Combining Research and Outreach to Explore Current Examples of Digital Scholarly Communication

1. Combining Research and Outreach to Explore Current Examples of Digital Scholarly Communication Presenter: Karla Hahn, Association of Research Libraries

2. Why a study of new model works?

3. About ARL Membership: • 123 Research Libraries • United States and Canada 2007 ARL members reported spending on: • Library materials: $9.6 million median ($1.2 billion total) • Serials: $6.6 million median ($820 million total) • Electronic resources: $4.7 million median ($536 million total).

4. http://www.arl.org/sc/models/ model-pubs/pubstudy/index.shtml

5. The study: • ARL • Designed and funded study • Organized field study and data collection • Ithaka • Field study support • Targeted interviews with resource developers • Report by Nancy Maron and Kirby Smith • For more information: http://www.arl.org/sc/models/model-pubs/pubstudy/index.shtml

6. Study Goals • Identify range of examples of new model works, • High level overview of the emerging landscape, • Encourage librarians and faculty members to share information and perspectives about the current array of new model works, • Support librarians in building relationships and developing outreach programs that advance new kinds of scholarly works.

7. 2008 Study Timeline February Funding March Recruitment & Training Materials April Launch of Data Collection June 15 Close of Data Collection November 10 Report Released

8. Contact and conversation with faculty Gathered names of possible resources from the faculty who use them Responsible for vetting the resources recommended by faculty, according to criteria outlined by ARL Responsible for entering the names and information about the resources into a central web-based database Role of the Field Team: Data Gathering

9. Field Study Phase Key issues: • Framing “new model publications” • Launching conversations • Engaging volunteers

10. Participation Librarians • >300 individuals • 46 institutions • US and Canada • Liberal arts colleges to research institutions Faculty • 8.2 approached per librarian • 1.75 interviewed per librarian

11. Institutional participation • 3 Partner/Pilot testing institutions • 14 additional institutions

12. The experience of talking with faculty

13. How participants identified their conversation partner

14. “It wasn't until we had a fairly unstructured conversation that many faculty remembered sites they use. Initially several said they didn't use newer modes of scholarly communication, when in fact they did.” Study participant

15. What was most valuable? • “Having a formal structured reason to begin a conversation that encompassed some of these issues. I have been wanting to do this for almost a year, but this study gave me the impetus to actually make meetings and get them done in a short period of time.” • “The conversation as a whole helped me to gain a better understanding of [how] this faculty member does research and how he expects his students to do research.” • “Learning specific ways this faculty member keeps current in her field.” • “Faculty discussing the way they work, moving from literature to lab to data analysis to publishing and discussion, but not always in that order.”

16. “Learning about both faculty members' positive views on electronic publications as ways to share scholarly and professional research/ideas/news. Although I had previous conversations with both faculty members, my discussions with them about new model publications made me see them as advocates for scholarly communication practices such as open access publishing.”

17. Relationship building

18. The new models faculty identified

19. Why focus on “original” and “scholarly” resources? ARL wanted to learn more about those resources that were likely to be: New in their applications of the capabilities of a digital environment Tuned to needs of scholars and researchers Aimed primarily at advancing the dissemination of new research and scholarship

20. Limitations of using this qualitative approach Neither census nor statistically representative sample. Difficult to control conditions under which questions were posed to faculty. Some data (for example, on sustainability methods used) is difficult to obtain and verify by direct observation, without further detailed questioning of project leaders.

21. What the approach provided: Mechanism for identifying a reasonably large number of examples from a wide range of disciplines and fields Ability to focus on resources that have been “adopted” by some scholarly community Examples of digital resources faculty consider innovative Hypotheses about trends regarding the types of digital resources used in different disciplines

22. By the numbers • 355 entries for resources • 240 cited resources we identified as both original and scholarly • 206 unique scholarly original resources

23. Analysis based on Assessment of resource entries in database Direct observation of sites named by faculty In-depth interviews with project leaders from 11 sample cases

24. Types of Digital Scholarly Resources (n=206)

25. E-only journals Most frequently reported content type Reported evenly across humanities, social sciences and STM fields Most are Open Access Some examples of innovation, though some features are slow to gain wide adoption

26. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

27. JoVE: Journal of Visualized Experiments

28. Reviews Innovate in terms of speed to release Benefit from lack of space restriction Rapid and frequent publication encourages users to visit the sites frequently or adopt notification functions

29. Bryn Mawr Classical Review

30. Preprint and working paper servers Provide quick access to new work Largest servers are the oldest ones and dominant in their fields: arXiv and SSRN, both cited by multiple faculty members Faculty cited frequent usage of these sites Significance of disciplinary culture in influencing strong growth of these resources

31. PhilSci Archive

32. Encyclopedias, Dictionaries and Annotated Content Broad-ranging projects, often mixing primary documents and scholarly annotation Some reference works benefit from a more decentralized creation of content

33. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

34. Data-based resources 41 resources named, mostly in STM fields Faculty cited similar overall usage strategy: “intensely while working on a project, rarely otherwise” Many are grant-supported, some entirely so Some large dynamic projects based on user-contributed data

35. eBird

36. Blogs 15 blogs were cited by faculty, and blogs appeared as an element in 29 other resources as well Appeared across all disciplinary groups Faculty mainly reported daily or weekly usage Not just for chat, but real scholarly discussion Most blogs in this sample did not seem to use any revenue generating model, since hosting costs tend to be low

37. PEA Soup

38. Discussion lists 21 resources named were discussion lists Three-quarters of these were traditional listservs Fourteen are in the humanities Users cited them for allowing them to “keep in touch with everyone, all the time” Not at all a cutting-edge technology, but still very popular

39. H-France Forum

40. Professional and academic hubs 34 resources in the collection were classified as hubs Larger sites, with many content and communication features, where faculty cited the benefit of the site as being a “one-stop shop.” Often supported by academic societies or professional associations

41. Alzheimer Research Forum

42. Patterns and Trends

43. Discipline trends Presence in nearly all categories, from journals, to data to reference Examples of all content types showed up across a wide range of disciplines, though some trends emerged Multimedia expands

44. Innovation in new and “old” Evidence of ongoing experimentation with revenue models for many projects, while others rely almost entirely on volunteer labor and contributions in kind Older projects show significant innovation; creating legitimacy and building audience takes time Experimentation with revenue models

45. Strong influence of tradition Significance of disciplinary norms Peer review still extremely important Establishing trust and credibility through reputation and quality is vital Evidence of some reluctance of faculty to adopt some innovative features

46. Sustainability Many are grant supported Or very inexpensive (blogs, disc lists) in terms of direct costs Even big players with grants for many years are interested in other means of reliable support

47. Today’s environment • Librarians and faculty are interested in sharing their understandings of new mechanisms for reporting scholarship and research and engaging in scholarly discourse. • There are many kinds of works out there and in “wide use”. • No discipline has gotten a lock on innovation. • Much remains to be learned from and about new models.

48. Karla Hahn karla@arl.org http://www.arl.org