A smarter accountability: combining ‘traditional’ and social impact metrics in #OpenScience

 

Wikipedia defines Open Science as:

“… the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society, amateur or professional. It encompasses practices such as publishing open research, campaigning for open access, encouraging scientists to practice open notebook science, and generally making it easier to publish and communicate scientific knowledge.”

From all these transformative aspects here we will address what concerns making scientific research more transparent, more collaborative and more efficient. Here we will compile some of the current discussions about how to have a more comprehensive understanding of scientific impact [for more context here].

CURRENT SCIENTIFIC LANDSCAPE

Since the 1960s citation counts have been the standard for judging scholarly contributions and status, but growing awareness of the strategy’s limitations should lead to acceptance of alternative metrics. (Buschman and Michalek, 2013). The highly popular journal impact factor (JIF), calculated by the scientific division of Thomson Reuters and published in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), is an average measure of citations within 1 year after the publication of a journal as a whole within the two preceding years. It is widely used as a proxy of a journal’s quality and scientific prestige influencing the decision-making process for research grant allocation, hiring and promotion of academic staff. (Bornmann, Lutz, et al. 2012).

However, as Shema, et al (2014) argue the age of the web has given rise to new venues of discussion and dissemination of scholarly information. And as a consequence, JCR as the sole assessment of journal impact, has raised questions regarding the validity of the Institute of Scientific Information’s Impact Factor (ISI IF), a unique standard by which to judge the impact of a given journal (Bollen, et al, 2005). Buschman and Michalek also add, just because a paper is cited does not mean that it is cited positively; yet, there is no distinction between positive and negative references when evaluating citations counts (2013)

As scholarly communication migrated to the web, so did citations. However, the meaning of web citation remained rather vague because the web is made of much more than formal research discourse, and citations can appear everywhere. Shema, et al (2014)

photo 3

 

 

 

 

In an analysis by PLOS, citation counts only represent a small fraction of how a paper is used; in fact, citation counts represent less than 1% of usage for an article.
(Buschman and Michalek, 2013)

 

NEED FOR A CHANGE

Currently, both citations and peer review are considered mostly as partial indicators of ‘‘scientific impact’’ and also no single metric can sufficiently reveal the full impact of research. Given these limitations, the combination of peer review with ‘‘multi-metric approach’’ is proposed as necessary. (Zahedi, et. al, 2013)

The fast increase in facilities and new tools provided by the internet has lead to the development of alternative metrics (Sidinei and Martens, 2009). Alternative metrics refer to more ‘‘unconventional’’ measures for evaluation of research, including metrics such as usage data analysis (download and view counts); web citation and link analyses or social web analysis (Zahedi, et. al, 2013).

Today the so-called ‘alternative indicators’ in assessing scientific impact has entered the scientific debate, and these new metrics are expected not only to overcome some of the limitations of the previous approaches but also to provide new insights in research evaluation.

Chart published by Buschman, Mike, and Andrea Michalek. “Are alternative metrics still alternative?.” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 39.4 (2013): 35-39.

Here some ‘real-time’ transactions that can be also considered and tracked: Likes, comments, reviews, discussions, bookmarks, saves, tweets and mentions of scientific publications and sources in social media.  (Zahedi, et. al, 2013) … mentions in blogs and other nontraditional formats, open review forums, electronic book downloads, library circulation counts and more. (Buschman and Michalek, 2013).

SAMPLES OF NEW TOOLS

The more traditional metrics based on citations, although widely used and applied in research evaluation, are unable to measure the online impact of scientific literature (for example via Facebook, Twitter, reference managers, blogs or wikis) and also lack the ability of measuring the impact of scholarly outputs other than journal articles or conference proceedings, ignoring other outputs such as datasets, software, slides, blog posts, etc. Zahedi, et. al (2013)

Although altmetrics is still in its infancy here some interesting samples:

Among these tools we find F1000 (http://f1000.com), PLOS Article-Level-Metrics (ALM) (http:// article-level-metrics.plos.org/), Altmetric.com (www.altmetric.com/), Plum Analytics (www.plumanalytics.com/), Impact Story (www.impactstory.org/), CiteULike (www. citeulike.org/), and Mendeley (www.mendeley.com/). Zahedi, et. al (2013)

As well as some references and research of their efficacy:

  • Blog citations (i.e. ResearchBlogging.org) are worth pursuing as an altmetrics source,…[they] take a great deal more time and thought than microblogging, bookmarking, or downloading, even if the latter activities are not automated (Shema, et al, 2014)
  • Impact Story which shows the impact of the ‘artifacts’ according to a variety of metrics such as the number of readers, bookmarks, tweets, mentions, shares, views, downloads, blog posts and citations in Mendeley, CiteULike, Twitter, Wikipedia, Figshare, Dryad, Scienceseeker, PubMed and Scopus. Impact Story is an interesting open source for collecting altmetrics, however, we also see some important limitations particularly regarding the speed and capacity of data. Zahedi, et. al (2013)
  • Mendeley is the major and more useful source for altmetrics data. (Zahedi, et. al, 2013).

2012-11992-1-PB

 

 

Eysenbach (2011) found a correlation between the number of tweets about Journal of Medical Internet Research [JMIR] articles and future citation counts.

