AltOA: a framework for dissemination through disintermediation
Pages 79 - 88
Abstract
Scholarly discourse is a complex and valuable process which the Web is in a prime position to revolutionise and improve. Yet due to the intricate network of stakeholders in academic publishing, the Web's power to disrupt has been less influential than in other markets or industries. Whilst the current publishing systems satisfy many of the requirements of the process there are still some problems left unaddressed. The purpose of this paper is to take a holistic view of academic publishing, identifying problem areas and to devise a framework which takes advantage of the affordances of the Web, namely its ability to disintermediate markets and present new methods of interaction, to enhance scholarly communication. By examining the issues from the perspective of academic disciplines, researchers, research councils and publishers; new approaches to presenting scholarly artefacts, recognising researchers' contributions and demonstrating impact are developed. The paper concludes with a case study that examines how the new framework, named AltOA, applies to the field of Chemistry.
References
[1]
Antelman, K. Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact? College & Research Libraries 65, 5 (2004), 372--382.
[2]
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., and Wentling, T. Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management 7, 1 (2003), 64--77.
[3]
Arnstein, L., Sigdursson, S., and Franza, B. Ubiquitous Computing in the Biology Laboratory. Journal of the Association for Laboratory Automation 6, 1 (2001).
[4]
Bellinger, G., Castro, D., and Mills, A. Data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. 2004. http://courseweb.lis.illinois.edu/~katewill/spring2011-502/502 and other readings/bellinger on ackoff data info know wisdom.pdf
[5]
Butler, D. Electronic notebooks: a new leaf. Nature 436, 7047 (2005), 20--21.
[6]
Chan, L., Cuplinskas, D., Eisen, F., et al. Budapest Open Access Initiative. 2002. http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/openaccess/read.
[7]
Cole, S. and Cole, J. R. Scientific Output and Recognition: A Study in the Operation of the Reward System in Science. American Sociological Review 32, 3 (1967), 377--390.
[8]
Egghe, L. The Hirsch Index and Related Impact Measures. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 44, 1 (2010), 65--114.
[9]
EPrints. EPrints - Digital Repository Software. 2013. http://www.eprints.org/.
[10]
Fyson, R., Coles, S., and Carr, L. Dissemination through disintermediation. The Third Annual Digital Economy All Hands Conference, (2012).
[11]
Gewin, V. Social media: Self-reflection, online. Nature 471, 7340 (2011), 667--669.
[12]
Gowers, T. The Cost of Knowledge. 2012. http://thecostofknowledge.com/.
[13]
Granovetter, M. Threshold Models of Collective Behavior. American Journal of Sociology 83, 6 (1978), 1420--1443.
[14]
Greaves, S., Scott, J., Clarke, M., et al. Nature's trial of open peer review. Nature 444, 971 (2006).
[15]
Groves, T. and Khan, K. Is open peer review the fairest system? BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 341, (2010), 1082--1083.
[16]
Harnad, S., Carr, L., Swan, A., Sale, A., and Bosc, H. Open Access Repositories - Maximizing and Measuring Research Impact through University and Research-Funder Open-Access Self-Archiving Mandates. Wissenschaftsmanagement 4, (2009), 36--41.
[17]
Hey, A. J. G. and Trefethen, A. E. The Data Deluge: An e-Science Perspective. In F. Berman, G. C. Fox and A. J. G. Hey, eds., Grid Computing - Making the Global Infrastructure a Reality. Wiley and Sons, 2003, 809--824.
[18]
Lagoze, C. The oreChem Project?: Integrating Chemistry Scholarship with the Semantic Web. WebSci'09: Society On-Line, (2009), 18--20.
[19]
Leadbeater, C. We-Think: Mass innovation, not mass production. Profile Books, London, 2009.
[20]
Lester, S. Researching research: New skills of targeting audiences and networking are now necessary to create impact. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/28970.
[21]
Loebecke, C., Van Fenema, P. C., and Powell, P. Co-opetition and knowledge transfer. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems 30, 2 (1999), 14--25.
