Agile Publishing: Rapid Assessment, Immediate Sharing and Collaborative Curation
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
1 recomendación•5,018 vistas
This document discusses principles of agile publishing and how they could be applied to scholarly communication. It outlines stages of research, authoring, assessment, publishing/producing, reading, and curation/annotation. It provides examples of tools that enable more collaborative, iterative, and immediate sharing of research at each stage, from open data repositories and collaborative authoring platforms to annotation tools and reputation systems not based on traditional journals. The goal is to explore how applying agile principles could change scholarly publishing to better satisfy researchers' needs.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Destacado
Destacado (19)
Similar a Agile Publishing: Rapid Assessment, Immediate Sharing and Collaborative Curation
Similar a Agile Publishing: Rapid Assessment, Immediate Sharing and Collaborative Curation (20)
Más de Crossref
Más de Crossref (20)
Último
Último (20)
Agile Publishing: Rapid Assessment, Immediate Sharing and Collaborative Curation
- 1. PLOS Agile Publishing Kristen Fisher Ratan CrossRef Annual Meeting 13 November 2013
- 2. What is Agile? The philosophy behind agile software development: • satisfy the customer • welcome change • iterate frequently ` • build on a growing base • promote dialog If we were to adopt these principles, what would scholarly communication look like? 2
- 3. Stages • • • • • • Research, data analysis Authoring Assessment Publishing, producing Reading Curating, annotating 3
- 4. Agile Publishing • Researching, data creation: Collaborative, open, updated • Authoring: Early, versioned and iterative • Assessment: Rapid crowd assessment Publishing, producing: sharing, immediate • Reading: skimming, searching, word of mouth • Curation: collaborative, crowd-sourced, annotation, disaggregated 4
- 6. Reporting 6
- 8. Stages • • • • • • Research, data analysis Authoring Assessment Publishing, producing Reading Curating, annotating 8
- 10. Github as collaboration tool 10
- 11. Figshare as data repository 11
- 12. F1000 Research Data plotting 12
- 13. Anthony Salvagno’s open lab notebook
- 14. 14
- 15. Authoring 15
- 16. Authoring tools out there • • • • • • • Booktype Subversion Authorea Fiduswriter WriteLatex ShareLatex Lanyrd 16
- 17. Authorea 17
- 18. Booktype platform for Book Sprints 18
- 19. Assessment 19
- 20. PLOS Labs: Alternate Evaluation • Design and testing of novel evaluation system: – Simple and Fast – Structured – Transparent with open data – Potential for larger number of peers providing feedback – Can be collected pre- or post publication – General to scientific research outputs
- 21. Collection areas Factors connected to journal titles: 1 Personal interest 2 Importance to Science & Shared Knowledge Factors connected to traditional peer review: 3 Validity and Scientific Merit 4 Writing, Presentation, and Clarity
- 22. 2 Importance to Science & Shared Knowledge This work makes little to no contribution to science knowledge This work makes a minor contribution to the field of study If the user selects either of these two options, display the following: I think this work was not worth doing This work makes a significant contribution to science knowledge This work advances the field If the user selects either of these two options, display the following: This work is a major scientific breakthrough This work has an important or novel method This work will lead to reinterpretation of wellestablished findings This work opens a new area of inquiry in the field This work has an important or significant conclusion:
- 24. Medium.com - blogging platform 24
- 25. When authoring and publishing collide 25
- 26. Authoring, Producing, & annotating 26
- 27. Reading 27
- 28. “If you put an author and a reader in a room together would the author read her article to the reader?” -John Sack 28
- 29. HighWire user research Reading Isn’t What It Used To Be: • 2002: “I read 3-4 journals regularly” • 2012: “I read 8-10 journals regularly” Huh? HighWire | Stanford University 29
- 30. Email TOC is reading HighWire | Stanford University 30
- 31. Adam Hyde on Readers 31
- 33. Wikipedia- versioning done well 33
- 34. Reddit: good site design isn’t everything 400M users 37B page views 34
- 36. Hypothes.is 36
- 37. With all these rapid and immediate forms of authoring, curating and collaborating, will future generations of scientists will wait for us to publish anything? 37
- 38. Reputation 38
- 39. Scholars need • • • • • • • Publications Brand-named journals Impact factors Citations H-index CVs Tenure/promotion 39
- 40. ALM Reports alm.plos.org Allows researchers, institutions & funders to: • create a report of the ALMs for a single or set of PLOS articles • view a summary of the metrics along with an accompanying set of data visualizations. Search based on: • keyword • author name & country • affiliation • publication date • subject areas • funder 40
- 42. Stackoverflow: emerging reputation systems 42
- 43. Open Source Report Card 43
- 44. Scholars will organically replace the journal with what they find more useful 44
Notas del editor
- Agile manifesto in 2001, came along wit hnew languages and web frameworks like Ruby on Rails, PhythonDjango, as well as an increase in oepn source software, and the whole notion of not reinventing wheels but collectively building on work
- The first stage of conducting research data and analyzing is rapidly evolving. There has been a rise in open and collaborative approaches, grants specifically requireing collaboration, and sites and services that facilitate that. More and more researchers are sharing data early and often.
- Evolutionary biologists
- Researchers are doing it for themselves
- Interstingly, authors may be underatking novel methods of gathering and sharing data, but they continue to set all that aside, open up a blank Word document and start typing a paper much as they have for decades.
- Lots of experiments, crowd-sourcing, peerage, Rubriq
- No change to current peer review – this is an alternate systemParallel, separate, different than how peer review works now. (hard to get people to understand this)“Structured Peer Evaluation” just an internal name – leads to initialism “SPE” + too long, clunky, naming still TBDNOT intended as a replacement for peer review. Different! But if successful will make peer review faster, easier to find reviewers, and provide far more data about the factors researchers need about published works.
- Interest: do you care about this work?Importance: how important is this?Merit: Do you believe this work?Clarity: Did they present it according to community norms?Note: no where in the tool do we ask questions. We present a context and allow the peer evaluator to frame a graded response within that context. Intentional – discuss question/framing workload issues
- Perhaps the scariest trend of allAuthoring and publishing are becoming oneMany ways to output work
- Reading is no longer passive:Fanfic – way young people are reading now. Sharing books w/ each other. 4.7M uploads, 60% growth in 2012Booktype – move from reader to collaborative knowledge producers
- The site saw 400 million unique visitors and 37 billion page views, two numbers that place it easily in the world's most trafficked sites. Additionally, the site says there were 30 million posts made to the site, and 4 billion up and down votes were made to said posts. Reddit: the rise of Reddit is 'facilitating conversation in interesting ways'like no other service online. it's success points to a few things weknew: people like being pseudo-anonymous, they like having some levelof interactivity or input into the conversation, large crowds whenorganized well can create some great filtering systems, and peoplewill give tons of effort for magic Internet points.
- This is why they continue to come. They have to.
- Break down the silos and offer more cross-publisher services (text mining, discovery, submissions)REduce the overhead to sharing researchImprove peer reviewImproved data sharing and reporducibilityWork on the things that matter to our core stakeholders – researchers (and the people who fund them)