 

FUTURE SCENE

Some final ideas for an area that is now getting more and more attention:

  • The greatest opportunity for applying these new metrics is when we move beyond just tracking article-level metrics for a particular artifact and on to associating all research outputs with the person that created them. We can then underlay the metrics with the social graph of who is influencing whom and in what ways even before the system as a whole changes, new metrics are already available (Buschman and Michalek, 2013).
  • These new metrics, may accelerate their widespread use by authors, editors, and librarians as alternatives to this traditional institute (ISI IF) that had a monopoly until recently. (Sidinei and Martens, 2009)
  • The proper use and acceptance of these new tools might experience a time lag. (Sidinei and Martens, 2009)
  • As Gunther Eysenbach conclude ‘rather than as a replacement for citation metrics, which is in some cases weakly correlated with citations, but fundamentally measures something differently’.

* The title is inspired in an article from Nature

References

Bornmann, Lutz, et al. “Diversity, value and limitations of the journal impact factor and alternative metrics.” Rheumatology international 32.7 (2012): 1861-1867.

Zahedi, Zohreh, Rodrigo Costas, and Paul Wouters. “How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications.” Scientometrics (2014): 1-23.

Buschman, Mike, and Andrea Michalek. “Are alternative metrics still alternative?.” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 39.4 (2013): 35-39.

Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Smith, J. A., & Luce, R. (2005). Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data. Information Processing & Management, 41(6), 1419–1440. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2005.03.024

Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 1018–1027. doi:10.1002/asi.23037

Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e123.

Thomaz, Sidinei M., and Koen Martens. “Alternative metrics to measure journal impacts: Entering in a “free market” era.” Hydrobiologia 636.1 (2009): 7-10.

In transition to a sustainable Open Access?

One step ahead

Higher education institutions are operating in an altered context now with the advent of digital, networked technologies. The IT Revolution had resulted in new dysfunctions and inequalities in scholarly communication.

Authors, such as Hopkins (2009), among others, suggest that Higher Education requires resilience, to face this changing landscape of knowledge dissemination. Resilience requires adaptation and evolution to new environmental conditions, but retains core identity, in other words ‘the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganise while undergoing change, so as to retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks’.

In order to better understand how resilient are the post-secondary institutions regarding the transition that OA (open access) it is important to consider four key aspects: incentives, metrics, changing business models and sustainability.

IncentivesThe importance of establishing effective incentive models for open contributions and tool builders, for example, meaningful metrics and research grants.

The analogy between corporations and scientific investigators (particularly in terms of competition, cooperation and competitive advantage) might not be always applicable because of the different incentive structure the comparison is not universally applicable.(Venters, et al., 2013)

One source of resistance is the belief that impact will suffer if the work is submitted to an open access publisher.Evidence for this belief has been mixed with some studies supporting this claim, while others showing that open access publishing increases citations (e.g. Davis, 2010; Hajjem, Harnard & Gingras, 2005). Thus, the resistance to OAP both in terms of general academia… is declining (Weller and Anderson, 2013).

All of the largest research-led universities now have repositories in place and have, in many cases, developed policies or even ‘mandates’ [regarding Green publication] at an institutional level .(Pinfield, 2010).

Open Access mitigates or resolves these dysfunction and inequalities, such as: (a) fair returns to all stakeholders; (b) unlimited access and efficient usage; (c) quality safeguarding (transparent processes including easier detection of plagiarism and fraud); and (d) free sharing and re-use (e.g. CC-BY license). (Venters, 2013)

In the UK if the UK Publishers’ Association ‘Decision Tree’ offers open access publishing but no APC funds are available to the author, then the embargo would vary from 12 to 24 months. (Venters, 2013)

MetricsThe way we conducts science has changed so fundamentally that a metrics mechanism that ignores this change is totally passe.

Policy issues related to software sustainability such as measuring impact, giving credit, and incentivizing best practices; and education and training. (Venters, et al., 2013)

In addition to how long a project has been active, other metrics are important, such as number of developers, number of institutions, and whether there are active collaborators acting as advocates for the continued viability of a (research) project beyond individual projects and/or institutions.(Venters, et al., 2013)

Current assessment mechanism is counter productive to scholarly communication. Need to make policy makers realise and accept that. Today only formal citations count. Not other impact. How to come up with other metrics that can be generated in an open and scalable way?

  • Need a multidimensional metrics model to count various things. If possible, the model should apply across disciplines.
  • Impact factor doesn’t work for across disciplines.
  • Scholarly communication system is skewed by impact assessment as it is (Clark, 2011)

Changing business models: Scholarly publishing is now supported by two business models: subscriptions and article-processing charges (APCs), and it is in the interest of all stakeholders that the foundations be solid and the publishing operation sustainable (Venters, 2013)

Currently, most of the policies encourage publication in a journal that makes articles available in an OA form. This might either be a fully-OA journal, such as those published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) or BioMed Central (BMC), or a so-called ‘hybrid’ journal which permits an OA fee to be paid to make a particular article OA. Since, in both cases, pre-publication OA fees are normally payable, a number of funders have policies which specify that grant-holders should where possible pay an OA fee in addition to promoting to send a copy in an OA repository (Pinfield, 2010).

There is an ostensible argument that, as the business models of publishers shift from library subscriptions to OA publication charges, the income for publishers will come from OA fees increases, therefore it is expected that the subscriptions should correspondingly reduced their cost. “As the business model associated with author-side fees becomes more widely accepted, it is only reasonable to expect publishers to make such changes”.  (Pinfield, 2010).

