AUTHORSHIP AND THE PROMISES OF DIGITAL DISSEMINATION March 9, 4:00- 5:45 pm UC Davis School of Law, King Hall, Rm 2100A
A cross-disciplinary panel discussion on authorship in the digital age, with a focus on the specific goals and needs of academic authors. Authors who write to be read care about how their works are published and what that means for reader access. While traditional options and copyright arrangements still predominate in many fields, there are ever-increasing ways to share works of authorship. What works best to get textual and visual works out there and under what circumstances? Join us for this panel discussion with AuthorsAlliance, where we will explore the opportunities and challenges authors face in maximizing the reach of their work, both in and outside of academia.
Mario Biagioli (Law, STS)
Stephanie Boluk (English)
Jonathan Eisen (Biology)
Alexandra Lippman (STS)
Rick Prelinger (UCSC and director of the Prelinger Archive)
Kim Stanley Robinson (Mars Trilogy)
Pam Samuelson (AuthorsAlliance)
MacKenzie Smith (Library)
Madhavi Sunder (Law)
Michael Wolfe (Authors Alliance)
Davis Humanities Institute
Institute for the Social Sciences
Center for Science and Innovation Studies
Innovating Communication in Scholarship Project
UC Davis School of Law
Welcoming Remarks (Kevin Johnson, Dean, UC Davis School of Law)
MISCONDUCT WATCHDOGS (I)
Jonathan Eisen (UC Davis, Genome Center) (Chair)
Ivan Oransky (Retraction Watch & NYU) “Retraction Watch: What We’ve Learned Since 2010”
John Bohannon (Science Magazine) “Grey Hat Hacking for Science”
Elizabeth Wager (Sideview) “Why Do We Need a Committee on Publication Ethics and What Should It Do?”
MISCONDUCT WATCHDOGS (II)
Jonathan Eisen (UC Davis, Genome Center) (Chair)
Darren Taichman (Executive Deputy Editor, Annals of Internal Medicine Vice President, American College of Physicians) “A False Sense of Security?”
Debora Weber-Wulff (University of Applied Sciences Berlin, HTW, Media and Computing & VroniPlag Wiki) “Documenting Plagiarism in Doctoral Theses: The Work of the VroniPlag Wiki Academic Community in Germany”
Brandon Stell (The PubPeer Foundation & CNRS) “Introducing PubPeer”
Emmanuel Didier and Catherine Guaspare (EPiDaPo, UCLA) “The Voinnet Affair: New Norms in High-Pressured Science”
COUNTERFEITING BRANDS V. FAKING PRODUCTS
Madhavi Sunder (UC Davis, Law) (Chair)
Marie-Andree Jacob (Keele University, Law) “Template, Creativity and Publication Ethics”
Alessandro Delfanti (University of Toronto, Institute of Communication, Culture, Information and Technology) “ArXiv or viXra? Physics and the quest for the true archive”
Sergio Sismondo (Queen’s University, Philosophy) “Leveraging Academic Value in the Pharmaceutical Industry”
Alexandra Lippman (UC Davis, Innovating Communication in Scholarship) (Chair)
Cyril Labbé (Joseph Fourier University – Grenoble I) “Ike Antkare, His Publications and Those of His Disciples”
Burkhard Morgenstern (Universität Göttingen, Bioinformatics) “Virtual Editors Can Significantly Improve the Visibility of Junk Journals – A case study”
Paul Brookes (University of Rochester, Medicine) “Crossing the Line – Pseudonyms & Snark in Post-Pub Peer Review”
The University Library’s Scholarly Communications Program is pleased to welcome Kevin Schenthal to the program. Kevin is a sixth-year graduate student in the mathematics department. Kevin joins the University Library’s open access team and will help conduct faculty outreach and support of the 2013 UC Academic Senate Open Access policy. These UC policies follow other changes in scholarly communications such as federal mandates to archive and share research publications, data, and software; rapidly changing business models for journal and book publishing; and new digital formats for online publications. Kevin will also collaborate with ICIS, the Software Attribution for Geoscience Applications, and the forthcoming Hard Science Software: Credit for Code workshop.
