Presentation on theme: "Presented at ASIS&T’04 Wikis for academics Beyond papers. By Sunir Shah, with acknowledgments to Meatball. Providence, RI, USA November 17, 2004."— Presentation transcript:
Presented at ASIS&T’04 Wikis for academics Beyond papers. By Sunir Shah, with acknowledgments to Meatball. Providence, RI, USA November 17, 2004
How many are researchers, librarians, industry? How many have used a wiki? How many have their own wiki? For personal use? For class? How many have heard of Meatball? How many have read MeatballWiki? Sounding
firstname.lastname@example.org Master’s student at University of Toronto Bachelor’s of Computer science dislike writing papers dislike redundancy like tangible outcomes Been using wikis for over 7 years Socialtext
Oral tradition Lyceum Manuscript tradition Printing press Internet Brief history of academia
The "publish or perish" philosophy created by funding policies have deluged the academic world whilst simultaneously (as a reaction) fragmenting it as more and more scientific journals are created to accommodate the increasing specializations. (Elliott, 1997) Publish or perish
Journal explosion After WWII, publication rates rose significantly, with sciences and social sciences leading. (Elliot, 1997) More than 30 000 journals created in 1980s alone. Sustained by Cold War investment in sciences & libraries Library budgets could not afford price increases at double inflation + many new journals scale back (Carrigan, 1996; Cox, 1998; Thatcher, 2000)
Peer review Critical. 94% of respondents: peer review was important. (Swan and Brown, 2003) Expensive. £60 to £400 per article. (Donovan, 1998; Williamson, 2003) Biased. Along every social category: geographic location, prestige, gender, etc. (Williamson, 2003) Ineffective. Poor at detecting defects, barely catching any. (Williamson, 2003)
Publish directly to research manuscript series. Career-based vs. article-based peer review. Localized control leads to ease of innovation. Reputation drives funding. (Better guilds $$$) Inexpensive to publish together as a group. Community akin to Universities in the Manuscript Age. Most importantly, compatible with traditional publishing. pre-publish to Guild, re-publish to journals Guild Model Kling, R., Spector, L., and McKim, G. (2002). Locally controlled scholarly publishing via the Internet: The guild model. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 8(1).
Orlans (1999) quotes Cambridge University Press: “We really do read the author's text and think about the use of quotations.... [T]he two or three hours... this might take...is far better spent than the five minutes it would have taken... to count individual quotations and then turn, robot-like, to those damned guidelines.” Insecurity: Ronald Berman obtained permission for quotations of 15, 12, and 6 words. Copyright is a burden Orlans, H. (1999). Scholarly fair use: Chaotic and shrinking. Change, 31(6), 52-60.
Copyright vs. plagiarism Vaidhyanathan, S. (2001) Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and how it threatens creativity. New York: New York University Press. Copyright is about controlling copies of a work. Droit d’auteur is about maintaining the integrity of a work. Plagiarism is about deriving from a work. (Vaidhyanathan, 2001) Academic plagiarism is more strict than copyright, and it is already controlled by social and institutional forces.
University presses publish specialized academic work. University presses are businesses too. Restrictive fair use (Thatcher, 2000) If operating at a loss or near loss, why not forego physical production, and publish straight to the Web? University press
Academics are ambivalent (Swan and Brown, 2000) 83% said print versions were important, 70% said electronic versions were important, while 68% wanted both. Consolidation (O’Connor, 2000) E-Journal publishers monopolizing, driving up costs. Subscriptions: libraries no longer own their copies. E-Journals aren’t perfect
Open academics Budapest Open Access Initiative Green. Self-archiving. Gold. Open-access journals. Open Archive Initiative CiteSeer arXiv.org eprints.org
Open academics Study after study show that publishing to the ‘Net results in more citations.
Open academics Duh! (I live in Canada, and it’s too cold to go to the library.)
The Wiki Way Simplicity above all! Wikis are the sum total of the community, content, code, time, place
Proposal: Reading Use the wiki as an academic community to keep track of citations in an annotated bibliography organized by topic and peer review each other.
Example http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl? WikiPublications (+ Matt Barton)
Proposal: Writing Use the wiki as an academic community in the Guild Model to write papers together and peer review each other.
What’s else is going on now? Wikis in classrooms Wikis as research journals Semi-Academic e.g. NeuroWiki, AIWiki, WeblogKitchen, IA Wiki, MeatballWiki Papers about wikis (mostly lensed through Wikipedia)
A caricature Can isolated, independent researchers write documents published in print about how collaborative online social systems generate knowledge through consensus-generating conversations? isolated independent research document publish collaborative social system consensus conversation
Carrigan, D. P. (1996). Commercial journal publishers and university libraries: Retrospect and prospect. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 27(4), 208-221. Cox, J. (1998). The great journals crisis: A complex present, but a collegial future. Logos, 9(1), 29-33. Donovan, B. The truth about peer review. Learned Publishing, 11(3), 179-184. Elliot, R. (1997) The impact of electronic publishing in the scientific information chain. IFLA Journal, 23(5/6). Kling, R., Spector, L., and McKim, G. (2002). Locally controlled scholarly publishing via the Internet: The guild model. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 8(1). Available from http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/08-01/kling.html Levering, M. (1999) What's right about fair-use guidelines for the academic community? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(14), 1313-1319. O'Connor, S. (2000). Economic and intellectual value in existing and new paradigms of electronic scholarly communication. Library Hi Tech, 18(1), 37. Orlans, H. (1999). Scholarly fair use: Chaotic and shrinking. Change, 31(6), 52-60. Pöschl, U. (2004). Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance. Learned Publishing, 17(2), 105-113 Swan, A. and Brown, S. (2003). Authors and electronic publishing: what authors want from the new technology. Learned Publishing, 16, 28–33. Thatcher, S. G. (2000). Fair use: a double-edged sword. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 32(1), 3-8. Vaidhyanathan, S. (2001) Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and how it threatens creativity. New York: New York University Press. Williamson, A. (2003). What happens to peer review? Learned Publishing, 16(1), 15-20. References
Pöschl vs. Peer review “A large proportion of scientific publications are careless, useless or false, and inhibit scholarly communication and scientific progress.” (Pöschl, 2004) Publish or perish publish more, faster Spend enormous time to keep up with their field Repeat a lot of work needlessly, over and over again Peer reviewers, referee competency, conflicting interests hold back scientific research unnecessarily. Useful referee comments are kept private. Pöschl, U. (2004). Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance. Learned Publishing, 17(2), 105-113
"when the purpose and character of the use is educational in nature, the work has been previously published, they are not using a substantial part of the entire work, and the marketability of the work is not impaired by the use." (Levering, 1999, p.1341) Academic fair use Levering, M. (1999) What's right about fair-use guidelines for the academic community? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(14), 1313-1319.