Sustainability: Building a sustainable approach to research communications of the future will require the exploration of the space of potential business models. It will be required toUse various architecture evaluation [metrics] approaches to assess sustainability” Venters, et al. [2013]

 

If OA publishing models are to become widely accepted and adopted, research funders, institutions, should provide co-ordinated arrangements for ensuring that such funds are properly resourced. (Pinfield, 2010).

As a summary can be suggested that OA publishing faces challenges such as:

  • Sustainability (as well as changing business models).
  • Participation of faculty (particularly for institutional).
  • Confusion over what can be deposited (post print, pre print, published version?)
  • Copyright issues murky and (often) frustrating (Shreeves, et al. 2012)

Funding strategies:

  • It is equally important, however, for institutions to identify ways in which researchers can be helped to pay OA publication fees.
  • Only a minority of institutions have developed any formal way of enabling authors to pay OA fees, either at central or faculty/ departmental level. At the same time, authors report a lack of support from their institutions.
  • One of the potential benefits of a business model based on author-side fees is that it scales with research resources; funding institutions need to ensure that internal funding streams allow this to happen.(Pinfield, 2010).

The main recommendations of this revision suggesting that (a) that a mixed economy with subscription-based and open access journals should be tolerated for the foreseeable future; (b) policy direction should be set towards open access; (c) actions needed to implement this should be identified by relevant stakeholders; (d) the costs of transition should be monitored (Venters, 2013)

 

 

 

References:

Pinfield, S. (2010). Paying for open access? Institutional funding streams and OA publication charges. Learned Publishing, 23(1), 39-52.

Sarah L. Shreeves and Molly Kleinman. Lee C. Van Orsdel changed the template, made revisions and added new slides in May 2012. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/

Venters C, Lau L, Griffiths MK, Holmes V, Ward RR, Xu J. The Blind Men and the Elephant: To- wards a Software Sustainability Architectural Evaluation Framework. figshare; 2013. 790758. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.790758 .

Walker, B.; Holling, C.S.; Carpenter, S.R. and Kinzig A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), (p. 5). Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/. Accessed 12th December 2012

Hopkins, R. (2009). Resilience Thinking. Resurgence, 257.

Weller, Martin and Anderson, Terry (2013). Digital resilience in higher education. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 16(1) p. 53.

Katz, Daniel S., et al. “Summary of the First Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE1).” arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.7414 (2014).

Clark, T., De Waard, A., Herman, I., & Hovy, E. (2011). The Future of Research Communication (Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 11331). Dagstuhl Reports, 1(8).http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2011/3315/

Armbruster, C., & Pleintinger, A. (2013). Academic Publishing in Europe – Short report: The funding of publishing. Changes and consequences for science and society29–30 January 2013, Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences preceded by the Education and Training Course: “Talking to the Elephant in the Room” on 28 January 2012. Information Services and Use, 33(1), 41–49. doi:10.3233/ISU-130692

 

Rethinking the sustainability of Open Access and Open Science

Leuven, Belgium

Meanwhile, I am enjoying my stay as ‘visiting scholar’ at the Institute for Cultural Studies (KU Leuven) I am collaborating with Dr. Frederik Truyen exploring mechanisms to better understand Open Access from the sustainability point of view.

Open Access (OA) is a term widely used to refer to unrestricted online access to articles published in scholarly journals. Here a compilation of a (open) work-in-progress…

Several authors have highlighted that in the Digital Era we are reinventing discovery, with a new area of networked science that speeds up discovery highly influenced by digital technologies providing social and technical platforms for openning science, allowing scientists to share knowledge and to collaborate in ways that were not possible before. However, and as Scheliga and Friesike (2014) rightly stated despite the broadly acknowledge concern regarding the need of transforming science and opening up the research process, there is a clear discrepancy between the concept of open science and scholarly reality. 

These authors stated that this discrepancy is the result of two main categories of obstacles: individual and systemic obstacles. Here we will address one in particular: the current transition in the business models of Open Access journals. As indicated by Chesbrough (2012) a business model performs two important functions: It creates value, and it captures a portion of that value.

Open business models help create value by leveraging many more ideas because of their inclusion of a variety of external concepts. They also allow greater value capture by utilizing a organizations’s key asset, resource or position not only in that institutions’s own operations but also elsewhere (Chesbrough, 2012)

Björk & Solomon, (2012) organize in three phases the transition of Open Access journals.

  1. Lacked the prestige: In the latter half of the 1990s when journals created by individual scientists were dominating OA publishing, these journals were not considered by most academics a serious alternative to subscription publishing. There were doubts about both the sustainability of the journals and the quality of the peer review (usually not  indexed in the Web of Science).
  2. Digitalization: A second wave of OA journals consisted of established subscription journals, mainly  owned by societies. These publishers decided to make the electronic version of their  journal(s) freely accessible.
  3. Economic Sustainability: The third wave of OA journals was started by two new publishers, BioMedCentral and  Public Library of Science (PLoS). They pioneered the use of article processing charges  (APCs) as the central means of financing professional publishing of OA journals. The results highlighted how OA journals have achieved a share of around 15% of all SCOPUS indexed journals for Asia and Africa and a remarkable  73% for Latin America.

Aligned with this description Crow (2009) describes that since the year 2000, the average annual growth rate has been 18% for the number of journals and 30% for the number of articles. This can be contrasted to the reported 3,5% yearly volume increase in journal publishing in general. The Pioneering years (1993–1999), the Innovation years (2000–2004), and the Consolidation years (2005–2009).