[22]
Mandavilli, A. Trial By Twitter. Nature 469, (2011), 286--287.
[23]
McLuhan, M. Understanding media: The extensions of man. MIT press, 1994.
[24]
Meier zu Verl, C., Horstmann, W., Besemer, H., et al. Studies on Subject-Specific Requirements for Open Access Infrastructure. 2011.
[25]
Modern Language Association. How do I cite a tweet? 2012. http://www.mla.org/style/handbook_faq/cite_a_tweet.
[26]
Moreau, L., Freire, J., Futrelle, J., Mcgrath, R. E., Myers, J., and Paulson, P. The Open Provenance Model: An Overview. Provenance and Annotation of Data and Processes, (2008), 323--326.
[27]
Olson, M. The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1965.
[28]
Peters, D. P. and Ceci, S. J. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, 02 (2010), 187.
[29]
Priem, J. and Hemminger, B. M. Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday 15, 7 (2010).
[30]
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., and Neylong, C. altmetrics: a manifesto. 2010. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.
[31]
Renear, A. H. and Palmer, C. L. Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing. Science 325, 5942 (2009), 828--832.
[32]
Research Councils UK. What do Research Councils mean by 'impact'? 2013. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/kei/impacts/Pages/meanbyimpact.aspx.
[33]
Research Information Network. Patterns of information use and exchange: case studies of researchers in the life sciences. 2009.
[34]
Research Information Network. Finch Report | Research Information Network. 2012. http://www.researchinfonet.org/publish/finch/.
[35]
ResearchGate. ResearchGate. 2013. http://www.researchgate.net/.
[36]
Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., and Smith, R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 318, 7175 (1999), 23--27.
[37]
RSC. ChemSpider. 2013. http://www.chemspider.com/.
[38]
Russell Group. Government response to the Finch Report. 2012. http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/russellgroup-latest-news/151-2012/5324-government-response-to-the-finch-report/.
[39]
Smith, R. Measuring the social impact of research. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 323, 7312 (2001), 528.
[40]
Smith, R. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast cancer research: BCR 12, 4 (2010), 1--4.
[41]
Suls, J. and Martin, R. The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4, 1 (2009), 40--50.
[42]
Swan, A. The Open Access citation advantage. 2010.
[43]
Trevorrow, P. and Volmer, D. a. Dispelling the myths surrounding the Research Excellence Framework. Rapid communications in mass spectrometry: RCM 26, 4 (2012), 399--402.
[44]
University of Southampton. ROARMAP: Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies. 2013. http://roarmap.eprints.org/.
Index Terms
- AltOA: a framework for dissemination through disintermediation
Recommendations
Who support open access publishing? Gender, discipline, seniority and other factors associated with academics' OA practice
This paper presents the findings from a survey study of UK academics and their publishing behaviour. The aim of this study is to investigate academics' attitudes towards and practice of open access (OA) publishing. The results are based on a survey ...
How transformative are transformative agreements? Evidence from Germany across disciplines
AbstractResearch institutions across the globe attempt to change the academic publishing system as digitization opens up new opportunities, and subscriptions to the large journal bundles of the leading publishers put library budgets under pressure. One ...
Russian Scholarly Papers in Open-Access Megajournals
AbstractThe quantity, research topics, and growth rates are assessed for Russian scholarly papers published in open-access megajournals. Russian papers published in PLoS ONE in 2006–2019 are analyzed on the basis of international scientometric indicators. ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
May 2013
481 pages
ISBN:9781450318891
DOI:10.1145/2464464
- Conference Chairs:
- Hugh Davis,
- Harry Halpin,
- Alex Pentland,
- Program Chairs:
- Mark Bernstein,
- Lada Adamic,
- Harith Alani,
- Alexandre Monnin,
- Richard Rogers
Copyright © 2013 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 02 May 2013
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Funding Sources
Conference
WebSci '13
Sponsor:
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 245 of 933 submissions, 26%
Upcoming Conference
Websci '25
- Sponsor:
- sigweb
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 95Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)2
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 07 Mar 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in