Downloaded 13 times
Uploaded byLaura Czerniewicz
Tools in Context Beyond the PDF
1. The document discusses how tools for research dissemination are only one small part of the complex system of scholarly communication and knowledge production. 2. It examines different perspectives on the relationship between technology and society, and questions whose interests are being served by the current system, which privileges knowledge from certain regions, cultures, and socioeconomic classes. 3. The document argues that the current international peer-reviewed journal system, along with issues like infrastructure, funding, culture and reward systems, serves to marginalize the global majority and that true open access will require active engagement from all parts of the world.
Tools in Context Beyond the PDF
- 1. TOOLS IN CONTEXT Laura Czerniewicz @czernie 19 March 2013 Beyond the PDF2, Amsterdam
- 2. Tools in researchdissemination are only one aspect of a complex web of scholarly communication & knowledge production
- 3. TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY Invention and Neutral development have their own immanent laws Technology is Technology shapes simply a tool society Technological Instrumentalism determinism Autonomous Human control Substantivism Critical theory Technology has The values embodied in intrinsic values Value-laden technology are socially Means & ends specific. Choices of linked in systems means-end systems Feenberg, A 2003
- 4. CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE Whoseinterests are being served? Who participates? Who is enabled? Who is constrained?
- 5.
- 6. Books published the oppositeof open is “broken”
- 7. INTERNATIONAL PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS oOf the articles published in international peer-reviewed journals • USA academics 30% • Developing countries 20% • of which half from China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Mexico • Sub Saharan Africa 1% of total Hassan, M, 2008,, Science Vol. 322 – 24
- 8. WHAT SHAPES KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION& DISSEMINATION?
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16. RESEARCH OUTPUT FROMAFRICA Adams et al, 2010
- 17. REWARD SYSTEMS o Thecase of South Africa, where the government gives universities $13000 for every article published in • The Sciences Citation Index of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) • The Social Sciences Citation Index of the ISI • The Arts and Humanities Citation Index of the ISI • The International Bibliography of Social Sciences (IBSS) • The Department of Education (DoE) List of Approved South African Journals o Of the 23 universities, 21 give a % directly to the authors
- 18. WHO PUBLISHES? WHATABOUT? What does an “international” high impact journal look like?
- 19. EXAMPLE: 4 “HIGHIMPACT” JOURNALS Authorship per country AMJ, AMR, ASQ and JIBS (2006-2010),
- 20. Empirical focus AMJ,AMR, ASQ and JIBS (2006-2010)
- 21. WHO DECIDES? Thanks to Leslie Chan, http://www.slideshare.net/lesliechan/remapping-the-local-and-the-global “We editors seek a global status for our journals, but we shut out the experiences and practices of those living in poverty by our (unconscious) neglect. One group is advantaged while the other is marginalised.” Richard Horton, The Lancet, Vol 361, 1 March 2003
- 22. WHOSE INTERESTS ARESERVED? Whose interests do international journals serve? Are journals the best way to share research outputs?
- 23. IN CONCLUSION: OANOW “An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good” Budapest Open Access Declaration 2002
- 24. Open access isnot just about passive receipt from the north Need active engagement by all in the innovation space to avoid inadvertently deepening inequalities
- 25. Is a knowledgeproduction & dissemination system that sidelines three quarters of the world desirable? Is it good for science?
- 26. Ultimately, open accessand open science stand or fall as workable ideals if the whole international community buys into are able to participate in it (to rephrase Curry, S 2013)
- 27. REFERENCES o Adams J;King, C; Hook, D, (2010), Global Research Report, Africa, Thomson Reuters o Curry, S (2003) Insights – 26(1), March 2013 o Hassan, M, (2008), Editorial, Science Vol. 322 – 24 October 2008. Page 3 o Hamann, R (2012) Balancing the academic terms of trade: The paradox of publishing in top-tier journals from the periphery (unpublished) o Horton, R (2003) The Lancet, Vol 361, 1 March 2003
Editor's Notes
- #2 Global power dynamics and the bigger pictureThe relationship between power and toolsPower permeates the system
- #8 The United States continues to dominate global science. In 2007, US scientists published nearly 30 percent of the articles appearing in international peer-reviewed scientific journals, which is comparable to the percentage a quarter-century ago. But China, responsible for less than 1 percent of publications in 1983, has recently surpassed the United Kingdom and Japan to become the world’s second leading nation in scientific publications. China now accounts for more than 8 percent of the world’s total, whereas India and Brazil produce about 2.5 and 2 percent, respectively, of the world’s scientific articles.All told, scientists in developing countries generate about 20 percent of the articles published in peer-reviewed international journals. It is gratifying to see such progress made by the surging South. But we cannot ignore the fact that these advances have been largely limited to just a few countries. The top five performers (China, India, Brazil, Turkey, and Mexico) contribute well over half of the scientific publications from the South. By contrast, sub-Saharan Africa, a region of 48 countries, produces just 1 percent of the world’s scientific publicationsHassan, M, 2008, Editorial, SCIENCE Vol. 322 – 24 October 2008. Page 3
- #11 http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/earth_night.jpg
- #12 http://submarine-cable-map-2013.telegeography.com/
- #13 http://global-internet-map-2012.telegeography.com/http://www.telegeography.com/telecom-resources/map-gallery/global-internet-map-2012/index.html
- #15 http://www.researchtrends.com/issue-32-march-2013/trends-in-arts-humanities-funding-2004-2012/Trends in Arts & Humanities Funding 2004-2012“The data analyzed in this paper was retrieved from SciVal Funding™ (“the database”), an Elsevier database that covers awarded and open funding opportunities across disciplines. The database captures its data directly from the grants and funding bodies’ websites and covers organizations that fund scientific research in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, European Commission, Australia, Ireland, Singapore, India, South Africa, and New Zealand. At the time this research was performed, the database included 4,500 research funding organizations including private and public funding institutions.”
- #17 Adams J; King, C; Hook, D, 2010, Global Research Report, Africa, Thomson ReutersThe leading countries by output (Figure 2) are South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Tunisia, Algeria and Kenya. Four of these are also leading countries in terms of GDP (Figure 3) (South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria and Algeria) while Kenya and Tunisia fall in the second GDP tier. Indexing output against GDP (Figure 4) provides further interpretation. Zimbabwe is relatively the most productive country but this is anomalous because it retains its legacy research base despite a collapsing economy and very low current GDP. The real leaders are Tunisia and Malawi with very different economic bases but strong relative productivity in both cases. South Africa, Kenya and Egypt all have significant relative productivity, as do a number of other countries in East Africa (Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania) and West Africa. (Cameroon, Ghana).Volume and subject area analyses used the 2008 editions of the Thomson Reuters National Science Indicators. Collaboration analyses were carried out using Research Performance Profiles data in InCites™, the new web-based platform for research evaluation from Thomson Reuters. Database years were used to delineate years, and only article, note and review document types were considered.
- #20 Hamann, R (2012) Balancing the academic terms of trade: The paradox of publishing in top-tier journals from the peripheryASQ, AMR and AMJ are, respectively, the management (and indeed social science) journals with the highest ‘impact factor’. JIBS has a slightly lower impact factor but is also included in our list to ascertain whether this journal’s explicit international orientation makes a significant difference in the pattern illustrated in Figure 1 – it does not. “AMJ = Academy of Management Journal ; ASQ = Administrative Science Quarterly ; AMR = Academy of Management ReviewJIBS = Journal of International Business Studies
- #23 Michelle will be talking about this….
- #24 We all assume that open access has arrived.
- #27 Insights – 26(1), March 2013Open access: brave new world requires bravery | Stephen Curry