The most compelling argument for Open Access, according to Cow (2009) is that improves the efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of the research process, delivering greater social and economic benefits as a result. Greater social utility, however, does not necessarily translate into reduced costs from a local library procurement perspective. Some interesting findings are:

  • OA journals that fund publishing with article processing charges (APCs, fee charged to authors in order to publish an article in academic journals) are on average cited more than other OA journals.
  • Several studies have shown that gold open access journals have had a larger uptake in the biomedical fields, where authors usually have less problems in financing APCs and where many research funders also require some form of OA for the results.
  • Laakso and Mikael (2011) the relative volume of OA published peer reviewed research articles has grown at a much faster rate than the increases in total annual volume of all peer reviewed research articles.
  • It is expected that publishers will continue to apply a variety of income models to support open-access distribution. Laakso and Mikael (2011) add that open access business models have been introduced in parallel to traditional subscription-based models; a journal might charge authors for submissions or rely on advertising revenue as a source of income.

Some criticisms to the emerging alternative income models used to support open-access journals are:

  • A given model lacks universal applicability to all journals regardless of type or discipline.
  • A particular model maintains a publication’s current cost basis, without restructuring the underlying economics of publishing.
  • The operations with APCs (i.e Golden Route) might lead to journals lowering  their review standards in order to maximize their profits.

This is a transition that might take a still unknown amount of time to distill into the academic and publishing world. However, as the authors suggested, only by ‘fostering openness in research cannot simply mean forcing scientists towards openness’ (Scheliga and Friesike, 2014).

It’s the economy stupid!

free-model

Here’s something interesting to think about, by revising the four models of cross-subsidies described by Anderson in his book Free (2009).

Cross-subsidies: in return to the free product or service provided the attention given can contribute to enhance the visibility or the reputation of the provider. Paid products subsidizing free products (i.e. free gift inside). Here, paying later can subsidize free consumption now. Alternatively, paying people subsidizing free people (i.e. Evernote offers a premium and a free version). In both cases, the hope is that the free consumers will attract or bring with them paying consumers or that some fraction of the free consumers will convert to paying consumers.

Cross-subsidies can work in different ways, here four of them:

FREE 1: DIRECT CROSS-SUBSIDIES
WHAT’S FREE: Any Product That Attracts You to Pay for Something Else.
FREE TO WHOM: Everyone Willing to Pay Eventually, One Way or Another.

Here organizations look at a portfolio of products and price some at zero (or close to it) to make the other products, on which they make healthy profits, more attractive (i.e. offering open access to online books or some sections of it and selling the hard copy).

FREE 2: THE THREE-PARTY MARKET
WHAT’S FREE: Content, Services, Software, and More.
FREE TO WHOM: Everyone.

The most common of the economies built around free is the three-party system. Here a third party pays to participate in a market created by a free exchange between the first two parties. A well known case is the advertising but it goes far beyond that. Media companies, for instance, make money around free content in a variety of ways, from selling information about consumers to other companies; via subscriptions, direct e-commerce, etc. The costs (i.e. of the media companies) are distributed and/or hidden enough to make the primary goods feel free to consumers (i.e. free newspapers).

FREE 3: FREEMIUM
WHAT’S FREE: Anything That‘s Matched with a Premium Paid Version.
FREE TO WHOM: Basic Users.

Freemium can take different forms: varying tiers of content from free to expensive, or a premium version of some site or software with more features than the free version (i.e. Skype). In the freemium model, that means for every user who pays for the premium version of the site, nineteen others get the basic free version.

FREE 4: NONMONETARY MARKETS
WHAT’S FREE: Anything People Choose to Give Away with No Expectation of Payment.
FREE TO WHOM: Everyone.

This can take several forms: From the ‘Gift Economy’ perspective, the incentives to share can include a range of possibilities from reputation and attention to less measurable factors such as expression, influence, visibility, leadership, and simply self-interest. From the ‘Labor Exchange’ the act of using the service creates something of value, either improving the service itself or creating information that can be useful somewhere else (i.e. using Beta version of softwares).

Taking into account initiatives such as Altmetrics or ImpactStory, which stress some of the additional ‘knowledge currencies’ (i.e. visibility, influence, knowledge transfer, etc.), to what extent would be possible to explore innovative cross-subsidies that could provide sustainability (and even profit) to Open Access publications? We will continue the exploration from the cultural capital of Brussels.

References:

Anderson, C. (2009). Free: The Future of a Radical Price. Hyperion.

Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2012). Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine, 10(1), 73. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-73

Chesbrough, H. “Why companies should have open business models.” MIT Sloan management review 48.2 (2012).

Crow, Raym. “Income models for open access: An overview of current practice.” Washington: SPARC (2009).

Laakso, Mikael, et al. “The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009.” PloS one 6.6 (2011).

Scheliga, Kaja, and Sascha Friesike. “Putting open science into practice: A social dilemma?.” First Monday 19.9 (2014).

The shifting ecology of online scholarly communication

The expansion of the Internet as well as other digital technologies has brought a great deal of interest as well as new opportunities to our society, one clear example of that is how open access initiatives have already diversified the alternatives to access and share academic peer-reviewed scholarly information (papers, reports, books, data base, etc.) more readily available to all who might benefit from it across the globe. The interest in open access is highly influenced by other practices which promote more diverse and inclusive mechanisms of production, consumption and socialization of knowledge, such as open source, open science and open education. The open access (OA) literature can be understood as “digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions”(Suber, 2010[1]).

