Comments on: II. What the World Looks Like Today and Where it is Headed: A. The future of scholarly communications http://scholarlypublishing.org/ithakareport/archives/15 Social Commentary on the Ithaka Report Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:56:06 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Brian Sheppard http://scholarlypublishing.org/ithakareport/archives/15#comment-361 Brian Sheppard Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:56:06 +0000 http://scholarlypublishing.org/ithakareport/archives/15#comment-361 This related to Bob Stein's comment. I also think a critical measure of success will be the publisher's ability ability to expose it's content via defined protocols. That is, whether the content can be harvested, rearranged, and so on by external services that may add value. A common example used to illustrate this is the Google mash-up. This related to Bob Stein's comment. I also think a critical measure of success will be the publisher's ability ability to expose it's content via defined protocols. That is, whether the content can be harvested, rearranged, and so on by external services that may add value. A common example used to illustrate this is the Google mash-up.

]]> By: Daniel Poynter http://scholarlypublishing.org/ithakareport/archives/15#comment-48 Daniel Poynter Tue, 04 Sep 2007 19:44:00 +0000 http://scholarlypublishing.org/ithakareport/archives/15#comment-48 Including multimedia in research is exciting, but what of "digital decay"? The research will be increasingly difficult to archive as it depends more on multimedia and less on text. Text is text (mostly) and is more fluid than other forms of archivable information (audio, video, interactive software, etc) -- it is relatively simple to maintain. A progression of new, popular file formats will be a serious burden to archivists and the research community as a whole, *especially* if multimedia is crucial to creating context for the research. Including multimedia in research is exciting, but what of "digital decay"?

The research will be increasingly difficult to archive as it depends more on multimedia and less on text.

Text is text (mostly) and is more fluid than other forms of archivable information (audio, video, interactive software, etc) — it is relatively simple to maintain. A progression of new, popular file formats will be a serious burden to archivists and the research community as a whole, *especially* if multimedia is crucial to creating context for the research.

]]> By: Monica McCormick http://scholarlypublishing.org/ithakareport/archives/15#comment-45 Monica McCormick Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:29:21 +0000 http://scholarlypublishing.org/ithakareport/archives/15#comment-45 This short paragraph is packed with possibilities. As Joe suggests, there is no manifestly obvious approach. We have lots of new tools, and an enormous range of services might be desired. Some scholars may wish to be public intellectuals, while others will want to exchange highly specific research data with their peers, and everything in between. Fitting the technology to the need could result in an enormous variety of forms and new genres. Blogs are only one. As for the need to recognize and reward new forms of scholarship, I wonder what role publishers and libraries can play in this. As mentioned in other comment threads, we will have to engage with faculty. How can we support their receiving appropriate compensation for their work? I am reminded that many of the classicists who created the Perseus Digital Library of classical texts did not receive tenure at their original institutions. We need to help establish metrics for demonstrating the value of such projects. This short paragraph is packed with possibilities. As Joe suggests, there is no manifestly obvious approach. We have lots of new tools, and an enormous range of services might be desired. Some scholars may wish to be public intellectuals, while others will want to exchange highly specific research data with their peers, and everything in between. Fitting the technology to the need could result in an enormous variety of forms and new genres. Blogs are only one.

As for the need to recognize and reward new forms of scholarship, I wonder what role publishers and libraries can play in this. As mentioned in other comment threads, we will have to engage with faculty. How can we support their receiving appropriate compensation for their work? I am reminded that many of the classicists who created the Perseus Digital Library of classical texts did not receive tenure at their original institutions. We need to help establish metrics for demonstrating the value of such projects.

]]> By: Joe Germuska http://scholarlypublishing.org/ithakareport/archives/15#comment-43 Joe Germuska Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:30:45 +0000 http://scholarlypublishing.org/ithakareport/archives/15#comment-43 My reaction is to the statement "University administrators need to think about how best to provide these services." This suggests that there is a manifestly obvious set of services to provide for electronic publishing. I'm not so sure that's true, although I must admit that I'm outside of "the Academy". Are people still thinking "blogs for everybody!" Recall the now notorious danah boyd "social networks and class" blog post. I'm sure that the reactions have a lot to do with her specific topic, but there's also a social naiveté to do with understanding her caveat and moderating one's response. Is this something people will grow out of? Or is there actually a value to a somewhat "less open" framework for collaboration. Acknowledging that this sounds heretical to some internet enthusiasts, I would suggest that truly daring intellectual work benefits from gestation time before it's exposed to a wider public. In the past, this gestation time has been enforced by the current information technology, but future publishing will require the explicit re-introduction of networks of affinity and trust, something which has always thrived most with a degree of privacy. (Even in the context of this relatively obscure Comment Press deployment, I feel obliged to edit my remarks much more carefully than a "blog comment" probably warrants, but I also know that these words could be seen by absolutely anyone, and can't help myself!) My reaction is to the statement "University administrators need to think about how best to provide these services."

