where libraries somewhat cut out of the system but where systems like JSTOR and Portico are trying to get into "collect"; Social media by authors is blurring the "fix" and "collect" areas but capture of Twitter and blogs trying to reinsert this systems:

Example of user of framework:

Does the disintermediation of some of these files, how do we build tools or services that will keep the important elements of them?

Impacts on stewardship:

• Increased volume of content
• Increased distribution of stewardship (publishers, libraries, 3rd parties)
• More selective stewardship

Look for whitepaper soon at: http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/scholarcomm.html

ABSTRACT

This session will report on work in OCLC Research to develop a framework for thinking about the general scope and boundaries of the evolving scholarly record. The scholarly record is evolving into something that promises to be vastly different from traditional print-based models. Its boundaries are blurring, driven by changes in research practices, as well as changing perceptions of the long-term value of certain forms of scholarly materials. The purpose of the framework is to help organize and drive discussions about the scholarly record within and across relevant domains, by defining key categories of materials and stakeholder roles associated with the evolving record. Such a framework would equip libraries, publishers, funders, scholars, and other stakeholders with a common point of reference based on shared concepts and terminology. An increasingly diverse and digital scholarly record has important practical implications for institutions that acknowledge a mission for collecting, making available, and preserving it. Fulfilling this mission requires a shared understanding among stakeholders of what the scholarly record encompasses. In addition to describing the framework, this session will also offer some speculation and discussion on future patterns of stewardship of the scholarly record, based on the view of the scholarly record presented by the framework.
The OCLC Research team associated with this work includes Eric Childress, Ricky Erway, Ixchel Faniel, Brian Lavoie, Constance Malpas, and Titia van der Werf.
http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/scholarcomm.html

Notes from @KarenS_Y & @DrMaltman at #CNI14S on the topic of researcher IDs

Integrating Researcher Identifiers Into University And Library Systems
Micah Altman
Director of Research
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Karen Smith-Yoshimura
Program Officer
OCLC Research

QUICK NOTES
Discussion of authorship trends, issues, and questions. Focus on how to analyze authorship in citations. How do you connect an author with a work?

One researcher can have multiple profiles or identifiers. This project identified seven stakeholders and their needs.

In addition to the stakeholder needs, there were other functional requirements identified. They than profiled 20 systems. Included things like VIAF, VIVO, Mendeley, Wikipedia, ORCID, NACO, ISNI, etc. One discovery was that there is a lot of overlap.

Where is everyone?

• Lots of professional are in LinkedIn
• Most researchers are unlisted
• ORCID and ISNI are most represented but still small in number

Other thoughts:

• Books v Journals: different needs and audiences
• Remember that researcher identifiers are not equal to name authorities.
• The is a complex environment where systems have overlapping services and are rapidly changing and don't often coordinate
• Systems can have both producer and consumer relationships

Some emerging trends

• Recognition that persistent identifiers for researchers are needed
• Registration services, not authority files are the way forward
• Publishers are early adopters
• Funders are also starting to adopt identifiers
• NIH integrated ORCIDS inSciENcv
• Universities are starting to mandate research identifiers

Recommendations for universities

• Prepare to engage
• Start outreach to researcher
• Future proof systems
• Demand more from publishers, ask for more than PDFs
• Prepare for more reporting

How to choose a system

• ORCID and ISNI are logical first choices
• Retain traditional systems like VIAF and NACO
• Be aware of local systems like arXiv

Manage risks

• Things are evolving
• Researchers will not drive change and are sensitive as to who controls their profile
• Incentive system help

ABSTRACT
A number of approaches to providing authoritative researcher identifiers have emerged, but they tend to be limited by discipline, affiliation or publisher. This talk provides an overview of an OCLC Research task group’s analysis of a complex ecosystem of systems and institutions that provide, aggregate and use researcher and name authorities: researcher identifier systems. The presentation will reflect on the state of the practice and on the remaining challenges to the integration of researcher identifiers into the systems and practices of libraries, universities, funders, and publishers. Comments on the group’s draft recommendations will be solicited.

Report URL
http://oclc.org/research/activities/registering-researchers.html

#CNI14S Notes from: Community-based Stewardship at Pennsylvania State University

Notes from: Community-based Stewardship at Pennsylvania State University  

Mike Furlough
Associate Dean for Research & Scholarly Communications
Pennsylvania State University

Patricia Hswe
Head, ScholarSphere User Services and Digital Content Strategist
Pennsylvania State University

Ben Goldman
Digital Records Archivist
Pennsylvania State University

Ecology more evocative than community in this context. However, it is harder to build an ecology than a community. Community implies a form of join ownership.

Penn State did this as a new system based around three community, have used Hydra for their ScholarSphere and implemented a way to bring in business records.

Built on HydraFedora, ScholarSphere includes tradition publication plus data, student work, presentations, etc. Patron driven for deposit, took a couple years to do.

Role of liaison librarians were a key, also having use cases for both librarians and faculty.

ScholarSphere is unusual in the amount of control it ceded to the users.

Systems should scale to the needs of the users and not the system managers.

ScholarSphere also serves as a digital preservation tool and manages file formats behind the scenes that is transparent to the users.

Q: how did you get buy in from liaison librarians?
A: started with does with a stake in it (science librarians), explained how this is an evolving service, started a users group. You can't force participation, some will embrace it and others will ignore it.

Q: How did you get button from upper management?
A: Barbara Dewey, UL, was a big super from the start and a cheerleader for the Library to be more than just "come read books in the library".

Q: How do you find it?
A: Infrastructure support is fairly easy, management has fought for appropriate be positions. Barbara Dewey noted that she had to fight for relocation of staff as positions came open.

My annual Giant Cliff picture from #CNI14S

MetroLink that will take me to #CNI14s in STL