New article on genesis of altmetrics for measuring efficacy of scholarly communication by Anup Kumar Das (JNU, India) and Sanjaya Mishra (CEMCA, India).
Pre-print available at http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1408/1408.0090.pdf
The article by New Delhi-based scholars Das and Mishra gives a brief review of the existing literature on altmetrics. Among other things, the article provides a history of altmetrics approaches/mechanisms for multi-dimensional assessment of article/manuscript impact. Kumar and Mishra also geographically map the current state of altmetrics activity and research – making the point that there is an almost complete lack in the developing world. This begs the question of how altmetric literacies might be cultivated in and tailored to the needs of these varied research communities?
Another quick post here. I am working on a web site summarizing everything from our recent meeting we hosted at UC Davis:
To capture what was going on on Twitter I used Storify to make a summary of Day 2.
For many years I have been wondering about the best way to get more formal credit for blog posts I have written. It seems like the simplest way to do this would be to get a DOI for a blog post under some sort of publishing system and to use that DOI as the citable unit for the post. I remember a while back Titus Brown wrote about this exact idea: Posting blog entries to figshare – Living in an Ivory Basement but I have not seen much else out there on ways to do this and what the implications are. Anyone else out there know examples of how people have gotten DOIs for blog posts and if this has been useful? Thanks
Well, this is certainly the most comprehensive treatise I have ever seen on Open Access publishing: Open Access Publishing: A Literature Review | CREATe. It was written by “Giancarlo Frosio under the supervision of Estelle Derclaye (2014)” and
comes from the Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy (CREATe). It is VERY comprehensive and has discussion, review, and comments on just about every issue associated with Open Access publishing that one could think of. I do not know if there is any particular “angle” to the writings here. What I looked at (not all of the document) seemed to be a relatively objective assessment of various OA issues. Anyway, it is definitely worth a look for anyone interested in scholarly publishing or Open Access publishing or related issues.
Erik Kansa has an interesting post directly related to this ICIS project: Digging Digitally » It’s the Neoliberalism, Stupid: Why Open Access / Data / Science is not Enough. In his post Erik discusses some concerns he has with the “Openness” movement. Not that he is against openness – he is one of the biggest supporters of openness out there. But he has concerns with the need to go beyond just making material open. For example he writes
The problem is that the need for reform goes far deeper than simply making papers and data available under CC-By or CC-Zero. Exploitative publishing regimes are symptomatic of larger problems in the distribution of wealth and power. The concentration of wealth that warps so much of our political and economic life will inevitably warp the Open Movement toward unintended and unwanted outcomes.
Furthermore, he argues that we need more non-profit entities dedicated to the public good and leveraging openness. For example he writes.
For every PeerJ or Figshare (and these are ultimately just as dependent on continued public financing of research as any grant-driven project), we also need more innovative organizations like the Internet Archive, wholly dedicated to the public good and not the relentless pressure to commoditize everything (especially their patrons’ privacy).
This is definitely worth a look. And, if you want to hear more from Erik, come to the meeting we are organizing in February where he will be talking and will be on a discussion panel. Meeting registration information is here.