The “nature of openness” as described by Conole (2013) in higher education is understood as: “Openness is becoming a trend, both in terms of the production and sharing of educational materials, as well as making research publications (and even research data) freely available.“ The promoters of OA usually refers to concepts such as: e-science, digital scholarships and digital humanities, science 2.0 as well as open scholarship or open science. Here, Burton (2009) emphasis on the notion of open scholar:

 “…is not simply someone who agrees to allow free access and reuse of his or her traditional scholarly articles and books; no, the Open Scholar is someone who makes their intellectual projects and processes digitally visible and who invites and encourages ongoing criticism of their work and secondary uses of any or all parts of it — at any stage of its development.“

An example of the current concern of how academic knowledge is commodified can be found on ‘The Cost of Knowledge’ (http://thecostofknowledge.com), where almost 15,000 academics protested against the business practices of the academic journal publisher Elsevier. The protest was materialized in a massive rejection to publish, participate as referee or doing any editorial work with “any Elsevier journal [~2,000] unless they radically change how they operate”. This digital movement simply illustrates the increasing interest of incorporating higher levels of “openness” in science and the dissemination of knowledge.


 Evolution of the ‘open science’ references  in Google Books,

Image: Evolution of the ‘open science’ references  in Google Books, between 1960 and 2000, according by Ngram Viewer (Source)

2image01

Source: Cope, B., & Phillips, A. (2014). The Future of the Academic Journal. Chandos Publishing.

In the last few years the number of open access publications as well as the volume of studies about this topic have grown notably (see DOAJ[2]). There is an increasing amount of publications explaining and analyzing the importance of adopting open access publications as a form of knowledge dissemination. Although, not always broadly understood, the different positions in this field somehow illustrates the current transitions that exist regarding how to access and consume knowledge in this (changing) digital era.

For instance, the guidelines of the EC in this field activated an interesting debate about the consequence of adopting green and golden[3] routes of (more) open publications[4]. This initiative has been considered as a possibility to increase and accelerate the pressure toward open access and more liberal licensing opportunities that could change the landscape of publishing. Although the emerging business models behind the academic publication in open access (i.e. direct cross-subsidies; the three-part market; freemium; or non-monetary market) are by no mean consolidated[5].

Slide0026

Today the mechanisms of pre-print and post-print publication[6] in open access are certainly more diverse. That can be associated with a large number of alternatives in the digital ecosystem: self publication; open repositories, adoption of open licenses as well as the increasing appropiation of platforms for knowledge dissemination such as Wikipedia, SSRN, Academia.edu and the growing acceptance of more flexible licences like Creative Commons. Jackson and Richardson[7] argues that open access has moved firmly into the mainstream of academic publishing, and in some cases it can be even profitable at least within some disciplines (see cases of PLOS or BMC).

 The promoters of OA publication suggest that it expands the access to high- quality and up-to-date contents; stimulates the exchange (and combination) of knowledge (disciplines); generates reputational benefits like visibility, recognition or traffic; accelerating feedback and open peer review and facilitating networking and engagement with a wider community (transdisciplinarity). Some of these benefits can be summarized as reuse, redistribute, revise and remix (Hilton et al., 2010)[8]

However, not everyone sees the clear benefit to move to further technological means and particularly new open practices. There is a number of challenges and constraints that individuals and institutions need to be prepared to deal with (i.e. current institutional rules for rewarding, dissemination and quality measurements) before embracing the openness in publication as the way to move forward. According, to previous research these constraints could be associated with institutional and cultural resistance to give up the traditional model of academic publication (well embedded in the culture of the Higher Education), others are suspicious with the idea that open publication (self-publication, for instance) and its reliability in terms of quality assurance in contrast to the ‘traditional publication’ practices. At the same time, there are technological challenges that affect at least a segment of the academics who are not familiar with the current digital media ecosystem and the possibilities behind these tools. In addition to the already mentioned challenges, the sustainability of open access publication is still under development in the best of the cases. The business models and the economic strength of open access it is by no mean an exclusive challenge for the academic publications but it also affects other sectors such as mass media, art and culture industries.

Summary of key barriers to foster OA initiatives: lack of awareness; digital proficiency limitations; change resistance in the culture of the academic institutions (policies and practices); copyright issues (reproduction, derivative versions), concerns for the quality-reliability and information-quality control; legal limitations; lack of business models (securing economic sustainability); pedagogical challenges (OER); others.

 As Meyer and Schroeder suggested (2009)[9] even if open access somehow succeed and a large volume of scientific products are published under OA license offering more flexible avenues for accessing knowledge it is possible to foresee new problems and challenges such as: the predominance of gatekeepers (such as academic search engines) that will “shape the online visibility” combined with the limited span attention from individuals exposed to an information overloaded Internet.

 Although the future of copyright as well as academic publication might be difficult to predict it is tempting to venture that the new changes for academic journals and publishers will come, affecting for good or for bad the academic community and their institutions. The digital ecosystem is continuously evolving and it is important to understand its momentum.

For more infomation here: @cristobalcobo or here freespeechdebate.com

Images used by Times Higher Education

Image used by Times Higher Education


References

[1] Suber, P. (2010). Open Access Overview. Retrieved October 31, 2010 from http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm

[2] Heather Morrison » Open Thesis. (2012). Retrieved from http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/open-thesis-draft-introduction-march-2011/

[3] A gold open access model: with the article processing charges paid up front and not by the reader.