Peer review – can’t live with it, can’t live without it. That’s the basic conclusion to be drawn from the myriad of discussions currently surrounding the topic, with a new peer review crisis apparently popping up every other day. Peer review’s ubiquitous place in scientific funding and publishing might lead the casual observer to assume it had been commonplace for centuries. In fact, while the Royal Society established a form of peer review as early as 1753, the practice did not become widespread until after World War II and, as of yet, nobody really knows why. But peer review’s surprising youth is a treat to the historian of twentieth century science. To try and picture a publishing landscape without omnipotent peer review, one does not have to go back too far.
I’m currently at the Advancing Research Communication & Scholarship conference. Hackathon, presentations on open data, open access, and alt metrics. You can follow what’s happening via Twitter at #arcs2015. I’ll add some notes from the conference soon and am excited to present on “Beyond Open: Global Perspective on Research Communication and Knowledge Production.” The panel’s chaired by Brian Rosenblum (University of Kansas Libraries) and I am joining Jane Anderson (NYU) Mónica I. Feliú-Mójer, (Ciencia Puerto Rico and iBiology) and John Willinsky (Stanford). Below is the description:
Current scholarly communication initiatives are focused on expanding access, use, and reuse. This session will explore the relationship between these issues and the needs and goals of the developing world and marginalized communities. We will consider how new models and expectations affect and address knowledge distribution structures in the developing world, and the control local research communities have over their own legacies and outputs.
Provoke! published its first online collection of digital sound studies, making scholarly communication just a little bit noisier. As the editors write:
“Provoke! creates a home for creative-critical projects by makers, documentary artists, and sound scholars whose work presses at the boundaries of scholarship. Envisioned as ‘provocations’ to existing forms of publication, these projects relate to one another through their deep engagement with sonic materials and innovative formal presentation….
The editors, known collectively as Soundbox, wish to see audio material featured more abundantly and creatively in scholarly settings. At the heart of our collaboration is a bold aspiration to hear sound used as a primary means of knowledge production.”
Their website privileges listening. Hovering one’s cursor over different projects triggers related sound. The range of scholarship and approaches are impressive. Perhaps the challenges of working between media and fields of expertise fostered frequent collaboration. Dancers, composers, ethnomusicologists, curators, sound artists and others worked together to produce different projects. The pieces include “a city symphony of sounds” collected before the 2010 earthquake in Port-Au Prince; recordings from a music studio set up in the Richmond, VA jail; and an audio effects processor, Paperphone, for giving scholars tools to critically ‘sonify’ their presentations.
For Paperphone’s debut at the UCLA, I had agreed to become one of experimenters. Using the MaxLive software plug-in, I performed “Mixtape Rio,” weaving together soundscapes I recorded with my vocal narration. Everyone’s varying uses of the software revealed and opened up new possibilities for scholarly communication and artistic creation.
But, what of credit and evaluation for this kind of scholarship? How does the work register as scholarship and what challenges does it present for the standardized peer-review model of publishing? Support and guidance from well-respected individuals and institutions helps; Duke’s Franklin Humanities Institute and PhD Lab in Digital Knowledge sponsored the initiative. Also, the online iteration of Provoke! Digital Sound Studies will be followed by an edited volume to be published by Duke in Fall 2015. Perhaps, these multiple modes of publishing can work together to strengthen and push the possibilities for scholarship– sonic or otherwise.
The University of Chicago Library takes a cue from nearly 500 year old publishing practices to curate personalized, “individually bound” introductions to their digital collection of the Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae:
In 1540 Antonio Lafreri, a native of Besançon transplanted to Rome, began publishing maps and other printed images that depicted major monuments and antiquities in Rome. These images were calculated to appeal to the taste for classical antiquity that fueled the cultural event we call the Renaissance. After Lafreri published a title page in the mid-1570s, collections of these prints came to be known as the Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae, the “Mirror of Roman Magnificence.” Tourists and other collectors who bought prints from Lafreri made their own selections and had them individually bound. Over time, Lafreri’s title page served as starting point for large and eclectic compilations, expanded and rearranged by generations of collectors.
On December 10th, Christine Borgman, Professor & Presidential Chair in Information Studies at UCLA, delivered this keynote address for our workshop, Data Rights & Data Wrongs. Her talk set the tone for an exciting day and was based on her forthcoming book Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World (MIT Press 2015).