This suggests that there is a manifestly obvious set of services to provide for electronic publishing. I'm not so sure that's true, although I must admit that I'm outside of "the Academy".

Are people still thinking "blogs for everybody!" Recall the now notorious danah boyd "social networks and class" blog post. I'm sure that the reactions have a lot to do with her specific topic, but there's also a social naiveté to do with understanding her caveat and moderating one's response.

Is this something people will grow out of? Or is there actually a value to a somewhat "less open" framework for collaboration. Acknowledging that this sounds heretical to some internet enthusiasts, I would suggest that truly daring intellectual work benefits from gestation time before it's exposed to a wider public. In the past, this gestation time has been enforced by the current information technology, but future publishing will require the explicit re-introduction of networks of affinity and trust, something which has always thrived most with a degree of privacy.

(Even in the context of this relatively obscure Comment Press deployment, I feel obliged to edit my remarks much more carefully than a "blog comment" probably warrants, but I also know that these words could be seen by absolutely anyone, and can't help myself!)

]]> By: bob stein http://scholarlypublishing.org/ithakareport/archives/15#comment-42 bob stein Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:44:44 +0000 http://scholarlypublishing.org/ithakareport/archives/15#comment-42 i think it's true that we've entered into a period of extensive experimentation with new economic models. this paragraph doesn't go far enough however, as it still assumes that what is being paid for is "content." it seems likely to me that successful publishers in the future will not be paid for content per se, as much as for their filtering mechanism (i.e. recommending works and parts of works), archiving (maintaining large archival databases which do a great job of inter-relating works in and outside the archive) and perhaps most importantly the ability to build a thriving community around content. i think it's true that we've entered into a period of extensive experimentation with new economic models. this paragraph doesn't go far enough however, as it still assumes that what is being paid for is "content." it seems likely to me that successful publishers in the future will not be paid for content per se, as much as for their filtering mechanism (i.e. recommending works and parts of works), archiving (maintaining large archival databases which do a great job of inter-relating works in and outside the archive) and perhaps most importantly the ability to build a thriving community around content.

]]> By: bob stein http://scholarlypublishing.org/ithakareport/archives/15#comment-38 bob stein Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:00:36 +0000 http://scholarlypublishing.org/ithakareport/archives/15#comment-38 The last sentence, "They also need to think about how new forms of scholarship should be recognized and rewarded" is a crucial point. a couple of years ago we were studying how scholars might be encouraged to start blogging — in effect to step out from behind the walls of the academy to be public intellectuals. I spoke to a senior professor who at the time had one of the most popular blogs on the net with tens of thousands of daily readers). He told me that although his blog was well-read and had enormous influence, it had no bearing on his standing with his department or university and would not be considered when he was up for promotion. He pointed out however that if he published another scholarly book which might be read by 500 people in his field, his university would give him a $10,000 raise which over the course of a career would be highly remunerative. ascribing value to new forms of communication, particularly ones which make the expertise of the scholar available to a broader public. Re-orienting perception about the value of new forms of communication won't be easy — which is why i am underlining and encouraging its mention here. The last sentence, "They also need to think about how new forms of scholarship should be recognized and rewarded" is a crucial point. a couple of years ago we were studying how scholars might be encouraged to start blogging — in effect to step out from behind the walls of the academy to be public intellectuals. I spoke to a senior professor who at the time had one of the most popular blogs on the net with tens of thousands of daily readers). He told me that although his blog was well-read and had enormous influence, it had no bearing on his standing with his department or university and would not be considered when he was up for promotion. He pointed out however that if he published another scholarly book which might be read by 500 people in his field, his university would give him a $10,000 raise which over the course of a career would be highly remunerative. ascribing value to new forms of communication, particularly ones which make the expertise of the scholar available to a broader public. Re-orienting perception about the value of new forms of communication won't be easy — which is why i am underlining and encouraging its mention here.

]]>