[4] For instance, in 2012 both the European Commission and the British Economic and Social Research Council announced that they would be adopting policies to facilitate and accelerate the open access to scientific knowledge (cf. ‘gold’ and ‘green’ schemes of publication) Van Noorden, R. (2012). Europe joins UK open-access bid. Nature, 487(7407), 285–285. doi:10.1038/487285a.

[5] Income models for Open Access: An overview of current practice. (2009). Retrieved August 20, 2014, from http://sparc.arl.org/resources/papers-guides/oa-income-models

[6] http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeoinfo.html

[7] Gold open access: the future of the academic journal?∗ Rhodri Jackson and Martin Richardson. In Cope, B., & Phillips, A. (2014). The Future of the Academic Journal. Chandos Publishing.

[8] Hilton III, J., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The four ‘R’s of openness and ALMS analysis: frameworks for open educational resources. Open Learning, 25(1), 37-44.

[9] Meyer, E. T., & Schroeder, R. (2009). The world wide web of research and access to knowledge. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7(3), 218-233.http://www.palgrave-journals.com/kmrp/journal/v7/n3/pdf/kmrp200913a.pdf

Strategies to foster (virtual) collaboration

Roschelle & Teasley (1995) explained in their well known research (see open access version*) that collaboration: involves group-directed negotiation and construction of shared goals and meaning. A better understanding of collaboration (face-to-face and/or online) becomes a critical factor in today’s society.

As known, the OECD has been working on a new assessment to test student performance in creative problem solving, which measures students’ capacity to respond to non-routine situations in order to achieve their potential as constructive and reflective citizens (see summary). The idea is not only testing student’s skills but also to explores the role of formal education in fostering problem-solving skills (see draft).

The following presentation focus on different mechanisms, tools and practices that can be adopted in order to enable distributed and collective collaboration.

Disclaimer: The presentation is pretty big (but worth it I hope) if problems, try here.

(*) Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995, January). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

The social platform for learning is changing

3316638266_59842346a7_o

‘Karen McCoy’ from the International Baccalaureate Organization (IB Global Centre) interviewed me a few days ago, here its transcription.

Question 1: Could you tell us a little more about your key ideas?

Lately, I’ve been focusing on three key ideas in education.

  • First of all, moving more into context rather than content. Proper context will stimulate different synapses and connections between people.
  • Secondly, I have really been inspired by the work done by George Siemens. The value of information is changing in a dramatic way and has a different flavour than when we tried to access knowledge 20 years ago. This network of knowledge challenges the structure of learning.
  • Last but not least, the idea of entrepreneurial driven initiatives within schools. This can be socially driven and creates new business.

Question 2: Who have been the key educational thinkers who have influenced your own thinking on teaching and learning?

  • John Seely Brown is a senior promoter of innovation.  He originally comes from the industry world, but switched to new forms of learning. His work brings up challenges in thinking about knowledge.
  • Larry Cuban is a researcher and academic from the Stanford University. His contributions are on the incorporation of technology in classroom. He gives a thought provoking critical voice to the matter.
  • Neil Selwyn has a comprehensive approach on how knowledge has been brought into the classroom and addresses failures that have been replicated systematically.
  • George Siemens and his ideas on connectivism. I was a little suspicious of connectivism, I think it’s challenging, but it has lots to do with the amount of information that kids have to deal with these days.
  • Ivan Illich gives harsh criticism to school, but is a thought provoking read on highlighting  the combination of formal and informal education.

Question 3: If you could recommend one book for our Diploma Programme teachers to read, what would it be and why?

I would recommend the book Knowmad Society. ( Moravec . J. 2013. Knowmad Society. Education Futures LLC) It focuses on one of the key ideas I mentioned in the previous question – integrating entrepreneurship initiatives in formal education. It focuses on the idea of knowledge workers by Peter Drucker and talks about permanent flowing not only in terms of territory but flowing in terms of knowledge and highlighting the relevance of resilience and adaptability in students. It is linked to “Flat World” knowledge by Friedman.

Question 4: What do you think is the biggest difference between education today and education 30 years ago?

My criticism would be that we are increasingly more obsessed with assessment. Every time we want to explore potential innovation in the classroom, the concern that we will fail in national and institutional assessment comes up. Innovation suffers because of concern we may fail.

Positively, we are beginning to open the door from formal venues of learning into informal learning venues and the hybrid approach to learning. By hybrid I mean formal and informal, individual and collective, and online and offline.

Question 5: What do you think is the biggest challenge facing teachers today? What do you think is the biggest challenge facing students today?

Teachers are knowledge workers or “knowmads”. Knowledge is becoming a commodity, and if you have the proper switch activated then you will always find valuable knowledge to be learned from.

The challenge is how to deal with information that is always changing. Knowledge is liquid – it is always going to be moulded or reshaped. For example, we use books but updating them is not the fastest way to update our learners. The analysis of how difficult it is to update contents in comparison of how knowledge flows means finding other currencies and recognizing teachers that are doing good stuff in assessing.

As for students, the world is complex and no one understands well where we are going. We tend to talk about the future because we don’t know what is going on in the present. This puts a lot of pressure on our students, because we have no idea which direction they need to go. They need to decide early on different strategies and mechanisms beyond formal education. They need to know that what they get from school is not going to be enough – that grades will not be enough. Students have to be their own engineers of their own learning path, to dedicate as much time as possible in laboratories of innovation out of school and within school, to embrace social entrepreneurship initiatives, and to promote ideas of lifelong learning.

Look at the “geek” community and the way they collaborate on the internet. Their collaboration is based on “digital badges” (flexible competence-based systems),  as a way to recognize the achievements of others within the community. There is an increasing agreement that the social platform for learning is changing.

Delivering higher education in the digital age

 

See also the great report from By Simon Knight.

The workshop for the Oxford Internet Institute, “What does it mean to be an ‘expert’ in the web age”, took place on Wednesday 28th May at Oxford University’s Research Centre in the Humanities. Here the members of the panel:
Doug Belshaw @dajbelshaw from The Mozilla Foundation.
Hannah Gore @HRGore from the OpenLearn at the Open University.
– Ken Skates @KenSkatesAM from The Welsh Government, Deputy Minister for Skills and Technology.
David White @daveowhite from The University of Oxford,

The workshop comes against the backdrop of new ways of engaging with higher education, including Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).

The panel discussion reviewed and discussed these new emerging learning opportunities, exploring how the Web influences our understanding of what it means to be an ‘expert’, and the manner in which universities and disciplines should respond to the opportunities offered by the Web.

Particular attention was given to understanding how traditional and novel forms of education, as well as non-traditional forms of certification, presented a more complex future for higher education.

Deputy Minister for Skills and Technology from Welsh Government, Ken Skates presented on the findings of the Online Digital Learning Working Group which published its report for the Welsh Government in March.

The Group was set up to advise the Welsh Government on the potential opportunities offered by new technologies for the Welsh HE sector; the extent the sector is working together to maximise these opportunities; and to what extent technological developments would increase participation in part-time and full-time education.

The Group made a number of recommendations, namely using open and online resources as a way of improving skills of learners and practitioners and to encourage Welsh higher institutions to use MOOCs as a means of widening participation and promoting excellence within the sector.

The Deputy Minister said, “I would like to thank the Oxford Internet Institute for inviting me to take part on this Expert Panel and I look forward to hearing the views of the other panel members. I’m sure that there is much that we can learn from each other.” [Press Release Excerpt]

Event: #Unplugging > Beyond Hyper-Connected Societies



Screen shot 2014-04-29 at 22.24.53

Workshop on 20 June 2014 at the University of Oxford, led by Dr. Igor Calzada (Research Associate Future Cities, COMPAS & InSIS – University of Oxford) and Dr. Cristobal Cobo (Research Fellow Oxford Internet Institute- University of Oxford). 

Technology is never neutral, it has the potential and capacity to be used socially and politically for quite different purposes, argued Raymond Williams in 1983. Indeed, recently we both watched #HER, the newest movie by the filmmaker Spike Jonze, and we realised that this hyper-connected future is already not either as neutral or as far away from our current human interactions. Are we already living at present in such hyper-connected societies and cities as Jonze describes in his film? It sounds surprisingly contradictory how a film that makes you feel anxious about the self-deterministic way technology is dominating our lives can at the same time tele-transport us to the future of the technologies and their impact on our human emotions. Moreover, we could argue that is not that unrealistic a science-fiction storytelling. Could you imagine yourself falling in love just with a voice even if it belongs to an artificial operative system?

The real truth seems to be that the impact in our lives is occurring without us being aware of it. Shall Mr Jonze provoke a reflection on the consequences of the quick, risky (Beck, 2013) and liquid (Bauman, 2013) real-time cities (Kitchin, 2013)? This notion brings us to the so-called debate on the suitability of the Smart Cities (Greenfield, 2013) and their applicability. Are we altering our social relationship because of the new technologies? Moreover, one of us did even not know about the existence of Siri, the real device embodying what #HER represents in the fiction movie. Moreover, that could actually be perfectly believable! Another example of the trend on the techno-determinism consequences is the bookThe Circle by Dave Eggers who reflects on questions about privacy, democracy, and human fragility in the technological broad realm. What happens to us if we “must” be online all the time? To live entirely in the public realm can be a form of solitary confinement. Is there any added value in the possibility of remaining voluntarily #unplugging?

Thus, being conscious about this novel trend and subtle notion for the 21st century societal challenges and their research in societies and cities, we have both organized a workshop the next 20th June in Oxford supported by The Oxford Research Centre of the Humanities (TORCH). This event aims to gather scholars from different disciplines to debate open and critically about #Unplugging. The idea is to better understand the social and cultural implications of hyper-connected societies and the possible research agendas associated.

Even though we note some dark side effects of the technology (Ippolita, 2008). Our purpose is to draw on a critical social innovation pathway as a transition towards alternative digital humanities practices for our daily life. Nevertheless, there are plenty of pending questions about this subtle notion, that we have clustered as #Unplugging.

For instance: Will unplugging be a right or a privilege of a few? Will being constantly plugged improve our wellbeing and happiness as a society? In addition to the digital divide’s effect on the information society structure, is hyper-connectivity stressing another extra social divides between a few privileged unplugged people and a large plugged crowd (online almost 24/7)? Are we heading towards an individualistic society? Or simply, does it seem that this is the natural way the world will be ruled in micro-communities (in bubbles) in the future? Who designs the technology that we consume? Will devices serve citizens more than the citizens serve the devices? Therefore, are there real alternatives to the technocratic business-led dominant top-down governance model in the Smart Cities? Or, in contrast, is this still wishful progressive thinking?

Is the idea of big data, an empty buzzword? Is it possible to combine an open access civilian deliberative system within a confidential and espionage-obsessed paradigm? Will we see changes in which context-collapsed information will be contextualized to enhance social interactions? Will technological devices be designed based on peoples needs more than on corporate or infrastructure interests? Will the socio-political establishment suffer any shift towards free and community-driven processes? Or by contrast, is the myth of digital democracy (Hindman, 2009) the one debunking popular notions about political discourses in the digital age? Has the Internet neither diminished the audience share of corporate media nor given greater voice to ordinary citizens? Finally, can we anticipate any relevant change in the Smart City practices as a consequence of changes among stakeholder interactions in the definition of a new political economic balance?

To sum up, what are the societal challenges in the current hyper-connected societies? How to explore new policy strategies as well as new research agenda by focusing on the implications of hyper-connectivity? If you are interested in discussing these issues come along and join us in the #Unplugging workshop.

For more information on how to register, please visit the #Unplugging website or view SIE’s event calendar.

HER

[cross-post from here: webgate.ec.europa.eu/socialinnovationeurope]

 

 

What does it mean to be an ‘expert’ in the Web era?


4608963722_7c88e503f8_z
We are delighted to extend an invitation to our next workshop which will bring together interested parties from Oxford and other organisations to critically analyse the tensions between traditional and new-modes of delivering university level education .
When: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 – 11:00am to 4:00pm
Where: Radcliffe Humanities, Seminar Room (The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities).

Framework:

In recent years many new ways of engaging with higher education online have been developed.  Some of these educational initiatives known as Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), led by major universities such as Stanford, Harvard or MIT are generating a great deal of interest for a large volume of learners online (millions of users in some cases). Interestingly, MOOCs and other Open Educational Practices (OEP) are also becoming a good test bed for universities to experiment new pedagogical models; as well as new forms of assessing and certificating the knowledge and skills acquired by learners.

This phenomenon has already brought to the fore a number of questions around the role and purpose of traditional institutions in the context of the global adoption of ‘virtual’ and open forms of teaching. This in turn is creating a tension between the values of traditional forms of institutionally based knowledge and new forms of online learning.

Aim:

The event will offer the opportunity to analyze and better understand with different stakeholders, relevant dimensions of the future of higher education as a platform that can foster innovative educational practices and knowledge transfer.

The understanding of the future of higher education is increasingly tied to the Web via novel forms of knowledge generation and exchange. Particular attention will be given to understanding how traditional and novel forms of education, as well as non-traditional forms of certification, are generating a much more complex and diversified higher education horizon.

Methodology:

During this workshop, experts in higher education and technology will be engaging with different stakeholders such as social scientists, economists, policy experts, and other individuals to discuss to what extent the latest open educational practices are influencing new socio-economic realities.

A panel discussion will review and critique emerging learning opportunities and the value of new forms of knowledge creation, exploring how the Web influences our understanding of what it means to be an ‘expert’ and the manner in which universities and disciplines should respond to the new currency of the Web.

Thematic panels will be arranged to discuss: formal and informal continuous learning experiences; new forms of academic visibility; new means of knowledge recognition/certification; and open access and open educational practices.

Please click here for the programme

Booking:

Participation is free, but space is limited and registration is required. Please click here to register.

Convenors:

David White, researcher at Department for Continuing Education – University of Oxford

Cristobal Cobo, research fellow Oxford Internet Institute – University of Oxford

 

Education, complexity and Internet


Above an excerpt of the presentation given during my last talk at the Universidad Europea, in Spain. The text is cross posted from the institutional website – and here.

Universidad Europea has launched the second edition of the discussion cycle Education. Educate to Transform with a lecture given by Cristóbal Cobo, a researcher at the University of Oxford, on the opportunities technology offers education.

During the session, Cristóbal Cobo set out his vision of how technology has revolutionized society to the extent it has exerted an increasingly greater impact on the field of education: “The value of knowledge and the way in which we learn has been redefined. If we made a tower out of all the reference books there are in the world, the tower would stretch from here to Pluto 20 times over”. The challenge, as such, is no longer having access to information but lies in the possibility of having sufficient time to handle it.

There are those that insist that the problem of education using new technologies is the same as those of the ice makers when the fridge was invented. However, we do not offer ice, but cold. We, as educators, teach how to learn“, continued Cobo.

To conclude, the researcher emphasized how new technologies enhance education: “I believe that we should not fight technology, because it brings together many interests, not only the educational. We have to introduce technologies into the classroom, at the same time as developing a methodological change in the way the professor is trained so that they use technologies without fear”. As a result, in this new educational context, the professor has to become “a driving force, putting forward challenges so that the student learns to learn using the tools they have to hand. In this highly complex ecosystem that is the Internet, a greater level of learning is achieved by the student and greater dedication and effort by the professor”.

Cristóbal Cobo is a researcher affiliated to the Oxford Internet Institute and collaborates on different projects undertaken by the European Commission. He is co-author, together with J. Moravec, of Invisible Learning: Towards a new ecology in education, among other works. His speech marked the start of the second edition of Education, a forum that this year will be attended by experts including the former Minister for Education, Ángel Gabilondo and Adrian Kearney, director of the International Baccalaureate Foundation for Africa, Europe and the Middle East.

[More information available in Spanish here]